To a some extent that’s Sarkeesian’s own doing. She presents these tropes as being entirely negative and it’s hard to watch her videos without taking away the message that game creators shouldn’t be using them, period. In her related series Tropes vs. Women, #4The Evil Demon Seductress, she flat out says that Hollywood needs to stop “writing women whose sexuality is their primary weapon.”
That said, I happen to think Sarkeesian makes plenty of valid points. I actually sent some money her way because of all the mouth breathing misogynist threatening her.
I don’t want to make the foolish mistake of wading into this pit thread on the wrong side, but in defense of MyFootsZZZ, I watched Anita’s first video when it first came out, back before the shitstorm and gamergate, and had basically the same reaction as he did. Keep in mind that I’m coming at this as a fan of feminism but also as a survivor of the “Do violent video games cause violence” wars, so if someone is making the claim that sexist video games cause sexism, I want evidence. While I don’t necessarily disagree with any of Sarkeesian’s positions, she makes assertion after assertion, blanket statements that contradict my own personal video gaming experiences, and sweeping generalizations about motives that she can’t possibly know. She does not have a sociology background, she’s done no studies, nor does she cite any studies, as far as I can remember. In short, if she were arguing her position here on the SDMB, I don’t think she’d get very far.
That said, my reaction after watching the video was to shrug and forget about it; after all, there’s lots of poorly argued positions on youtube that I just don’t care much about. But then a few months later, she’s become this lightning rod for every dickless douchebag misogynist who feels the need to froth at the mouth over something. So I think whatever thesis she wanted to present is beside the point now, because the overwhelming negative reaction to her mere existence IS evidence that there’s a problem, maybe not in the gaming community as a whole but definitely in a vocal and harmful subset that’s active on the internet. That’s the real story here, IMO, and I no longer care that Anita Sarkeesian may not have the requisite academic background in social science to make the claims she’s making, because she’s managed to bring an even worse problem to light.
I think it’s both, that people raised on sexist movies and pop culture have now made sexist video games, and that people who grow up playing video games are therefore learning how to be sexist. The quote that’s been bandied about in this thread, about how the people who think they cannot be affected by the media are “paradoxically and somewhat ironically” the most likely to be affected by the media supports this.
ETA: Her message for the developer community is clear, that people need to stop making sexist video games. If she’s not arguing that sexist video games are harmful, then why would they need to stop?
For whatever reason, I basically take away from her stuff the “this is caused by sexism” part rather than the “this causes sexism” part. I don’t know whether this is selective memory on my part or whether it reflects facts about what she actually focuses on.
I personally find this series of articles to be a pretty good look at her claims.
I think the biggest question I have is, does Anita ever describe what she would consider to be a “good female character”? I’m not entirely convinced that such a character could exist. From what I can tell from her thesis, the problem is that almost any positive characteristics that could be given to a character in these environments, she categorizes as masculine. Is Lara Croft of the new Tomb Raider reboot a good female character? No, she’s simply borrowing male traits. To quote her:
See, I’m sorry, I don’t buy that. I don’t buy that these traits are inherently gender-disparate. I don’t buy that women are more irrational than men. It’s really quite sexist to assume or assert that. I think it’s incredibly problematic to paint these traits as such, as it both limits what we can do with characters based on their gender, and reinforces stereotypes. I dunno.
…Then there’s her absolutely abysmal video about the ad campaign for Bayonetta. At that point I stopped really caring what she had to say, for the same reason I don’t really care what someone who claims that Taylor Swift is the pinnacle of modern songwriting has to say about music.
…do we generally agree that violent video games do not have any significant effect on real-life violence?
If this is so, can someone explain why we seem to now entertain the notion that “rescue the female” video games DO have a significant effect on real-life attitudes with respect to women being objects of rescue?
Yes, but this doesn’t mean they don’t have an effect on society.
They probably don’t, but they might have an effect on society’s views towards women in general.
In my view, things like this are all just little pieces of the pie. A video game with racist stereotypes probably isn’t going to cause racist violence, but it still shouldn’t be acceptable (which doesn’t mean illegal – of course it’s legal to have racist and sexist stuff in media). The same goes for sexist stereotypes and tropes, in my view. Passive women characters who serve only to be rescued should be seen the same way, in my view, as a black man character as the comic relief chasing watermelon, chicken wings, and white women.
One of the theses involved is that pre-existing attitudes towards women contribute to gamemakers creating “damsel in distress” situations in the first place.
Rather than the games creating the situation, the argument is that these already existing attitudes are reflected in games and aid in normalizing such attitudes going forward.
They don’t create misogynist attitudes. But they can reinforce pre-existing misogynist attitudes in society, particularly in young men and women to consider it “normal”, just as violent games don’t create violence but can, in the minds of psychologically troubled people, reinforce what’s already there. Few people consider physically violent attacks to be “normal” but we’re inundated with “damsel in distress” stories all our lives, from fairy tales onwards. That’s “normal” to us, though we’re recognizing that maybe it shouldn’t be so normal.
Huh. See, that last paragraph? The bit about violence? I was under the impression that the evidence soundly refuted it. I certainly see no evidence that this reinforces that. When I see a damsel in distress trope, I notice full well that it’s a trope. I understand that this doesn’t represent women in general. It’s a story element with exceedingly limited parallels in real life. Why would I identify this with real women? Or not with real men?
Do you find the comments in the youtube video annotations at the link you gave to be an effective response to what you find lacking in what Sarkeesian says in the video?
There are other, better answers coming to be sure, but I would like to note that it is very difficult for me to understand how any traditionally religious person could doubt that the stories we tell have a significant effect on real-life attitudes.
I disagree. Steaming turds usually have well-supported explanations, like those 6 spicy jalapeno poppers you ate on a dare. That was coming out one way or the other
This was many years ago, but the gist is that children in violent environments have a higher chance of aggressive and/or violent behavior if they are exposed to violent media. That is not to say that violence in video games is a direct cause, absent any other factors, of violent behavior, but that it is a critical factor for children who are already at risk.
Ok. That’s one study. I have seen or heard referenced at least 15 studies off the top of my head that show a link between violent video games and aggressive behavior, particularly in children. Notice I did not say ‘‘violent’’ behavior. Playing a violent video game may increase the odds that you will act like a bully or an asshole, particularly if your aggression is retaliatory (in response to a perceived slight.) And in most cases these are controlled laboratory environments so standard caveats apply.
Among the things we generally seem to understand based on this research:
The more a person identifies with the character, the more pronounced the impact on aggressive behavior. So, something like GTA may have a higher impact than an RPG where you are a half-orc mage or something.
Children say they understand that things aren’t real, but their behavior contradicts that supposed understanding.
Our society has a major problem with retaliatory aggression. When we perceive that we have been wronged, we are more likely than ever to significantly escalate aggressive behavior. See: Gamergate. See: Road rage.
Incidentally, I have another friend whose study found that women who play violent video games engage in more pro-social behavior - which would be a surprising reversal, no? Her theory is women are overcompensating for violating social norms by behaving more nicely IRL. I’m not sure I agree with the theory.
Now, as I understand it there are plenty of studies that don’t indicate a link and I am not familiar enough with them to critique their methodology, but my point is, people need to stop acting like this is a totally stupid obvious foregone conclusion that violent media doesn’t contribute in some way to human attitudes and behaviors in the social environment.
There is nothing in the history of social research or the study of human behavior that would suggest that people are not influenced by the things they see and hear in the broader social context. The exact opposite is the case. For violence in media, for depictions of race, for idealized body images, for stereotypes, for anything. That video games would merit some kind of special exclusion from the general rule is really the truly bizarre argument here.
For as long as I watched (the first two minutes): somewhat. It does sort of put into context how incredibly clueless Sarkeesian is about what she’s expounding on. The character doesn’t matter. The story doesn’t matter. The context doesn’t matter. The gameplay doesn’t matter. Except it does. Except it absolutely, totally does. The fact that Bayonetta completely rocks the “exhibitionism and sex appeal as empowerment” angle and does so incredibly well makes a lot of difference in how the game and its advertisements are to be interpreted. Context is important, and Sarkeesian is seemingly intentionally ignoring this.
I’m not in any way a gamer, but just being on the 'net has let me read some of the threats Sarkeesian (& Zoe Quinn) received from those mouth breathing misogynists. Surely they don’t represent all (or even most) male gamers, but I’d like to hear what the OP has to say about* them*. (Not those “feminist” critics he’s mentioned. And, not, I’m not going to click on random YouTube links.)
I didn’t really say that (or at least I didn’t mean to), but nuance is really hard to express online.
I stated that violent games don’t create violence. And that’s true. The evidence is solid on that. But they can bring expression to what violence is already there to begin with.
The underlying attitude on the vast majority of shooters is self defense or some type of military service. There are exceedingly few games where the attitude is that kill spree type violence is acceptable in normal society.
Even in games that subvert that expectation (the GTA games), you know you’re a “bad guy”, though the hero, and that the characters’ actions aren’t considered normal in regular society.
The attitude has never been ‘indiscriminate violence’ but ‘controlled violence in service of a defined goal’. Note that some people think even this is wrong in our society, but at least it doesn’t stray too far from societal norms. Most of us believe that serving in the military or taking action in defense of ourselves or others is a good thing.
Why wouldn’t you? And why would this be a conscious thing?
The point I was trying to make is not that games or media create these attitudes but they perpetuate attitudes that are already there.
It doesn’t shock us when the hero of a game has to save his girl from the bad guys. But it’s considered a subversion of the genre if a female character (non-sexualized at that) does the same for a man. It feels wrong at some level to many people. That means the attitude exists, even if we can’t express just why.
E.g. Disney princesses. Most little girls in America wants to be one. Credit to them for making their most recent princesses more than helpless twits.
White knight syndrome?
The conversation is obviously out there. From Gamergate and the interminable MRA threads here, we at least know it’s real. And that there are people who have internalized these attitudes.
But as you say in your description of the link, she’s not critiquing the game, she’s critiquing the ad campaign. Since gameplay isn’t an element of the campaign, how is it relevant to the validity of her criticisms?
Or is she saying things about the game itself and not just the campaign? (I only watched part of it–I was trusting your summary on this point).
I am not clear about the meaning of this. What would be an example of a work that tries to rock this angle and fails to do so in a way that invites valid feminist critique?
But there is more than one context that applies. With an ad campaign, for example, lots and lots and lots of people who see the campaign are never going to play the game (probably the majority fits this description).
Somewhere in her videos, she does have a short animation about what would constitute a strong female character. Its a game about a princess who waits for a rescue that doesn’t come, then breaks out herself and tracks down the people who imprisoned her. She subverts many of the sexist tropes by explaining that male characters are usually empowered as the instrument of their own agency, as this princess would show by breaking out of imprisonment herself, and takes into her own hands the responsibility for her freedom and security. This wouldn’t be controversial with a male character, but not enough games have a female character do this.
Do you disagree that traits are gender-disparate inherently or disagree that people see them as such? Because I can agree with the former but not the latter. Strong, aggressive, assertive, etc. are often cited as masculine traits, its no great controversy to state that. I do not see what she says as wrong, perhaps I’ve misunderstood you?