Tropes vs Women

[Ryan Timothy B]

Ryan I'm surprised you were surprised that she's quite feminist. Her channel is called Feminist Frequency so I didn't think it would be a shock.

I wasn't surprised she was a feminist, I was surprised that how insanely opinionated and highly negative she was. She can't make one point without rolling her eyes. She really needs to work on her presentation and overall point.

And regarding the lego, I have no problem with there being a Lego set that is pink and "feminine" but she's trying to point out that the lego sets that have public service roles like fire fighters, police, etc have no female mini figs. Why not? Women are in every public sector serving their country and our kids should know that, boys and girls alike. I see a lot of guys saying they wont play games as girls, but in the same breath saying girls should just play with the sets even though the mini figs are all boys. Are you not seeing the double standard?

Thank-you. With your better approach to explain the point she was "trying" to make, you've helped me see what she was arguing. Of course though, unless all these fireman, police officers, etc sets all come with Lego men and not the non gender Lego character, then I'm still confused with why she's so upset with it being "for boys". If that's the case, she should've explained this by perhaps showing that all the Lego characters are painted male in these sets. I've grown up with Lego and all the sets my parents got me came with the non gender Lego face. The majority had male hair (or no hair with helmets), but there were also a few female characters too. So if Lego has changed this in the past 20 years and only have Lego men, then I understand her point that she didn't clearly make.

He stopped dancing, stopped all the things that could have been considered feminine because he learned that displaying an interest in feminine things was bad if you were a boy.

It happens in a work environment too. I work in a male only department of a factory (I actually have issues with it being male only with HR never hiring women for that department). I've had a few men harass me, calling me a woman or saying I'm feminine because I don't have the same interests as them. My interests pretty much consist of computers, video games, tv and movies. The coworkers were once talking about cars, sports and terrible 90s action movies whereas I had no comment on the conversations and did express that I had no interest in cars or sports, and that the movies they were talking about were quite rubbish. Which resulted in "That's because you're feminine", simply because I just don't have the stereotypical "masculine" interests. And for a while it became a regular insult - and calling me gay. Fortunately the immaturity has died down.

So yes, I completely stand by her overall ideals, just not her execution and presentation. She shows too much emotion, rolling her eyes, smirking, face-palm, etc to be taken seriously without enraging me. I find her very attractive (I'm not talking visually) with how passionate she is about the stereotyping in the sexual roles. I would love to be with a woman who was as passionate about these things instead of the accepting type. Although she does take things a little too far, like for example this video (skip to 1min 3seconds):
[embed=560,315]http://youtu.be/PD0Faha2gow[/embed]
As she explains these men, how are they being scumbags for trying to pickup women by offering to be their designated driver. I think it's a noble effort to get to know them and genuinely funny - and if the role was reversed, I would find it to be equal. Unless the message is that they just want sex, then I understand her point, but I don't see it that way. Heck, the one girl even puts her arm on him before he even offers. She also says they're trying to take advantage of these women but they don't look shitfaced drunk to me; looks like these ladies can make their own decision.

As for the next commercial, Twix, now I agree that he is a scumbag and so is the message. You can stare at the opposite sex all you want, just don't be drooling with your spouse beside you belittling her and making her feel unattractive. It's a terrible message that will simply make guys feel they're allowed to do this, that it's acceptable in society to make your spouse feel unworthy.

As for the "vent" Coors Light commercial, I don't see anything wrong with it other than that he's lying to her. I don't have any problems with a spouse hanging out with their friends. Drink, get shitfaced, etc just don't lie about it. Overall I don't see a problem with the message of this commercial as she knows where he is, just not the purpose of the visit.

Then her point of women becoming "just as raunchy like one of the guys" only shows that she must really dislike men. A comment like that has her saying that women would be pure and kind if it weren't for them trying to be like men. Now she's trying to separate women and men, basically shitting on all her previous points of trying to equalize the balance between men and women. I get confused by her.

If there are more female characters then like Ryan said, he wont be buying those games because they simply wont appeal to him.

What I meant by that, but I never actually said it, I don't want the majority of games to be solely one sex. I want the majority of games to have a choice like Mass Effect with the male or female Shepherd. But if it's strictly a female game, I then have very very little interest in it unless it's awesome. If I can play the male Marcus in Gears of War and my gf can play the game as a female Marcus, that would be ideal.

Why can't we all just watch these videos as is, take a little from them we find interesting/insightful, and then move on? Why do we see these videos as an attack on who we are as gamers, but don't have this same reaction when we watch Zero Punctuation?

Probably because Zero Punctuation generally pokes fun at a single game, not trying to change society and our lifestyle. Which is fine, just not easily done without receiving criticism and hatred.

As for disabling the YouTube comments and approval meter is obvious. We blindly follow society. If 99% of her votes are Dislike, many folk will just follow along without thinking for themselves what they honestly feel. The comments being disabled is simply because YouTube is filled with peckerheads.

[Myinah]

Waheela thanks for that

This might be a bit TLDR feminism for some but here goes

Ryan I want to address your points without coming across as patronizing myself so know I'm just trying to be as clear as I can regarding an extensive and complex subject and if you already understand feminism in greater detail than I give you credit for please accept my apologies. I also want to preface this by stating I don't mean any of this as a personal attack on you. I think you sound like a good guy so hopefully you get that

I first think that maybe you have a problem with Anita's message to the point it feels like she's being more overly emotional in her delivery than she actually is. When I viewed it I personally couldn't see anything like what you described. To me she was delivering a message in a reasonable and calm tone, with a few facial expressions to show her feelings about the ads. Admittedly eye-rolling and a bit snarky, but that's pretty standard for a lot of youtube reviewers and vloggers. I didn't see anything OTT, but that's just me personally. I could see how she might seem patronizing but again I think that's down to personal interpretation.

You like sexy women, Anita is saying that women being sexy in ads is a problem, therefore it might make you feel angry that she wants to take away something you enjoy and personally feel is harmless. I might be wrong, but if I'm not I can understand why she would irritate you. I don't want to derail this thread and make it about sexism in general, but it would be helpful to understand feminism and sexism in our culture a little better, and also what environment sexism really creates for women in this world. It will be too much for me to get into in any real detail in this thread so if I'm unclear at any point I apologise.

The ads themselves are mildly sexist. I would roll my eyes if I saw them, but I wouldn't be making any complaints to advertising standards. The Mikes Hard Lemonade one is referencing the fact that the guy is trying to get both girls home, under the rather obvious pretence of being their designated driver. He's clearly not doing it to be noble, he's doing it to have sex, potentially even a 3 way. The girls dont appear drunk in the ads, but have been drinking, and while it is fine for a guy to hit on a girl at a bar, fine to make an introduction, the guy is only interested in them as sexual objects.

The coors light one has Anita discussing how marketers have tried to make women laugh at this poor caricature of a woman. A girl so stupid she doesn't realise her partner lied to her to go watch the game and drink beer. It's supposed to make us feel like we would never be that dumb, or that we're so cool about this stuff our man would never lie to us! Again, on its own it's mildly sexist and nothing I would kick up a fuss about.

However, when you begin to put all these little ads together it starts to show women are less respected in our culture. We are the butt of the joke, the nagging wife, the stupid girlfriend, the sex toy. These micro-aggressions barely register alone but they infiltrate our culture, reinforcing a message that women are sex objects until they become your sexless, boring, nagging wife. And that is just one of many messages. Like you have experienced yourself, one of the worst thing you can be as a man is feminine. I like George Carlin's thoughts on some of this. But also think about the sort of insults that you hear like pussy, bitch, c**t. All feminine words at their heart. The worst thing you can call someone is feminine, even when you cuss them out. These too are micro aggressions. Tiny things alone, but when you add them all up it shows a rather pernicious attitude towards women threaded throughout our society.

The funny thing is though that all these sexy women in bikinis drinking are great until someone gets laid or hurt. Then people say "She's a slut!" or "She was asking for it!" or "What did she expect getting drunk in that skirt?" Being a woman is a scary thing sometimes, Louis CK puts it better than I ever could, but we are basically raised to be on constant alert to give us the best chance of not being attacked and assaulted. I'm not saying being a man isn't hard or scary, but men don't generally have to worry about things like "Will this outfit I'm wearing suggest I'm asking for it?" and "It's getting dark out, I better get my rape alarm out in case I'm attacked on the way there." It has been heavily implied by society that if we wear the wrong things, drink alcohol, or simply walk alone at night and get attacked, we bear the responsibility for the attack because we should not have been drinking, occupying that space or wearing a short skirt. We were "asking for it".

These messages we are sent are very conflicting no? By media standards we have to be sexually attractive and available, but not actually have sex lest we be labelled a slut, or look too sexy in case we get attacked. I think it can make us quite defensive when we are out and about too. When a guy I don't know comes up to me in a bar sometimes I do feel intimidated even though he probably just wants to say hi. But if you have seen the awful PUA guides maybe you will understand why I might be anxious. There are men out there who think we are essentially theirs to be taken, that don't take no for an answer. Some guys can be manipulative and forceful and we don't know what we are getting, but we do know if we make the mistake of trusting the wrong one we will potentially be blamed for whatever happens to us! The sexist, victim blaming media and some bad eggs are really spoiling it for the genuinely decent men out there. Not to mention the guys who stealthily grope us on crowded public transport and in packed nightclubs, and the ones who yell "compliments" at us in the street.

Anyway I said I would try not to get off topic, but here we are :/

Regarding the Sarkeesian hating men thing, Anita doesn't hate men. Current feminism is egalitarian and usually referred to as inter-sectional feminism, recognizing that white women are not the centre of the universe. Women of colour by far have the worse deal, not to mention transwomen, but we also recognize that sexism hurts men too. We want equality for all, but that means that men will lose a bit of their privilege when the playing field is level and so some men get defensive and yell "FEMINAZI!" at the first sign of that loss. Radical feminism and man hating was a first wave thing that people love to drag up even though it hasn't be relevant for quite some time, and the few who do behave that way would be shunned by the rest of us in the same way most Christians would shun the Westboro Baptist Church.

Her comment about "women becoming as raunchy as men" was taken from the book she references, "Female Chauvinist Pigs." (Interesting read btw regardless of whether you identify as feminist or not.) She isn't saying being raunchy is bad or that men are bad, she means that some women have adopted sexist attitudes to elevate themselves above other women with their male peers. Kind of throwing the rest of us under the bus again in the context of "feminine = bad". It's kind of the ladette culture of "Look at me, men! I can drink pints and eat steak! I never cry and I curse like a sailor! Hell I even stare at tits and can be your ladybro wingwoman! Give me your approval! I'm one of yoooooou!" (Not to say women can't genuinely be a ladette, it's more the elevation aspect of it, portraying other types of women as inferior.)

Sarkeesian is really saying that these women are objectifying women (trope or not) and laughing at sexist jokes for male approval instead of standing with other women and saying "Hey, this isn't cool." She isn't saying raunchy men are bad. She even says that pointing out sexism does not make one popular right after she mentions it. I mean it's definitely true! I feel anxious discussing feminism here because I don't want to get flamed, but I see the AGS community at large to be thoughtful and open minded so I have been willing to open up and risk getting slammed lol.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that if women are constantly portrayed as inferior, or as objects, and that it happens to often and so subtly we barely register it, it will begin to affect us. Again a lot of us are intelligent adults capable of making our own choices and understanding these adverts are incorrect while still laughing at them, but some people aren't. Some people don't think about these things and just sit there chuckling and thinking "Haha, yes! Women are like that!"

And of course we have impressionable kids who soak this stuff up like a sponge if no one intervenes, and as we know we can't always rely on parents to educate their kids on these matters. For instance I was walking home from the shops a while ago and a kid who must have been 10 or 11 yelled "Nice tits!" at me. I swear his bike had stabilisers he was that young. I was blown away that this had come from a child. I told him that it wasn't polite to talk to women that way, and that he should find a better way to talk to and compliment people. He seemed surprised I confronted him, but his response was to tell me I could suck his dick. I walked away shaking my head. I would have found it hilarious if it wasn't so deeply tragic. I'm sure he'll grow up to be a real charmer 

But it begs the question, where did he learn this stuff? And saying they learn it from their friends doesn't really cut it because where did the friends learn it from? Adults, TV or some other form of media will be the answer. Unless he had tourettes, he knew to shout a comment in public about my breasts, he knew it would earn him respect from his peers and he knew that ultimately there was nothing I could do about it. Not unlike the grown men who yelled obscenities at me from a passing car when I was bending over to dig out some ivy from my front yard.

Again I fear I am getting off topic so I will try to wrap this up

I understand what you mean now you have clarified you would like there to be a male and female option in games, so that you could still play as male and that women could play as female. That would be great. I think I would ask myself why I don't want to play as a woman though and if it is because you only enjoy the immersion of playing as your own gender or if it is because you don't think female stories would be as interesting or valuable in a non sexual context. If I wasn't willing to play games as a male character I would have missed out on some wonderful games like Deus Ex, Half Life, Zelda, Metal Gear Solid, Monkey Island etc... You would miss awesome games like Tomb Raider, Mirrors Edge, The Longest Journey, and Beyond Good and Evil. I just wonder what it really is that makes a female character seem like a lesser experience? Sorry if I haven't understood again

So yeah, that's just a bit of an explanation and hopefully I haven't gone too off topic or offended everyone. I'm trying really hard not to paint any particular group with a broad brush because we are all individuals at the end of the day. I'm sure there are lots of holes and things I've failed to explain properly, so again sorry for that!

[dactylopus]

Why can't we all just watch these videos as is, take a little from them we find interesting/insightful, and then move on? Why do we see these videos as an attack on who we are as gamers, but don't have this same reaction when we watch Zero Punctuation?

To be honest, I don't follow any of these vlogs (never even heard of them).  But I have heard of this series, as it is being discussed around the web (probably because of her overly successful $150K Kickstarter).  That's why I comment on this and not the others, because it's a bit of a pop culture phenomenon right now, it falls under current events more than simply game criticisms.

I personally find her to be a bit grating, and overly negative.  I am sure many other vloggers are being very negative as well, probably far more than she.  But she is trying to push an agenda, and one that I agree with for the most part, so it frustrates me to see her delivery come out in the way that it has.  Men and women react differently to things, and I think that what she says comes across strongly and positively to women, but not to men (well, not to all men).  Many men do see it as an attack to an extent, and that's because her tone and content are generally doing just that.  At least that's how it feels to me, and again, I agree with her.

You like sexy women, Anita is saying that women being sexy in ads is a problem, therefore it might make you feel angry that she wants to take away something you enjoy and personally feel is harmless. I might be wrong, but if I'm not I can understand why she would irritate you.

I'll agree to this statement.  I do like sexy women, and don't see any reason why they shouldn't appear in advertising.  It is a good way to market to men, surely.  It does not, however, need to be combined with chauvinist messages to be effective.  I feel that there should be more advertising that markets to women in the same (well, reverse) way.  The issue, I think, is that it wouldn't be as effective.  At least, that's what I'm led to believe by the lack of such ads.

I personally didn't find too much wrong with the Mike's Hard Lemonade ad, for example.  They are attempting to market the drink to men, so showing sexy women will help.  Showing those sexy women being somewhat responsive to their advances will help as well.  I don't think there's anything wrong with hitting on a woman, or even attempting to negotiate a ménage à  trois.  As long as the women are aware and treated respectfully, then what's the issue?  They didn't look too drunk to make a clear and informed decision about these guys.  They didn't seem to be treated as objects, rather as sexual humans.  I could see that same ad in the reverse being no different.

I get frustrated when any depiction of a sexy woman is taken by women to be nothing more than a sex object.  Can she not be a sexy woman, a human being who has and perhaps exudes sexuality?  Why must all sexy portrayals of women be deemed objectifying?  I suppose that's because many men are chauvinists, and there are men out there who actually only want to be with a woman for her sexual properties.  But I would think (or hope) that most men are not like this, and that many men would value the woman as a human being who can provide not only sex, but good company and stimulating conversation, perhaps even a relationship.  Men are often all lumped together as being collectively chauvinist through videos like these, and that can be as damaging to society as the sexist portrayals of women.

The Twix ad is definitely showing some sexist attitudes.  The man lying to his wife and her acceptance of the lie are clearly indicative of an attitude that it's OK to lie to women, and tries to say that women are dumb enough to fall for it.  It was also sexist in that it implied that men are a bunch of drooling sex fiends and liars.  Sort of equal opportunity sexism, but sexist all the same, and more strongly against the women.  I didn't like that ad at all.

The Coors ad is mildly sexist, in the same way as the Twix commercial.  It paints the woman as being a bit dumb in not seeing through his lie, and alludes slightly to her possibly being a nag (otherwise the man would simply be honest with her).  It also paints the man as being continually deceptive, and engaging in stereotypically macho activities like watching the game.  Again, equal opportunity, and more strongly directed at the woman.

However, when you begin to put all these little ads together it starts to show women are less respected in our culture. We are the butt of the joke, the nagging wife, the stupid girlfriend, the sex toy. These micro-aggressions barely register alone but they infiltrate our culture, reinforcing a message that women are sex objects until they become your sexless, boring, nagging wife. And that is just one of many messages. Like you have experienced yourself, one of the worst thing you can be as a man is feminine. I like George Carlin's thoughts on some of this. But also think about the sort of insults that you hear like pussy, bitch, c**t. All feminine words at their heart. The worst thing you can call someone is feminine, even when you cuss them out. These too are micro aggressions. Tiny things alone, but when you add them all up it shows a rather pernicious attitude towards women threaded throughout our society.

You make a lot of good points, and I'm not going to discuss the entirety of your post because I largely agree with you.

I agree that when you put all of these small things together they can depict women as being less respected.  Getting back to the original damsel in distress videos, they did illustrate that there is (and has been) a trend in gaming towards that trope.  Individually, there may be nothing wrong with some the games.  Often times the damsel in distress is the most appropriate story for the game, but it is certainly not the only appropriate story for any game.  I'll agree with many before me here and say that sticking to this trope could be indicative of poor writing or the easy story, but I'll also say that sometimes it actually works, and there's nothing wrong with the trope in and of itself.  It's when it becomes overused to the point of overshadowing all of the other story types that it becomes an issue.

The example in her video that bothered me the most was Star Fox Adventures.  The original design for Dinosaur Planet looked appealing, and it boggles my mind to think of why it was abandoned and shoehorned into the Star Fox brand.  I mean, I understand that it made sense to try to tie it to a brand for the sake of brand recognition, but to fundamentally change the game in the way that they did is unnecessary and reprehensible.

I understand what you mean now you have clarified you would like there to be a male and female option in games, so that you could still play as male and that women could play as female. That would be great. I think I would ask myself why I don't want to play as a woman though and if it is because you only enjoy the immersion of playing as your own gender or if it is because you don't think female stories would be as interesting or valuable in a non sexual context. If I wasn't willing to play games as a male character I would have missed out on some wonderful games like Deus Ex, Half Life, Zelda, Metal Gear Solid, Monkey Island etc... You would miss awesome games like Tomb Raider, Mirrors Edge, The Longest Journey, and Beyond Good and Evil. I just wonder what it really is that makes a female character seem like a lesser experience? Sorry if I haven't understood again

I agree.  In many cases, especially with character driven games, there is a clear decision on the part of the developers to make the character either a male or female, and often times it is tied directly to the story they are trying to tell.  I do, however, understand where Ryan may be coming from, as we have seen that all too often a female representation of a character can be overly feminized to the point where a male might not be comfortable playing (much like the pink LEGO sets).  I don't think any of the games you mentioned would fall into that category, though, and I thank you for pointing out that there are good, positive representations of both genders in gaming.

[Myinah]

You also make some good point Dactylopus. The dinosaur planet one in particular and I also agree sometimes the damsel is right for the story, but how you write her makes a world of difference, as shown by characters like Elaine Marley. Turned into a solid gold statue, still bags of attitude lol.

Also I wouldn't play a lot of the pink fluffy games that are marketed to women so I don't blame you. There is nothing wrong with anyone liking or playing those games male or female, but I tend to prefer more serious narratives. Also, can't believe I forgot this one, but if guys didn't play as a female protagonist they would be missing out on the Blackwell games! How could I forget Rosa?! Wouldn't that be tragic!

I personally have no problem with sexy women being used in advertising, but I think it is the way in which it is done sometimes, and the frequency that bothers me. And sexy women aren't just used to sell to men, they are used to sell to women too. I could find a plethora of implied nude or half naked shots of women in my magazine rack just from a couple of womens mags. Selling jeans? Topless woman bent over in a doggy style position biting her lip. Selling boots? Naked woman curled up hugging her knees with just the boots on. Selling make up? Naked woman with bright red lips biting her lip.

It's not clever or original, its just the same thing over and over. Women as sexual objects. I feel like it's difficult to say many of these images are of empowered women simply exuding sexuality because a lot of them are in submissive positions with no names or personality and a vapid expression on their faces. I'd say something like the sexy women in the diet coke adverts are showing sexually empowered women. They are exuding their desire for sex without being on all fours crawling around half naked. But we look at the shirtless guy in the ad and he's the one being objectified. The ad was a big hit because it was one of the first instances we ever really saw a guy being objectified in the same way as a woman.

I also think if we saw men being sexually objectified as much in advertising I would have less of an issue with how often it occurs with women. Boobs are like background noise in our society. Sort of like how the boobs in game of thrones were no big thing because we are used to seeing breasts everywhere, even in page 3 of our tabloid papers. But dicks?! Even Sex and the City did't show dong in amongst its plentiful boob and bush displays. I took no real issue with the boobs or sex scenes in Game of Thrones because they actually showed full frontal with both genders.

And also objectification in itself isn't always a terrible thing at appropriate times. It's annoying if I'm at work and a guy tell's me my ass looks great because at work I'm a professional, but I have no problem putting on a nice dress and going on a date or to a bar and being viewed as attractive. If a guy doesn't know me of course all he has to go on in that situation is my looks. Again in consensual one night stands or relationships based solely on sex, objectification isn't bad.

Anyway, as I said the Mikes Hard Lemonade ad didn't really bother me. It was more eye-rolling because of the lame frat boy stereotype and the pretty girls is so overplayed. Like they couldn't be bothered to think of a clever way to sell it so they just stuck in some hot ladies because men will buy if they think pretty girls will sleep with them. Don Draper would be disappointed!

TLDR; I like sexy women too, I have no issue with sex in advertising, but I do wish it was a little more equal in terms of the frequency we see males in these states of undress and sexual positions. I also wish ads could be a bit more creative. Sexy ads like the Mikes Lemonade one are never the most memorable because they are just like every other lazily written ad out there.

I hope no one feels demonized by my comments. I'm not an authority on the subject and I don't want to make guys feel like they can't sexualize women, or compliment a woman without being sexist because that's simply not the case! In any case I'm impressed with the thoughtfulness of the responses in this thread So used to seeing the conversations end before they've even started with much yelling!

[Ryan Timothy B]

To me she was delivering a message in a reasonable and calm tone, with a few facial expressions to show her feelings about the ads.

Imagine it this way: I have my own YouTube channel, and since you can't see this fake video, imagine the stuff in asterisks being what I'm doing on camera. I show the Twix commercial. I then start to say:
"See how obviously angry and possessive this wife is? *face palm* Her husband can't even enjoy the view of these beautiful women without getting nagged at. She's so bad that he has to lie to her to prevent any kind of argument. *rolls eyes* Women need to be more open to the idea that men have desires and should be free to view whomever they want, just as they should as well. If she wanted the same kind of attention, perhaps she should be wearing a tank top and miniskirt like these women in this obviously warm weather instead of that dull church sweater. *tilt head upwards with pride*"

Of course these aren't my views, and I did over exaggerate my point as I simply couldn't find a decent commercial to use for a proper example. If I made this video, men like this man would see me delivering the message in a rational manner and would agree with my argument. They wouldn't see attitude in my expressions. On the other hand, most women would see me as being a complete chauvinistic ass, reading my facial expressions as over the top and even more aggravating than my views alone.

Anita isn't this extreme of course, but after watching the Mike's Hard commercial I get blind sighted by her facial reactions. It takes her over the top argument that he's a scumbag and makes her message even more aggravating to listen to. Shifting her eyes. Widening them. Raising her eyebrows. Everything about her delivery here gives her argument so much less weight. It's probably something along the lines of what Andail mentioned with picking up on subtle cues.

You like sexy women, Anita is saying that women being sexy in ads is a problem, therefore it might make you feel angry that she wants to take away something you enjoy and personally feel is harmless. I might be wrong, but if I'm not I can understand why she would irritate you.

She hasn't really expressed this at all, other than mentioning the Twix commercial needlessly having 3 models. I agree with her arguments of not having women shown in a degrading fashion, but from my perspective, I only see the men looking degrading (other than Paris Hilton, but that's her in a nutshell). In the Twix or Coors Light commercial, one could argue that these women being trusting is shown as degrading to their overall intelligence, I do not. Sure it shows them as being naive, but in all honesty, they're accepting they're spouse's word in trust. If you can't trust someone to this degree, you shouldn't be with them. Which is why it makes these men look like assholes.

I would've preferred to see the Twix commercial done this way: at the end, after she kisses him, he should've hung his head and said "I'm sorry, I was goggling", as she passes him the baby she says "I know".

He's clearly not doing it to be noble, he's doing it to have sex, potentially even a 3 way.

I never meant noble as in a man helping walk an old lady across the street. I meant he asked in a respectful and courageous manner to introduce the idea and show his desire to get to know either of these ladies. I'm not disputing he doesn't want to have sex with either of them (or even a 3 way), I simply mean I feel he seems like he genuinely wants to get to know either of them.

I once heard on the radio, the DJ said "Men have a relationship to get sex. Women have sex to get a relationship.". I sadly agree with it in most cases - from the male perspective, or at least from my own. Sex and the physical bonding, ie: hugging, holding, kissing, etc, are the main driving points as to why I want a relationship. Everything else, from having the best friend you'll ever have, knowing everything about someone and caring for them beyond anything you could imagine, knowing or sharing their interests, loving them, that's the bonus. A most amazing and beautiful bonus that, which to me, completes the package (or relationship if package sounds too objectifying).

Like you have experienced yourself, one of the worst thing you can be as a man is feminine.

Isn't it the same with women where the worst thing you can be is masculine? I would think so anyway. Those are probably sexist views, but I don't see women and men as being the same. In all honesty, I actually feel women are the superior sex. I do. They're far more beautiful, caring, passionate, mature, outgoing etc (my own subjective opinion, obviously). But I do know that men are superior on many things though, things that the majority of women couldn't do with their natural anatomy.

The funny thing is though that all these sexy women in bikinis drinking are great until someone gets laid or hurt. Then people say "She's a slut!" or "She was asking for it!" or "What did she expect getting drunk in that skirt?"

This is a hard topic to cover. There is no male equivalent to a bikini or miniskirt (I mean in terms of sexual attraction). Men are naturally designed to want to dominate and do their business with any woman they're attracted to. When a woman is wearing a skimpy dress or bikini, there's nothing more visually inviting and accessible, besides being naked. That's like swimming in a tank filled with friendly sharks, with meat wrapped around your body and then being surprised that these shark acted on impulse. Or even walking around the street with large sums of money in your hand.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying women shouldn't wear skimpy clothing. I'm just saying that there are guaranteed chances you will turn someone on. Which is likely why they wear these outfits, besides the comfort of being nearly naked. Rape shouldn't be on their mind when they choose their clothing, but "am I sending the wrong message?" should.

We could also take this discussion to the lighter version where the guy doesn't rape her, but seduces her to have sex just to release his sexual tension because of the clothing she's wearing. Then she feels used and wonders why the guys that show her interest are all assholes. Also thanks for the Louis CK vid, that was brilliant and enlightening.

Here's some honesty about myself and likely a lot of men, when I see a woman at the bar wearing a cleavage shirt and/or short shorts, I see her as a sexual object because that's what she's dressing as. I have very little respect for these women. Their only use to me in that social environment, in the clothing they're wearing, is the view they offer. I am massively more attracted to a woman in a simple t-shirt and jeans. This woman, now I would like to know her as a person.

[kid yelling at you] But it begs the question, where did he learn this stuff?

That brings me to a argument I had with my older brother. I was arguing how my niece, his daughter, shouldn't be listening to the music she's listening to at her age. That she should be listening to kid appropriate music. The girl, at 4 years old, knows the lyrics to Sexy and I Know It. It was horrifying the first time I saw it. I was completely stunned. She was in her car seat with her headphones on (yes, she has an mp3 player with THESE songs on it) and she was at the "I've got a passion in my pants" part of the song singing along when she spread her legs open pointing at her crotch with an up and down hand gesture.

His argument is that she's going to hear the songs anyway, why not allow her to listen to them in front of her parents instead of having her think she needs to hide what she listens to... ummm.. because she's 4!!?? The only source she has to this music, at this age, is her damn parents. Needless to say there's no swaying his thoughts on proper parenting, he's very stubborn. Not to derail the conversation too much, but yes, parents are a huge influence in the majority of what habits or traits kids learn.

I think I would ask myself why I don't want to play as a woman though and if it is because you only enjoy the immersion of playing as your own gender or if it is because you don't think female stories would be as interesting or valuable in a non sexual context. [..] I just wonder what it really is that makes a female character seem like a lesser experience?

Both of those, yes. And to be honest, I am indeed absolutely sexist. I would find it immersion breaking to see a woman wielding a large chainsaw gun and heavy armor while kicking and curb stomping massive opponents - it's bad enough that a guy is doing these things. Then you could argue that she could just be a physically large and strong woman, but if we're going to go that route and take sexual interest out of the character I'm playing as, I may as well just play as my own sex.

I've watched the videos on Tomb Raider and I couldn't accept the poor design choice of her constantly talking to herself "I just got to keep going" "I need to find a way out of here" "What kind of contraption is this?". This is what they generally do in female character games. I find it annoying. It seems they generally design women as chatty and excessively voicing their every thought. I'd rather it show your current "quest" in text rather than hearing her tell me herself, breaking the 4th wall. I'll likely buy it one day with a really good Steam sale though. Then Longest Journey and Beyond Good and Evil are just way too fantasy/childish for my liking (and honestly typical female games). Not to mention their annoying choice of voices. Why can't they find realistically average voices for females.

[dactylopus]

To me she was delivering a message in a reasonable and calm tone, with a few facial expressions to show her feelings about the ads.

Imagine it this way: I have my own YouTube channel, and since you can't see this fake video, imagine the stuff in asterisks being what I'm doing on camera. I show the Twix commercial. I then start to say:
"See how obviously angry and possessive this wife is? *face palm* Her husband can't even enjoy the view of these beautiful women without getting nagged at. She's so bad that he has to lie to her to prevent any kind of argument. *rolls eyes* Women need to be more open to the idea that men have desires and should be free to view whomever they want, just as they should as well. If she wanted the same kind of attention, perhaps she should be wearing a tank top and miniskirt like these women in this obviously warm weather instead of that dull church sweater. *tilt head upwards with pride*"

Of course these aren't my views, and I did over exaggerate my point as I simply couldn't find a decent commercial to use for a proper example. If I made this video, men like this man would see me delivering the message in a rational manner and would agree with my argument. They wouldn't see attitude in my expressions. On the other hand, most women would see me as being a complete chauvinistic ass, reading my facial expressions as over the top and even more aggravating than my views alone.

Anita isn't this extreme of course, but after watching the Mike's Hard commercial I get blind sighted by her facial reactions. It takes her over the top argument that he's a scumbag and makes her message even more aggravating to listen to. Shifting her eyes. Widening them. Raising her eyebrows. Everything about her delivery here gives her argument so much less weight. It's probably something along the lines of what Andail mentioned with picking up on subtle cues.

I agree.  This is what I was trying to get at when I was talking about how men and women will react differently to things.

You like sexy women, Anita is saying that women being sexy in ads is a problem, therefore it might make you feel angry that she wants to take away something you enjoy and personally feel is harmless. I might be wrong, but if I'm not I can understand why she would irritate you.

She hasn't really expressed this at all, other than mentioning the Twix commercial needlessly having 3 models. I agree with her arguments of not having women shown in a degrading fashion, but from my perspective, I only see the men looking degrading (other than Paris Hilton, but that's her in a nutshell). In the Twix or Coors Light commercial, one could argue that these women being trusting is shown as degrading to their overall intelligence, I do not. Sure it shows them as being naive, but in all honesty, they're accepting they're spouse's word in trust. If you can't trust someone to this degree, you shouldn't be with them. Which is why it makes these men look like assholes.

I would've preferred to see the Twix commercial done this way: at the end, after she kisses him, he should've hung his head and said "I'm sorry, I was goggling", as she passes him the baby she says "I know".

Ryan makes some excellent points here.  In fact, reading this made me realize what I was really trying to say, but I was perhaps a little afraid of being sexist myself.  I mean, I acknowledge the complaints that are being made about the women, and how they may be viewed as gullible in these commercials, but I actually think that the men are portrayed in a more negative light.  The only problem is that there is no overt indication that the men are the bad guys here.  In fact, the men get away with their deplorable behaviors.  I think that is why the ad is viewed as more negative to women, because women are the ones who are suffering the consequences.

The funny thing is though that all these sexy women in bikinis drinking are great until someone gets laid or hurt. Then people say "She's a slut!" or "She was asking for it!" or "What did she expect getting drunk in that skirt?"

This is a hard topic to cover. There is no male equivalent to a bikini or miniskirt (I mean in terms of sexual attraction). Men are naturally designed to want to dominate and do their business with any woman they're attracted to. When a woman is wearing a skimpy dress or bikini, there's nothing more visually inviting and accessible, besides being naked. That's like swimming in a tank filled with friendly sharks, with meat wrapped around your body and then being surprised that these shark acted on impulse. Or even walking around the street with large sums of money in your hand.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying women shouldn't wear skimpy clothing. I'm just saying that there are guaranteed chances you will turn someone on. Which is likely why they wear these outfits, besides the comfort of being nearly naked. Rape shouldn't be on their mind when they choose their clothing, but "am I sending the wrong message?" should.

We could also take this discussion to the lighter version where the guy doesn't rape her, but seduces her to have sex just to release his sexual tension because of the clothing she's wearing. Then she feels used and wonders why the guys that show her interest are all assholes. Also thanks for the Louis CK vid, that was brilliant and enlightening.

Here's some honesty about myself and likely a lot of men, when I see a woman at the bar wearing a cleavage shirt and/or short shorts, I see her as a sexual object because that's what she's dressing as. I have very little respect for these women. Their only use to me in that social environment, in the clothing they're wearing, is the view they offer. I am massively more attracted to a woman in a simple t-shirt and jeans. This woman, now I would like to know her as a person.

I completely agree.  It is a very difficult topic.  Women will say that they should be able to wear whatever they want, and I agree with that as well, but they should be aware of how they are viewed.

Wearing little skimpy outfits is almost like wearing a sex object costume.  The men who openly objectify these women, through degrading cat calls or worse, are merely reacting to that costume.  I'm not saying it's OK to react in that way, these men are largely assholes.  I'm just saying it shouldn't be surprising in the least.  It should be expected to some degree.

Edit:  I've been having this discussion with others outside the forum, and wanted to clarify something.  Women shouldn't have to worry about how they will be perceived, but they should be aware.  It is never OK to rape or take advantage of a woman (or man), and I am in no way trying to say that a woman's choice of clothing indicates that she is asking for this type of reaction.  But a woman should be aware of the type of reaction that her choice will elicit.  She should make an informed decision.  When you go to a job interview, you dress in a way that evokes an air of professionalism.  That is what is appropriate for the way in which you would like to be viewed.  But what reaction will you get when when you go to a bar where there are a lot of intoxicated horny men, and you are dressed like a stripper or a streetwalker?  How will you be viewed in this situation?  Obviously you're not asking to be raped or abused, it would be foolish for anyone to assume this.  But maybe you are projecting a strong air of sexuality.  Not inviting objectification, but appearing nonetheless as an object of sexual desire.

All of this discussion can be very difficult, because men and women are inherently different.  They exhibit different behaviors, and have different understandings of what it all means.  I'm glad we're getting a lot of interesting responses here.  It's good to know there are a lot of open minded people on these forums who are willing to discuss these difficult issues.

[Andail]

I would've preferred to see the Twix commercial done this way: at the end, after she kisses him, he should've hung his head and said "I'm sorry, I was goggling", as she passes him the baby she says "I know".

Ryan makes some excellent points here.  In fact, reading this made me realize what I was really trying to say, but I was perhaps a little afraid of being sexist myself.  I mean, I acknowledge the complaints that are being made about the women, and how they may be viewed as gullible in these commercials, but I actually think that the men are portrayed in a more negative light.  The only problem is that there is no overt indication that the men are the bad guys here.  In fact, the men get away with their deplorable behaviors.  I think that is why the ad is viewed as more negative to women, because women are the ones who are suffering the consequences.

I don't think that any modern feminist today is saying that women are the only victims of a patriarchal society. There are a number of areas where men suffer from conservative gender roles, like how they're less likely to get custody of the children in a dispute, how they have to pay more for insurance (as Ryan points out) and how they die more violent deaths, etc.

But modern feminism describes these issues as yet more symptoms of a flawed patriarchal system. Men lose custody disputes more often because they generally spend less time with their kids, since they focus on their careers instead (largely due to an outside pressure to succeed financially, or just conservative gender ideas). Men have to pay more for car insurance because men in general drive more recklessly, which sucks but then again is just another tragic consequence of how we are supposed to act and behave (young men are encouraged by each other to drive fast), and Ryan, I'm sure Anita would love to discuss this, since it's a perfect example of what she's trying to say (treating genders differently is destructive), but I guess she was simply focusing on games and media in that video.

Men die more violent deaths because men generally don't want women to participate in wars (they fear they couldn't concentrate with female soldiers around them...) and thus wars are historically fought between men. A typical modern feminist would love to have female soldiers as well, so it's not like feminism is only about protecting women at all cost.

Okay, this is getting a bit wordy, but I want to touch upon something that is being repeated everywhere, here and in comment sections throughout the web:

Do something constructive instead of whining! Create a game of your own, dammit!

This is absurd for two reasons:
1. Anita clearly isn't a game maker.
2. Anita isn't simply saying that we need more games with strong female characters, she's saying that we need to stop producing games with stereotypical gender roles. It's not like she can undo others' doings.

I mean, it would be a totally differnt thing if I made videos and started blogs complaining that games need more profound stories, because a) I'm a game designer, and b) by creating a game with a more profound story I'm actually remedying the situation. So that's simple. But saying that Anita should make a game and stop complaining is like telling an animals' rights activist that he can create his own laboratory, where he's free not to torture animals. While an interesting thought, it doesn't really undo the wrongdoings of others.

A lot of people here are saying that she doesn't provide a solution, she's just complaining. I think she's said quite clearly what the solution is: Stop depicting women stereotypically. It's not like she's telling people to invent some kind of brand new vaccine or something; it's actually a simple suggestion. "Hey, I see you're planning on giving your female character huge, gravity-defying boobs and a big cleavage. How about rendering those breasts more realistically, and dressing her more practically? Just a thought."

[dactylopus]

Well put, Andail.

You're absolutely right that modern feminism attempts to put us all on an even playing field.  The label of 'feminism' actually comes across a little too strongly in one direction.  It would be much better if we could call ourselves something else that more clearly states the purpose, similar to how the debate about "gay marriage" became about "marriage equality."  Traditionally, feminism has been geared towards affecting women, and touched mainly on women's issues, but the truth is that these viewpoints have combined with other issues of gender inequality to become what we have today.  Often times, I believe that some men (and women) overlook that fact and focus mainly on either improving things for women or the threat of these views on men.

I agree as well that it is absurd to expect her to go make a game of her own.  I was, maybe, not clear enough on my opinion here, because I did mention her game idea and her $150K Kickstarter campaign.  I didn't mean that she should be making the game herself, just that $150K spent on that game would probably serve the cause better than a series of drawn out videos on the topic.  I might be wrong.  I do applaud her for her work on these videos, despite how I may feel about the actual videos themselves, because her complaints have highlighted important issues and stirred discussion.

I'm looking forward to the next part of her series.  The damsel in distress is only one of 12 different tropes she aims to discuss, so it should be interesting to see what else she has to say.

[xil]

Okay, this is getting a bit wordy, but I want to touch upon something that is being repeated everywhere, here and in comment sections throughout the web:

Do something constructive instead of whining! Create a game of your own, dammit!

This is absurd for two reasons:
1. Anita clearly isn't a game maker.
2. Anita isn't simply saying that we need more games with strong female characters, she's saying that we need to stop producing games with stereotypical gender roles. It's not like she can undo others' doings.

I mean, it would be a totally differnt thing if I made videos and started blogs complaining that games need more profound stories, because a) I'm a game designer, and b) by creating a game with a more profound story I'm actually remedying the situation. So that's simple. But saying that Anita should make a game and stop complaining is like telling an animals' rights activist that he can create his own laboratory, where he's free not to torture animals. While an interesting thought, it doesn't really undo the wrongdoings of others.

A lot of people here are saying that she doesn't provide a solution, she's just complaining. I think she's said quite clearly what the solution is: Stop depicting women stereotypically. It's not like she's telling people to invent some kind of brand new vaccine or something; it's actually a simple suggestion. "Hey, I see you're planning on giving your female character huge, gravity-defying boobs and a big cleavage. How about rendering those breasts more realistically, and dressing her more practically? Just a thought."

Yes, the first argument is painfully obviously wrong. We know this, it's been said by almost everyone in rebuttal, let's just put that down to someone not being able to formulate his/her argument very well.

Yes, she does indeed make a point, a point that could be explained in 30 seconds (very much like you have done in the above paragraph) that she instead decides to bury in 10 minutes of complaining and showcasing all the games she hates so much.

What the 'create your own game' remark should be saying is: SHOW US EXAMPLES of games that prove your point Anita for the MAJORITY of your video. Since Anita's point is only opinion (I don't ever see this social 'scientist' ever presenting facts or figures?) she can easily switch the positive/negative parts of her video around, in my opinion

Anita doesn't provide a solution, in my opinion, because she is making points like "How about rendering those breasts more realistically, and dressing her more practically? Just a thought." which plain and simply are aimed at totally the wrong place. She is not going to change the minds of huge gaming companies that make unrealistic breasts because as has been pointed out a billion times, what sells, sells. She needs to educate the CONSUMERS so that when they see unrealistic breasts, instead of thinking "Sweet, I love big jiggly boobs, I'll buy that!" they think, "Wow, that's a shoddy representation of a woman, what a crappy developer just trying to get my money with rubbish like jiggly boobs, I will not buy that!". Her videos are not aimed at consumers, so I don't think she's doing anywhere near as much good as she could be doing.

Funnily enough, the more I read comments from users on this board, the more I dislike Anita's videos (and I'm talking about the people defending her). I tend to agree with almost all defence of her because at the end of the day, she's doing nothing wrong with producing these videos and they will do some good for the world (I'm just nitpicking because I feel like it and it's my right to do so if I want to, in response to why I don't moan at Zero Punctuation (which is completely different anyway as it's for comedic value)). I just think it's funny that almost all of the people defending her put their points across in a better way, they are far less condescending, patronising and also enforce Anitas videos to the point where I think you should get in touch with Anita and tell her to add your points so that less people can complain about the videos!

[Snarky]

This is one of these debates that inevitably expands out from the original issue into a huge political topic as a whole. I think it would be nice to get it back on track and focus more on the merits/issues with particular storytelling tropes, but first there are a few random points I'd like to address:

Now, a truly modern, non-stereotypical story would have a young man be taken advantage of by various women, and end up taking revenge on them. Because if we want women to appear strong and independent, they too must be able to handle ending up on that end of the spectrum.

I'm not convinced that would be all that progressive or all that non-stereotypical. I feel like there's a whole sub-genre of stories where the nice-guy beta-male is exploited by "strong women" (or one strong woman), before he realizes that women are bitches, and he fights back to reestablish his masculinity and rightful dominance and put them back in their place (though he may not always succeed). I think it goes without saying that the gender politics/sexual neuroses of this template are often a bit iffy. (It's also very old, e.g. the story of "The Merchant's Wife and the Parrot" in the Thousand and One Nights.)

There's a recent movie where a male doctor is duped and has his life ruined by a series of scheming women, until he manages to turn the tables and get out on top (in part by abusing his position and breaking his doctor's oath). I noted at the time of watching how uncomfortable the whole setup was, particularly with his antagonists being secret lesbians and he fighting for his "traditional family." (If you don't care about spoilers and want to know the name of the movie, click...)

Spoiler

Side Effects by Steven Soderbergh

[close]

It's one thing to say that her video caused someone to go away and develop that idea (obviously a good thing), but it's another to suggest that it will sway the big corporations (which we have already seen in LEGO's case was a complete disaster as they just created a barbie cupcake making LEGO set because they are idiots).

Lego are far from idiots. The girl-oriented "Lego Friends" line was the result of trying to answer the question "Why are so few girls playing with Legos?" and involved serious and thorough research into how girls play and pick toys, and how adults choose which toys to buy for them. What they came up with was successful both design-wise and commercially.

I don't think that any modern feminist today is saying that women are the only victims of a patriarchal society. There are a number of areas where men suffer from conservative gender roles, like how they're less likely to get custody of the children in a dispute, how they have to pay more for insurance (as Ryan points out) and how they die more violent deaths, etc.

But modern feminism describes these issues as yet more symptoms of a flawed patriarchal system.

You might question how meaningful the notion of "patriarchy" is, if what we're talking about are cultural norms that impose undesirable constraints and expectations on both sexes, and are policed and perpetuated by women just as well as men.

Sure, lots of - perhaps most - popular culture appears to cater primarily to men, and that is unjust. Also, as a somewhat separate issue, lots of popular culture promotes regressive, demeaning or plain unhealthy views on gender roles, sexuality and body image. (Arguably no less in products made by women for women, such as the Twilight series, than in products made by men for men.)

I guess my issue with "patriarchy" is that it tends to set up men and women as opponents or even enemies, and I don't think that's necessarily the most constructive perspective if we're not talking about outright oppression.

Men lose custody disputes more often because they generally spend less time with their kids, since they focus on their careers instead (largely due to an outside pressure to succeed financially, or just conservative gender ideas). Men have to pay more for car insurance because men in general drive more recklessly, which sucks but then again is just another tragic consequence of how we are supposed to act and behave (young men are encouraged by each other to drive fast), and Ryan, I'm sure Anita would love to discuss this, since it's a perfect example of what she's trying to say (treating genders differently is destructive), but I guess she was simply focusing on games and media in that video.

Men die more violent deaths because men generally don't want women to participate in wars (they fear they couldn't concentrate with female soldiers around them...) and thus wars are historically fought between men. A typical modern feminist would love to have female soldiers as well, so it's not like feminism is only about protecting women at all cost.

Not sure whether you're giving your own analysis or a stereotypical feminist analysis there, but you're ascribing an awful lot to acculturation that is more likely explained in large part by actual biological differences between males and females. Differences in hormone balance (testosterone, for example, having been linked to aggression) lead to differences in "typical" behavior. Similarly, differences in size and muscle mass lead naturally to specialization where men become primarily responsible for hunting and warfare.

Also, since in our evolutionary past it would take a woman nine months of pregnancy + maybe a year of breastfeeding to produce one child - or in rare cases two, exceptionally three - while one man could inseminate many women in a short period of time, from a group survival standpoint an individual woman was less expendable than one man, and ought to be protected "for the good of the clan/tribe," i.e. gene pool. Presumably this differentiation in reproductive effort is ultimately the factor responsible, through natural selection, for the other physiological and behavioral differences between the sexes.

This is not to claim that "male dominance" is the natural order or that culture plays no part, but if we fool ourselves into thinking that it's only hidebound thinking that ensures "boys will be boys" and correspondingly for girls, we're bound to go wrong in our strategies for gender equality. (The, in my view misguided, criticism of Lego being a case in point.)

[xil]

It's one thing to say that her video caused someone to go away and develop that idea (obviously a good thing), but it's another to suggest that it will sway the big corporations (which we have already seen in LEGO's case was a complete disaster as they just created a barbie cupcake making LEGO set because they are idiots).

Lego are far from idiots. The girl-oriented "Lego Friends" line was the result of trying to answer the question "Why are so few girls playing with Legos?" and involved serious and thorough research into how girls play and pick toys, and how adults choose which toys to buy for them. What they came up with was successful both design-wise and commercially.

Agreed, but you're missing my point as I was too broad with that statement, my bad. What I mean is that yes, LEGO will make something that sells (let's not go down that route again as we all know something needs to sell). LEGO are idiots in the respect that in an effort silence feminists they thought that a pink cupcake making machine was going to work. I mean, come on. (Yes, I'm well aware silencing feminists is a broad statement, but that HAD to be at least ONE of the goals of that LEGO set.)

[Snarky]

I really don't think so. They weren't trying to placate them. They didn't need to, since feminists didn't have any particular beef with Lego prior to this, AFAIK; it's all in reaction to this new line.

[Calin Leafshade]

I think part of the problem with discussion oppression of a group with a bunch of people who are the (albeit unwilling) oppressors is that the oppression is simply invisible to them(us).

Ryan's statements sort of exemplify this. "I like girls in sexy outfits, the don't mind doing it, no one is forcing them, they get paid, everyone is happy" or alternatively "It's just an advert, what harm can it cause?". It's a difficult thing to get across to people because it's so ingrained in our culture and seems so banal and harmless on the micro scale.

It's also hard to apply a kind of pseudo-libertarian perspective as some tend to do with something like pornography for instance. The reasoning goes that a women can do whatever she likes with her body and, providing it sells, porn should have no boundaries providing people are willing to perform in the films. No one is being coerced into doing anything they don't want to do so where's the harm,right? But would that really be best for society as a whole?

Also, a note on 'patriarchy' as a term. It does not imply that men are necessarily actively oppressing women by choice or that there is some kind of antagonism there. The patriarchy is not a group of powerful men or indeed men as a gender. The patriarchy is a description of the power structure within society and the gender norms associated therein. Men are also hurt by the patriarchy as Andail rightly pointed out

[Snarky]

I think part of the problem with discussion oppression of a group with a bunch of people who are the (albeit unwilling) oppressors is that the oppression is simply invisible to them(us).
[...]
Also, a note on 'patriarchy' as a term. It does not imply that men are necessarily actively oppressing women by choice or that there is some kind of antagonism there. The patriarchy is not a group of powerful men or indeed men as a gender.

[Calin Leafshade]

What? Are you implying that the oppressors I was speaking of are necessarily male? I made no such assertion.

[waheela]

I think part of the problem with discussion oppression of a group with a bunch of people who are the (albeit unwilling) oppressors is that the oppression is simply invisible to them(us).

I think Calin brings up a really great point here. I think Myinah, might have brought it up too. The people who have privileges in our society usually don't even realize they have them. When we learn about it, we tend to dismiss it because it doesn't affect our lives or we've never seen any negative effects from it within our social circles. It's the same for me, too, in some respects. I am embarrassingly unaware of race issues most of the time because I'm whitebread and have never had to deal with any of the repercussions of being someone of color in the US.

[Trapezoid]

Want to address some of the tone arguments bubbling in this thread-- Overly focusing on Anita's facial expressions, or the infamous "why not call it ____ instead of feminism/patriarchy?" question. Those are time-wasting diversions from the actual issues that are fairly plainly presented by Anita/feminism. Reassess why you're put off by those things.



Also, completely aside from the issues, want to commend Anita on keeping her superhuman cool in the face of unimaginable backlash and threats. Meltdowns aren't uncommon for highly-criticized people on the internet. No clue how she's avoided it.

[LUniqueDan]

I'm afraid the real issue here is the usual "Damned if you do, damned if you don't issue" relatively common with most of the "cultural studies".

• You saw Sylvester / Arnold / Chuck Norris bleeding endlessly on the floor ? It's the cult of machism !(Patriarchy)
• You saw Sarah M. Gellar doing the same ? It's the proof we love to watch women suffer ! (Patriarchy)

This high-level bitching is useless, sterile and can't be use in order to rationnaly solve any gender issue. (I agree there's a lot of problems related to women condition, I'm not denying it)

• A video game is targetting a male (whatsoever it means) audience ? It's sexism ! (Patriarchy)
• A video game is targetting a female (whatsoever it means) audience ? It's full of stereotypes ! (Patriarchy)

In fact, any speeches / narrations / discourses / stories that is not a meta-speech / critique can be easily  stretches to be accused of being patriarcalistic. Try ! The olny game 100% kosher will be something like a Q&A game where the player has to identify the thropes.

• Mario died a zillion times saving the princess ? It's the damsel in distress trope (Patriarchy)
• Mario didn't give a damn ? It showed how we tacitely agree with violence against women ! (Patriarchy)
• Peach saves Mario ? Despiction of Women as slave/male'tool ! (Patriarchy)
• Princess Peach didn't give a damn ? It's the bad vamp/bitch trope ! (Patriarchy)
• They both save Luigi in a cooperative mode ? They kill poor throopas in a violent game !(Patriarchy)

Using a cultural study grid, you can always find something. Mainly because they systematically fail at Popper's criterias.

Now, if you disagree with me, it's because you're anti-french

• I'm not !!! : It's on the unconscious, proof that i'm right  (Anti-french=racism=Patriarchy)
• Dan, don't be a jerk, you know me, I'm not !!! That over-reaction prove it ! (Patriarchy)
• Hey you bozo, I'm french too !!! You're a self-hatred french ! (Patriarchy)
• Ok, then I am !!! I told you so !!! I won !!! (Patriarchy)

Peace. May Blade Runner be with you.

[Trapezoid]

Since when is analysis the same as bitching? How is it damning anything? There are games deserving of damning, but nobody's ripping Mario to shreds, just using it as a simple example of how some of these tropes manifest.
The idea with feminism is that patriarchy and misogyny are all over the place and bleed into everything, but if you get good at *identifying* it you can help to lessen it. Media awareness is a good thing.
Oh, and condescendingly butting in thinking you and you alone have discovered "the real issue here" is preeettty patriarchal.

Dudes gotta stop flipping out whenever a feminist identifies sexism in something. It's critique, not a boycott. Did you know feminists are still allowed to enjoy something even if they know it's problematic? So are you.

[Snarky]

What? Are you implying that the oppressors I was speaking of are necessarily male? I made no such assertion.

If the "we" who are the oppressors are men + women = practically everybody (you already disavowed that you were referring to "a group of powerful men"; I assume the same goes for "a group of powerful men and women"), that would seem to imply that the oppression is therefore invisible to all of us and so entirely notional.

I'm trying to point out the contradiction because I think "patriarchy" is intimately bound up with a particular understanding of gender issues where men (and certain women who have "false consciousness" or are traitors to their sex, as the whole "Female Chauvinist Pig" concept implies) are oppressors and the rest of women are the oppressed. And that's an appropriate model in some cases! But given the progress of women's rights and status in our society over the last hundred years, I think in many cases it doesn't really fit very well (any more), and is more of a barrier to understanding and to rallying support for change than it is a useful concept.

The people who have privileges in our society usually don't even realize they have them. When we learn about it, we tend to dismiss it because it doesn't affect our lives or we've never seen any negative effects from it within our social circles. It's the same for me, too, in some respects. I am embarrassingly unaware of race issues most of the time because I'm whitebread and have never had to deal with any of the repercussions of being someone of color in the US.

Ani DiFranco said "privilege is a headache that you don't know that you don't have." Sure, there's something to that. (As for the race thing, I think that's what Obama was recently trying to articulate when he commented on how black people saw the Trayvon Martin case and the Zimmerman verdict, from a perspective born of a lifetime of experiencing harassment and police indifference.)

However...

Want to address some of the tone arguments bubbling in this thread-- Overly focusing on Anita's facial expressions, or the infamous "why not call it ____ instead of feminism/patriarchy?" question. Those are time-wasting diversions from the actual issues that are fairly plainly presented by Anita/feminism. Reassess why you're put off by those things.

This is why the concept is controversial. Calls of "privilege," "derailment!" and so on are so often used as a way to dismiss the comments and concerns of those not in the approved "victim" or "oppressed" category. In the discussion, lack of privilege becomes privilege in itself!

My position is as a traditional liberal, favoring equality and freedom for all men and women, and committed to the idea of rational, universal debate as between equals in order to bring society forward in a democratic fashion. (While acknowledging that this is an idealization.)

Feminist groups have developed intricate theories and a whole jargon (which the Geek Feminism Wiki conveniently documents; they would no doubt class me as a "concern troll") to exclude, in practice, anyone who doesn't agree 100% with them from needing to be heard or considered. Although they vociferously deny it, this is a power-tactic to control debate (similar to many of the tactics they decry), and I find it inimical to liberal principles. I also think it reflects an hermetic impulse that serves to marginalize them from the mainstream. (After all, it's people who don't already agree with everything they say that they need to convince.) It's a crying shame that not all decent women and men want to call themselves feminists, and I think the blame for that is about 50-50 smears by their opponents on the one hand and shooting themselves in the foot on the other.

I do want to get back to the original topic, though. I don't have time to write at length right now, but some bullet points:

(Probably) non-controversial points

• We should definitely aim for better and more varied representations of women in computer games
• More women in more important positions in the industry would hopefully help with that, and would be a good thing in itself

(Maybe) more interesting opinions

• Sexualized portrayals are not inherently bad. Enjoying the portrayal of sexy people is perfectly natural
• However, ubiquitous sexualization is unhealthy on a personal and societal level, and the commercialization and exploitation of sex (because "sex sells!") demonstrates the problem when capitalism intersects with lizard-brain instinct (see also: junk food, gambling addiction, ...)
• Pop-culture has the potential to effect great changes in people's thinking and attitudes, and that gives creators a responsibility to think about the message their work communicates
• OTOH, worrying about every possible stereotype or implication can be creatively crippling, and PC over-sensitivity often produces bland, non-challenging works
• It's hard to come up with and tell a story, and the thing with tropes like "damsel in distress" is that they work
• A lot of these tropes are quite old, and once meaningfully reflected aspects of society. Do we need more new, modern tropes that acknowledge and bolster greater gender equality? What would they be?