Feminists now hijacking atheism? WTF?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-08-2014, 08:04 PM
RE: Feminists now hijacking atheism? WTF?
(28-08-2014 06:17 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  I disagree in entirely, literary analysis can be objective.

And I am saying the way it was done by Anita isn't.

(28-08-2014 06:19 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  For example, in the feminist frequency video on the "damsel in distress" video game trope she makes the following points:

1. The trope itself is not sexist - watch it again. She doesn't say that any video game is sexist.

Nitpicking. It wasn't specifically said, but that was the implication.
She says that the "trope" paints women as inherently weak, while I say that it is about the loss of power through somebody taking it.

(28-08-2014 06:19 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  2. The plot device necessitates a weak female character, the "damsel" and a strong male character, the "hero". If you agree with the definition of the terms "weak", "strong, and "damsel in distress" then you cannot argue this premise.

And the loss of the female character's power is considered a negative, and then as an emotional motivator for the protagonist to go through a heavy amount of suffering to then restore that power.
Also the player has to be the one with agency. It is a game after all. If the damsel was always the one saving the hero, it would be a boring game.
Also take into account that the hero is generally considered exceptional. This is an ego boost for the player.

(28-08-2014 06:19 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  3. The overuse of this trope paints females in video games in a weak light as compared to male characters. You can objectively analyze this point by comparing the number of games where male characters are rescued by a heroin as compared to female characters rescued by a male hero. This isn't an "opinion", this is rudimentary statistics.

There are loads of games that are gender neutral, like the fallout series.
It doesn't really care about your gender for the most part. And the only sexists in the game are also slavers.
As most games are trying to sell to a majority heterosexual male demographic, it is only logical to assume the best way to gain empathy for the protagonist is to make them male, and to make the one you are saving female. It is all about psychology, and evolutionary behaviour, not inherent sexism.

(28-08-2014 06:19 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  She doesn't say super mario is a bad game, or even that it is sexist. She doesn't say the trope is sexist. She says the trope is overused - meaning women are portrayed as weak and helpless in video games far more often than men are.

It is used because it is effective. Supply and demand.
They have to make the character you are saving weak, as it has to be a challenge to save them.
Men are generally more likely to play these games.

(28-08-2014 06:19 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  This is objective.

No, it isn't because it doesn't take into account extraneous variables.

(28-08-2014 06:19 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  You can find many examples, spanning throughout the years, of the damsel in distress trope in video games, contrast them in quantity and frequency to the reverse position in games, and objectively determine females are cast in distress far more often than men are.

As much as meaningful characters are concerned, yes. But it isn't taking into account the disproportionate number of helpless male cannon fodder in games as well. They are more helpless than the character with a person coming to save them.
The fact that the female character is shown mercy is a sign of value.

(28-08-2014 06:19 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  This is not a subjective opinion, this is a fact. If you except the definition of the words then certain conclusions necessarily fall out. That is what analysis is. She doesn't say "I don't like this" or "I prefer the other" she forms an objective, rational argument grounded in observation and in observance of clearly defined terms and definitions.

No, it isn't taking into account the specific context of the analysis. It isn't objective by that standard. It is a superficial, uninformed opinion.

(28-08-2014 06:19 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  A casual dismissal of her arguments doesn't make you right either. You have to do better than that. You have to form a better rational argument based on objective observations and definitions of terms, or in the very least have to be able to deconstruct her argument.

Done. Can I have a cookie now?

(28-08-2014 06:19 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  And by the way, saying "because men have testosterone and were hunters" is no better than saying "men and women are just different" and shrugging it off. It is dressing up the same non argument with bigger words, but it means the same thing. You have to do better than that.

First off, the first thing is more substantive.
Next, instead of saying "that isn't an argument" ask "how does that apply?" if it isn't yet substantive.
If it isn't addressing the topic at hand, that is a non-argument. However, it is hypocritical to say we are shrugging off arguments and then shrug off any argument from sexual dimorphism.
And all I have to do to rationally disagree is to discount the opposing positive claim. If I am making no opposite positive claim, but am told to defend one, it is a strawman that then shifts the goalposts to trick me into shifting the burden of proof. Highly fallacious.
But here goes...
Evolutionarily, males are more likely to be protective of their female counterparts. This is because we are a sexually dimorphic species. As a female is the one who gets pregnant for nine months and becomes physically inadequate for many tasks, it was more beneficial for the male to develop a greater level of aggression and protectiveness for the female than vice versa.
Games, like many storytelling methods, needs a plot, or a bad thing to happen. As the majority demographic is male, a huge insult to a man's integrity is for him to be unable to protect the woman he is with. For her to be kidnapped is a huge emotional drive.
Now with a male professional victim bias I could look at it from this perspective:
The fact that males can only solve problems through violence and need to save his female counterpart from a horrific ordeal for her to notice him is a harmful trope in gaming, and promotes the inadequacy of men on their own.
My understanding is:
Testosterone can promote aggressive behaviour in males, and because of this, simulated violence can be satisfying for men. In other words, game violence is fun and so men buy violent games and so developers make violent games.
It's all about what gives the greatest reward. To be reunited with a loved one is a huge reward.
If you, or other people, think that there needs to be a balance, why make your own game where there is a male "damsel" and a female heroin? The market doesn't do what youtube feminists say, it requires entrepreneurs and sales.

(28-08-2014 06:19 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  I won't speak to your reasoning because I haven't heard it yet.

That is a valid point. Is the stuff above enough?

(28-08-2014 06:19 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  If you don't like what she is saying that is one thing. You don't have to "like" it, that is your opinion.

If I said like, I apologise, I do that sometimes when I mean to say disagree or take issue with.
Trust me, I am all for following the evidence wherever it leads.

(28-08-2014 06:19 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  If you don't agree that is your prerogative. You are free to believe whatever you like for whatever reason you like. If you say she is wrong then you have to make your case.

I tend not to say somebody is wrong when they make an inadequate justification. I am more likely to say they haven't met their burden of proof.
Although some say absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, I disagree. I say it isn't proof of absence, but evidence it is.

(28-08-2014 06:19 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  She made hers. That is only fair; that is how debate works.

Although she obviously doesn't want any debate because she censors all of her comments sections and ratings.
Her behaviour is closer to a creationist content creator like Venomfangx or Answers in Genesis, rather than sceptics not afraid to hold their ideas up to scrutiny.

My main position is that she is looking in from a gender perspective. I am on the inside, and any "effects" should be present in me. I don't view women as inherently weak.

If somebody points out a fallacy, and you call fallacy fallacy, that doesn't mean you are right. That just means you committed the very fallacy you accused your opponent of.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-08-2014, 08:31 PM
RE: Feminists now hijacking atheism? WTF?
(28-08-2014 07:04 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  Subjective means "only true for the subject", or "only apparent to the subject". That is not what literary analysis is.

I disagree. The subject doesn't have to be an individual, but can be a perspective. Then this analysis, not all, but this specific example, is subjective.


(28-08-2014 07:04 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  Words have meaning. If you agree on the meaning of the word "weak", then you can make perfectly objective arguments for why one thing or another is "weak". If you don't lend that kind of objectivity to the word then the argument becomes completely absurd. You can say whatever you like then about anything, and hey, its your opinion, and any one opinion is good as another.

I absolutely agree with words having definitions, and reducing to that level of "what does that word mean" is absurd. I remeber an argument with an orthodox preacher where it descended into him doing just that, and it was f**king annoying.
Good and bad though, do tend to be "beneficial" and "detrimental" in most cases. These can be considered outside of opinion.

(28-08-2014 07:04 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  The arguments made in feminist frequency are predicated on the definition of words. How you feel, what you prefer, whether you determine something to be "good" or "bad", these are opinion, these are subjective. In isolation they cannot be used to form a rational argument. When she uses words like "strong" and "weak" in the context of a videogame or a narrative we know exactly what she means and agree on the definition of these words ahead of time. When she says something is not representative we know exactly what the word representative means and we agree on the definition of the word ahead of time. If, while describing something, she uses other words that together mean the same thing as "not representative", then she has succeeded in proving that these things are "not representative". For example when she says male characters are portrayed in strong roles far more often than female characters, we know that "far more often (as one thing compared to another)" means exactly the same thing as "not representative". This isn't an opinion. This is a fact. You can't have a rational discussion about a thing if you cannot objectively compare one thing to another.

I wasn't disagreeing with the premise that there are characters portrayed as "weak" but that there is almost always a transition from "strong" to "weak" and that the story is about restoring her strength.

(28-08-2014 07:04 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  That isn't subjective at all, that is absolutely and completely objective. It is true for me and true for you that "representative" means "not equal representation". You can choose to deny the definition of a the word, but that doesn't make you right. If you can't agree upon a definition for the word that makes the argument pointless and absurd.

I am not going to argue that either. I am arguing that it isn't because of sexism or some negative gender stereotypes like Anita infers.
These are kind of strawmen.

If somebody points out a fallacy, and you call fallacy fallacy, that doesn't mean you are right. That just means you committed the very fallacy you accused your opponent of.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-08-2014, 08:56 PM
RE: Feminists now hijacking atheism? WTF?
I will give spino this, feminism does not mean equal rights for all.

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-08-2014, 08:58 PM (This post was last modified: 28-08-2014 09:59 PM by Michael_Tadlock.)
RE: Feminists now hijacking atheism? WTF?
(28-08-2014 08:04 PM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  
(28-08-2014 06:17 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  I disagree in entirely, literary analysis can be objective.

And I am saying the way it was done by Anita isn't.

Be specific. Is that how you feel or is that what she said? If so, what did she say? How wasn't it a rational argument?

Quote:
(28-08-2014 06:19 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  For example, in the feminist frequency video on the "damsel in distress" video game trope she makes the following points:

1. The trope itself is not sexist - watch it again. She doesn't say that any video game is sexist.

Nitpicking. It wasn't specifically said, but that was the implication.
She says that the "trope" paints women as inherently weak, while I say that it is about the loss of power through somebody taking it.

No, that is not nitpicking. Words have meaning. Sexist implies an intentional or egregious offense to a gender. She implies neither. If she says something that means the same thing as "sexist" then quote her as such.

If loss of power doesn't imply weakness I don't know what does. In the context of a damsel in distress trope, the female character is under the power and influence of the male villain, she relies on the powers of the male character, and she serves no other plot function then to provide some catalyst for the male character's progress and development. By every definition of the word that means "weak". Because you don't think so is not a good enough reason. You need to provide a rational argument to the contrary.

Quote:
(28-08-2014 06:19 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  2. The plot device necessitates a weak female character, the "damsel" and a strong male character, the "hero". If you agree with the definition of the terms "weak", "strong, and "damsel in distress" then you cannot argue this premise.

And the loss of the female character's power is considered a negative, and then as an emotional motivator for the protagonist to go through a heavy amount of suffering to then restore that power.
Also the player has to be the one with agency. It is a game after all. If the damsel was always the one saving the hero, it would be a boring game.
Also take into account that the hero is generally considered exceptional. This is an ego boost for the player.

I think it much better analysis is that the loss of a female character is seen as a theft of the male characters property. I say this because rarely are the personable aspects of the character relayed to the player. She is pretty and mario wants her. End of plot device.

This isn't true for all games or all narratives. However, at best it elevates to the female damsel to the status of "helpless and attractive object of affection". If the female character were strong in her own right, she wouldn't need the male character to rescue her. She would have the power to rescue herself. By putting the woman in a position of danger where her only escape is through the efforts of the male character, you are indirectly juxtaposing the two against each other. Male characters save the day, female characters get rescued. Of course it implies weakness.

Keep in mind, as a plot device "damsel in distress" is not always bad. A male character can have a strong personal bond with a female character that compels him to action. A female character can be strong in other ways (like personal fortitude) and that strength can be conveyed or implied within the narrative. The problem is

1) The female character is of little significance to either the protagonist or the player most of the time. Her personal attribute are rarely emphasized.
2) The trope is overused. Even in the best case scenario the female character is still portrayed as weak. When this is the predominant characterization of female characters in games that is a problem. The message being received by gamers over and over again is that women are weak and need rescuing by strong men.

Keep in mind that just because mario employs the damsel in distress trope doesn't mean mario is a bad game, or that mario is even sexist. In mario, the main character has essentially no character attributes. There is no depth to the game. It makes sense why peach has no attributes either. That doesn't mean the disparities between mario and peach should not be criticised. That doesn't mean mario is not a part of an alarming trend portraying female characters as weak and in need of rescue. You can criticise something without condemning it. That is exactly what she did in that particular video, and indeed what she does when she criticises almost any game in any of her videos.

Quote:
(28-08-2014 06:19 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  3. The overuse of this trope paints females in video games in a weak light as compared to male characters. You can objectively analyze this point by comparing the number of games where male characters are rescued by a heroin as compared to female characters rescued by a male hero. This isn't an "opinion", this is rudimentary statistics.

There are loads of games that are gender neutral, like the fallout series.
It doesn't really care about your gender for the most part. And the only sexists in the game are also slavers.
As most games are trying to sell to a majority heterosexual male demographic, it is only logical to assume the best way to gain empathy for the protagonist is to make them male, and to make the one you are saving female. It is all about psychology, and evolutionary behaviour, not inherent sexism.

She doesn't argue that the sexism in intentional. Whether or not it was intended to be there or not doesn't make it any less present. A spades a spade, as they say. If she can point out something sexist in a game and make a good argument for why it is sexist, then that aspect of the game is sexist.

If you can identify sexism in games you can react positively in one of two ways:

1) Don't by that game in protest, sending a message to the publishers.
2) Realise and appreciate the sexism within the game, thus diminishing its power and influence over you.

For my own part, I elect the second option almost every time. I love the fallout series. That being said the nameless, faceless prostitutes in the game are sexist; even if the prostitute happens to be male. I elect to play the game with the appreciation that those aspects of the game are objectifying to men and women. If given the opportunity to voice my opinion to bethesda, I would tell them to leave the prostitutes out of the game next time, or to change the mechanics of the game that relates to these background characters.
[/quote]

Quote:
(28-08-2014 06:19 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  She doesn't say super mario is a bad game, or even that it is sexist. She doesn't say the trope is sexist. She says the trope is overused - meaning women are portrayed as weak and helpless in video games far more often than men are.

It is used because it is effective. Supply and demand.
They have to make the character you are saving weak, as it has to be a challenge to save them.
Men are generally more likely to play these games.

The publishers can make whatever game they want for whatever reason they want. In a pragmatic money making sense their actions are duly justified. I could make a game about child pornography if I chose, and so long as I stayed within the confines of the law I could sell it and promote it as much as I like. That wouldn't make me immune to criticism. That wouldn't make my game any less abhorrent either.
[/quote]

Quote:
(28-08-2014 06:19 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  This is objective.

No, it isn't because it doesn't take into account extraneous variables.

Be specific. Form an argument.

Quote:
(28-08-2014 06:19 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  You can find many examples, spanning throughout the years, of the damsel in distress trope in video games, contrast them in quantity and frequency to the reverse position in games, and objectively determine females are cast in distress far more often than men are.

As much as meaningful characters are concerned, yes. But it isn't taking into account the disproportionate number of helpless male cannon fodder in games as well. They are more helpless than the character with a person coming to save them.
The fact that the female character is shown mercy is a sign of value.

You mean like the faceless male characters that serves no other purpose than to be destroyed by the male character? I would argue the opposite. The faceless male characters have the power to harm the male protagonist. This gives them more power than the female character. A villain's minions are something of an extension of the villain's powers, and in the classic damsel in distress trope the villain is the second most powerful character within the game. The female character neither obstructs the villain nor the player. The female character serves no other purpose then to compel the male character to engage in his challenges in the first place.

Secondly, when a male hero fights male minions I find it hard to see how men are being put in a position of weakness.

Thirdly, you have to consider the cultural context of the games. When a female heroin hacks through legions of male minions, the message being received by the player is not that women are inherently stronger and more capable then men. Perhaps if they were consumed in a matriarchal society repressive to men they could be, but that is not the society we live in. I wouldn't argue that it is a good thing to binary oppose men and women in video games so long as the female character is the hero; don't get me wrong.

Quote:
(28-08-2014 06:19 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  This is not a subjective opinion, this is a fact. If you except the definition of the words then certain conclusions necessarily fall out. That is what analysis is. She doesn't say "I don't like this" or "I prefer the other" she forms an objective, rational argument grounded in observation and in observance of clearly defined terms and definitions.

No, it isn't taking into account the specific context of the analysis. It isn't objective by that standard. It is a superficial, uninformed opinion.

Gibber gabber. Make an argument. You can't just say "it doesn't apply" and not explain why it doesn't apply.

Quote:
(28-08-2014 06:19 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  A casual dismissal of her arguments doesn't make you right either. You have to do better than that. You have to form a better rational argument based on objective observations and definitions of terms, or in the very least have to be able to deconstruct her argument.

Done. Can I have a cookie now?

I, for one, am not satisfied with the arguments you have put forward thus far.
[/quote]

Quote:
(28-08-2014 06:19 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  And by the way, saying "because men have testosterone and were hunters" is no better than saying "men and women are just different" and shrugging it off. It is dressing up the same non argument with bigger words, but it means the same thing. You have to do better than that.

First off, the first thing is more substantive.
Next, instead of saying "that isn't an argument" ask "how does that apply?" if it isn't yet substantive.
If it isn't addressing the topic at hand, that is a non-argument. However, it is hypocritical to say we are shrugging off arguments and then shrug off any argument from sexual dimorphism.
And all I have to do to rationally disagree is to discount the opposing positive claim. If I am making no opposite positive claim, but am told to defend one, it is a strawman that then shifts the goalposts to trick me into shifting the burden of proof. Highly fallacious.
But here goes...
Evolutionarily, males are more likely to be protective of their female counterparts. This is because we are a sexually dimorphic species. As a female is the one who gets pregnant for nine months and becomes physically inadequate for many tasks, it was more beneficial for the male to develop a greater level of aggression and protectiveness for the female than vice versa.
Games, like many storytelling methods, needs a plot, or a bad thing to happen. As the majority demographic is male, a huge insult to a man's integrity is for him to be unable to protect the woman he is with. For her to be kidnapped is a huge emotional drive.
Now with a male professional victim bias I could look at it from this perspective:
The fact that males can only solve problems through violence and need to save his female counterpart from a horrific ordeal for her to notice him is a harmful trope in gaming, and promotes the inadequacy of men on their own.
My understanding is:
Testosterone can promote aggressive behaviour in males, and because of this, simulated violence can be satisfying for men. In other words, game violence is fun and so men buy violent games and so developers make violent games.
It's all about what gives the greatest reward. To be reunited with a loved one is a huge reward.
If you, or other people, think that there needs to be a balance, why make your own game where there is a male "damsel" and a female heroin? The market doesn't do what youtube feminists say, it requires entrepreneurs and sales.

This is a better explanation of the same non argument. For starters females play games, and as often as men do. However, developers inability to adequately market to them is of no concern to this argument. The concern here is whether or not developer are, inadvertently or otherwise, disparaging the female gender through their plot devices. Thus far the better arguments have been put forward that they are doing just that. It doesn't matter if the game sells well or not. The games do sell, nobody is arguing that. What matters is the cultural impacts of the games, at least in the scope of this conversation. Saying men and women are evolutionary different does nothing to diminish arguments made.

You do appreciate how the trope is harmful, both as a compulsion of violence and as demeaning the female character. You admit as much above. Which is good thing, because it is this that I and Anita from feminist frequency have been trying to discuss the whole time.

Quote:
(28-08-2014 06:19 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  I won't speak to your reasoning because I haven't heard it yet.

That is a valid point. Is the stuff above enough?

That isn't a point as much as an admission. As to your previous comments, I would like to believe that we are starting to get somewhere.

Quote:
(28-08-2014 06:19 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  If you don't like what she is saying that is one thing. You don't have to "like" it, that is your opinion.

If I said like, I apologise, I do that sometimes when I mean to say disagree or take issue with.
Trust me, I am all for following the evidence wherever it leads.

I can see that. I wouldn't spend the time making my arguments if I thought you were irrational, unreasonable, or too stupid to understand them. Your worthy of the effort of debating with, even if I don't always like what you have to say.

Quote:
(28-08-2014 06:19 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  If you don't agree that is your prerogative. You are free to believe whatever you like for whatever reason you like. If you say she is wrong then you have to make your case.

I tend not to say somebody is wrong when they make an inadequate justification. I am more likely to say they haven't met their burden of proof.
Although some say absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, I disagree. I say it isn't proof of absence, but evidence it is.

I think when you give someone adequate opportunity to provide justification and they don't it is reasonable to assume that they are not likely to ever do so.

Quote:
(28-08-2014 06:19 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  She made hers. That is only fair; that is how debate works.

Although she obviously doesn't want any debate because she censors all of her comments sections and ratings.
Her behaviour is closer to a creationist content creator like Venomfangx or Answers in Genesis, rather than sceptics not afraid to hold their ideas up to scrutiny.

My main position is that she is looking in from a gender perspective. I am on the inside, and any "effects" should be present in me. I don't view women as inherently weak.
[/quote]

That is your opinion. This is not an argument. You have to be specific.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Michael_Tadlock's post
28-08-2014, 11:13 PM
RE: Feminists now hijacking atheism? WTF?
(28-08-2014 08:56 PM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  I will give spino this, feminism does not mean equal rights for all.

Feminism as you understand it Drinking Beverage You are using a narrow definition used by very few within the feminist movement itself.

WTF guys? It's OK to be a gay rights activist, a feminist, a humanist, an atheist, a fucken frisbee player *all in one person*. Why when someone identifies as a feminist do people go off the deepend, like it means that the only thing they care about is equality for women?

Dodgy

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like morondog's post
29-08-2014, 02:10 AM
RE: Feminists now hijacking atheism? WTF?
(28-08-2014 08:56 PM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  I will give spino this, feminism does not mean equal rights for all.

By no means, I mean that they won't get to equal rights because of their preconceptions about society. I am sure most feminists have noble goals.

If somebody points out a fallacy, and you call fallacy fallacy, that doesn't mean you are right. That just means you committed the very fallacy you accused your opponent of.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-08-2014, 11:37 AM (This post was last modified: 29-08-2014 12:51 PM by spinosauruskin.)
RE: Feminists now hijacking atheism? WTF?
Quote:Be specific. Is that how you feel or is that what she said? If so, what did she say? How wasn't it a rational argument?

I tried to explain further down.

Quote:No, that is not nitpicking. Words have meaning. Sexist implies an intentional or egregious offense to a gender. She implies neither. If she says something that means the same thing as "sexist" then quote her as such.

Actually to be honest Anita is more the sexist.
"Adolescent male power fantasies"
It seems she has some bitterness going in.
Remember that the female lack of power is both artificial and temporary. Your analysis is a more misogynistic one than is required. It's like you want women to be oppressed in the media.
But there's the issue. A large group of women go into gender studies and prepare themselves for a social war. But when they leave, there isn't anything to fight.

Quote:I think it much better analysis is that the loss of a female character is seen as a theft of the male characters property. I say this because rarely are the personable aspects of the character relayed to the player. She is pretty and mario wants her. End of plot device.

What about when the one you are trying to save is male? In the end of farcry 3, you have to save your brother. Is he now the object of attraction? No, it is about emotional incentive.

Quote:This isn't true for all games or all narratives. However, at best it elevates to the female damsel to the status of "helpless and attractive object of affection".

Or in a situation that she can't get out and therefore her happiness is "worth the ordeal"

Quote:If the female character were strong in her own right, she wouldn't need the male character to rescue her. She would have the power to rescue herself. By putting the woman in a position of danger where her only escape is through the efforts of the male character, you are indirectly juxtaposing the two against each other. Male characters save the day, female characters get rescued. Of course it implies weakness.

Only because the player has to be the one with agency. This is a limit to this kind of storytelling. Player character is male for increased empathy. The person you are saving is female for increased bond.

Quote:Keep in mind, as a plot device "damsel in distress" is not always bad. A male character can have a strong personal bond with a female character that compels him to action. A female character can be strong in other ways (like personal fortitude) and that strength can be conveyed or implied within the narrative. The problem is

1) The female character is of little significance to either the protagonist or the player most of the time. Her personal attribute are rarely emphasized.

These are only games that lack depth or focus purely on the hero's struggle because it is more interesting for the player. Sometimes both characters are fleshed out.

Quote:2) The trope is overused. Even in the best case scenario the female character is still portrayed as weak. When this is the predominant characterization of female characters in games that is a problem. The message being received by gamers over and over again is that women are weak and need rescuing by strong men.

Was overused. I don't see many games with this anymore.
Or that men with lack of agency in their real lives want to simulate agency in a game. It isn't a message, it is giving them what they want. Media reflects society, not the other way around.

Quote:Keep in mind that just because mario employs the damsel in distress trope doesn't mean mario is a bad game, or that mario is even sexist. In mario, the main character has essentially no character attributes. There is no depth to the game. It makes sense why peach has no attributes either. That doesn't mean the disparities between mario and peach should not be criticised. That doesn't mean mario is not a part of an alarming trend portraying female characters as weak and in need of rescue. You can criticise something without condemning it. That is exactly what she did in that particular video, and indeed what she does when she criticises almost any game in any of her videos.

Actually Game theory has done almost a dozen videos on the Mario franchise. His analysis is that Peach has Stockholm syndrome and is bipolar, Mario is a psychopath, and one of the games is a screenplay. He actually gives some serious evidence as well.
The games actually have a depth apparently.
I don't, and haven't actually played much in the Mario franchise, but it doesn't seem to be particularly sexist or sending a message.
Note Peach is a princess before being captured. This means she starts off with power. Then power is taken away. This is considered bad. Mario, as he wasn't captured, then saves her from something that is inescapable from the inside.

Quote:She doesn't argue that the sexism in intentional. Whether or not it was intended to be there or not doesn't make it any less present. A spades a spade, as they say. If she can point out something sexist in a game and make a good argument for why it is sexist, then that aspect of the game is sexist.

But if it isn't taking into account gender-specific contexts, then it is going to be superficial.
But it isn't sexism if it is actually having a legitimate differentiation! I am not a sexist because I am heterosexual. Unless you are going to argue that I am, then the games aren't sexist, but they are legitimately differentiating between the sexes.

Quote:I love the fallout series. That being said the nameless, faceless prostitutes in the game are sexist; even if the prostitute happens to be male. I elect to play the game with the appreciation that those aspects of the game are objectifying to men and women. If given the opportunity to voice my opinion to bethesda, I would tell them to leave the prostitutes out of the game next time, or to change the mechanics of the game that relates to these background characters.

So any sexualised character is objectification? This is another feminist buzzword I hate.
Note that the quest where you allow some prostitutes to leave only contains female prostitutes. Funny that? Only the women want to be saved? The men don't even have enough agency to decide to leave?
I kind of like the fact that games have sexualised characters. I don't think there is anything wrong with the prostitutes. They aren't objectifying anyone. The prostitutes Joana and Dazzle have integral roles in quests.
http://youtu.be/SiJWUL9QuLI

Quote:The publishers can make whatever game they want for whatever reason they want. In a pragmatic money making sense their actions are duly justified. I could make a game about child pornography if I chose, and so long as I stayed within the confines of the law I could sell it and promote it as much as I like. That wouldn't make me immune to criticism. That wouldn't make my game any less abhorrent either.

False analogy. I am saying you are the ones deriving oppression from this. Saving the princess is fine.

Quote:Be specific. Form an argument.

I have.

Quote:You mean like the faceless male characters that serves no other purpose than to be destroyed by the male character? I would argue the opposite. The faceless male characters have the power to harm the male protagonist.

But ultimately fail.

Quote:This gives them more power than the female character.

Although she is generally kidnapped for her power to be taken away, while the faceless male characters are defeated at the height of their power.

Quote:A villain's minions are something of an extension of the villain's powers, and in the classic damsel in distress trope the villain is the second most powerful character within the game. The female character neither obstructs the villain nor the player. The female character serves no other purpose then to compel the male character to engage in his challenges in the first place.

She has to for the plot to work. The point is you do everything.

Quote:Secondly, when a male hero fights male minions I find it hard to see how men are being put in a position of weakness.

Again, because even when given the chance, they ultimately fail. The damsel has to have her power artificially taken away.

Quote:Thirdly, you have to consider the cultural context of the games. When a female heroin hacks through legions of male minions, the message being received by the player is not that women are inherently stronger and more capable then men.

You just admitted to special pleading then.

Quote:Perhaps if they were consumed in a matriarchal society repressive to men they could be, but that is not the society we live in.

I would go as far to say that I'm not in a patriarchal society. You may disagree, although I can't speak for where you live.

Quote:I wouldn't argue that it is a good thing to binary oppose men and women in video games so long as the female character is the hero; don't get me wrong.

Now that is sexism. When it is good to have the sexes in one relationship but not vice versa, that is a sexist point of view.
Although I agree opposition is fine, I don't care which way around it is. It's a double standard.
I am completely fine with a male damsel and a heroin saving him, but the reason they aren't as common is they don't sell as well.
Is is why I hate the double standard of opposite sex violence. Man is attacker, "Abuser!" Woman is attacker, "You go girl!"

Quote:I, for one, am not satisfied with the arguments you have put forward thus far.

I will try to elaborate then.

Quote:This is a better explanation of the same non argument. For starters females play games, and as often as men do.

Cognitive dissonance is strong with this one.
Can you SERIOUSLY call that a non-argument? After my long explanation of why males behave that way? Im going to give up on that before an artery bursts.
You are forgetting that women are more likely to play "games" like FarmVille and Candy Crush. The players of those facebook and mobile "games" are the reason for that statistic. If you look at FPS games or games involving combat, the picture changes.
If you deny this, I am taking away your atheist card. You have submitted to the religion of feminism. Your god is the evil god of patriarchy.

Quote:Be specific. Form an argument.

That's what I have been giving! At a point I asserted it, and then late backed it up.

Quote:If loss of power doesn't imply weakness I don't know what does.

It implies that the character isn't omnipotent and can be overpowered.

Quote:In the context of a damsel in distress trope, the female character is under the power and influence of the male villain, she relies on the powers of the male character, and she serves no other plot function then to provide some catalyst for the male character's progress and development. By every definition of the word that means "weak".

Not always a male villain, but sometimes a monster or robot. Sometimes a group.
Sometimes her plot function is very simple, but looking at it in a way that makes the female appear weak is a confirmation bias.

Quote:Because you don't think so is not a good enough reason. You need to provide a rational argument to the contrary.

I completely agree. But because you see it is also not a good enough reason for it to be considered objective.

Quote:However, developers inability to adequately market to them is of no concern to this argument.

Why not? You said that there are more games where males save females, and I said it is to do with women being less likely to buy such games. Unless you are now giving up your statistic argument.

Quote:The concern here is whether or not developer are, inadvertently or otherwise, disparaging the female gender through their plot devices.

And I am saying they aren't. They are creating a cliché artificial setting for the player to move through a story with an incentive.

Quote: Thus far the better arguments have been put forward that they are doing just that.

I disagree. I have broken down your arguments many times.

Quote:It doesn't matter if the game sells well or not.

Tell that to the publishers.
"Hey, I have this game that probably won't sell but it will try to invoke a positive attitude to the culture we have."
Prepare to be laughed at.
I, however, am no promoter of the free market.

I may be able to give this in another context.
I like rap music. I hate mainstream rap. I prefer to listen to artists like Dan Bull and Greydon Square.
A lot of the mainstream stuff is about going to clubs, doing drugs and self-promotion. I don't think that is a healthy lifestyle, and is a scourge to society.
But it is ultimately harmless. It isn't really about promoting the behaviour of going to clubs, it is music for people already at clubs. It is more common than the stuff I listen to because it is what most people listen to and buy. I may find an anti-intellectual message deep in the song's lyrics, but am I going to go to those people in the club and tell them all how bad that message is for them? What if they tell me that they don't see that message and just see it as light entertainment? Am I supposed to then believe that they are "subconsciously" internalising the anti-intellectual message, even when there are some people there who are intellectuals and are just having fun?
If I then say that there needs to be more intellectual rap music, and that it says something about the culture am I right? I would say I'm not.
Does that make any sense?

Quote:The games do sell, nobody is arguing that. What matters is the cultural impacts of the games, at least in the scope of this conversation. Saying men and women are evolutionary different does nothing to diminish arguments made.

I think the analogy above explains this.
The evolutionary argument is just to explain why the storyline is so effective.

Quote:You do appreciate how the trope is harmful, both as a compulsion of violence and as demeaning the female character. You admit as much above. Which is good thing, because it is this that I and Anita from feminist frequency have been trying to discuss the whole time.

But my position is that the demeaning of the female character is considered a bad thing, and so that's why the player needs to stop it.

Quote:Your worthy of the effort of debating with, even if I don't always like what you have to say.

Thank you, I have respect for that. I consider you also worthy of debating. It isn't common that I find intelligent people that disagree with me and are willing to debate.

Quote:I think when you give someone adequate opportunity to provide justification and they don't it is reasonable to assume that they are not likely to ever do so.

I completely agree. But sometimes, in issues that are nuanced like this, it is more difficult to determine who is right, which arguments are actually more justified and so on. This is the thing when it comes to social sciences.
I guess I may not be the "average" gamer, but I am sceptical of messages that I don't see having an effect on my views.

Quote:That is your opinion. This is not an argument. You have to be specific.

I think my analogy deals with this.

If somebody points out a fallacy, and you call fallacy fallacy, that doesn't mean you are right. That just means you committed the very fallacy you accused your opponent of.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-08-2014, 11:40 AM
RE: Feminists now hijacking atheism? WTF?
Is my last post visible to anyone else?

If somebody points out a fallacy, and you call fallacy fallacy, that doesn't mean you are right. That just means you committed the very fallacy you accused your opponent of.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-08-2014, 12:02 PM
RE: Feminists now hijacking atheism? WTF?
(29-08-2014 11:40 AM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  Is my last post visible to anyone else?

It's not displaying becuase your quote tags are mismatched.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-08-2014, 12:26 PM (This post was last modified: 29-08-2014 12:52 PM by spinosauruskin.)
RE: Feminists now hijacking atheism? WTF?
(29-08-2014 12:02 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(29-08-2014 11:40 AM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  Is my last post visible to anyone else?

It's not displaying becuase your quote tags are mismatched.

Thanks, I'll fix that.

If somebody points out a fallacy, and you call fallacy fallacy, that doesn't mean you are right. That just means you committed the very fallacy you accused your opponent of.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: