Gender Diversity / Politics in games (was Tropes Vs. Women)

[LeighCb]

You haven't responded to SOL's patient and considered post.

[NEG]

You did troll the depression thread and you were banned for doing so.

You haven't responded to SOL's patient and considered post.

I did not troll the depression thread, but yes, did receive a 24 hour slap. Folks did not want to hear/understand my side, I took my woes elsewhere rather then think about that thread. The end.

I possed SOL and will be re-watching Anita's stuff. The one on Lego should be amusing. Never even considered gender and Lego.

[Anne Summers]

Men desire women and women desire men.. It's human nature.

I was in a relationship for six years and in that time I can say that I didn't cheat once.. There were some close calls don't get me wrong! In the end she cheated on me.. So you live and learn.. lol

Since then I have never really got close to another woman. Except for one recently then she started with this "I want to be friends" nonsense. Usually when they start talking about feelings and stuff towards me I would run amile.

Probably worth mentioning that this post just got uncovered in the "cheating" thread after it was bumped yesterday. I really think it goes a long way to explaining recent events in here.

[Spacehost]

Let's not play Pop Psychologist, please.

[Anne Summers]

Stop trying to limit my free speech.

Joking aside, I see this as valid comment - I make no claim to psychological expertise but I still think its fair, based on my judgment, to comment on how past events in people's lives may have shaped their attitudes and opinions today. We've spent quite a lot of time trying to understand, as much as is possible, the GG/ anti-feminist/MRA mindset in this thread. I don't see that as harmful and hopefully it can be constructive to the debate, in some ways.

[rockstarjez]

Probably worth mentioning that this post just got uncovered in the "cheating" thread after it was bumped yesterday. I really think it goes a long way to explaining recent events in here.

LOL

[NEG]

Does this mean I don't have to watch as Shrew's done everything for me?

I kid, I kid.

[Shoes]

In this video it's clear she views her opinion as explicitly "right", and what she generalises as the male reaction to Twilight as "wrong".

Why should she need to stress 'imo' in an opinion piece?

[Dudley]

Why should she need to stress 'imo' in an opinion piece?

She shouldn't but it's certainly valid to critique that opinion and I feel Shrew has done that fairly if not entirely (imo, natch) correctly.

[DukeOfEarlsfield]

Well, she also says a lot of things in this video:

including the criticism of "choice feminism", discouraging women from choosing what they find empowering for themselves, because any women that are empowered within this current system (which is an oppressive patriarchy), are in turn contributing to the system and having a negative impact on other women's lives.

No. She doesn't say that. Watch it again because you've mis-interpreted it. She says that some choices made by women can have a negative impact. She's making the argument that any successful action made by a woman is not intrinsically a feminist action simply because it was done by a woman. Instead, a feminist action would be an action that benefits other women.

She then goes on to say women have narrow choices... well, women have pretty much the same choices open to them as men as far as I can see.

*sigh* Really? You don't see that some women in the world have less options open to them than men? You think that women in Ireland not having access to abortion doesn't limit their choice to walk away from pregnancies? You think that women in poor countries not having access to education because they're not bread winners doesn't limit their choice of jobs?

She's specifically criticising "choice feminism" for making the same basic mistake you are: the fact that everything is pretty much ok in your immediate vicinity doesn't mean that everything is ok everywhere. And if the choices that you make limit the choices available to other people then you may, unwittingly, be part of the problem.

It's also pretty insulting to women that are successful to suggest they've done so by making an oppressive system work for them. How have they done that if not by hard work? Is the suggestion they've somehow colluded with patriarchal forces, or "sold out" in some way?

Even taking into account your above mis-understanding that's an incredible reach. It's complete twaddle to suggest that's what she's saying.

Of course I know she's not talking about videogames, but society at large, however do women seriously have it that bad nowadays that she would make these allusions to slavery?

What are you talking about? You're not seriously trying to say that claiming that society puts constraints on all of us is an "allusion to slavery".

On the positive side, that's comfortably the most well argued critique of Anita Sarkeesian (although not the TvsWiVG series as you didn't even touch that) that I've come across by a non-feminist. On the negative side it's still utter rubbish based on total mis-understanding of what she's talking about.

[Fry Crayola]

Which is to say gaming can and should do a lot better, but there is nothing intrinsically "wrong" with, for example, the damsel-in-distress trope. Critique it for being lazy, or non-progressive, but subscribing to the notion that it intentionally or unintentionally supports, as Alex put it, "nefarious patriarchy" is a matter of contestable opinion.

I think few put forward the argument that the presence of a damsel here and a damsel there make a sizeable and direct contribution to bring about said "nefarious patriarchy". Rather, it is one component of an entire culture - not limited solely to games - that unthinkingly relegates women to a second class status across various media.

At best, one can say that the repeated use of helpless female characters does nothing to challenge negative perceptions of women. Media has a circular relationship with the culture that produces it - the artistic output reflects values and preconceptions held, both consciously and unconsciously, by its creators. More positive depictions of sidelined groups can and do have a direct, positive effect on how they are perceived and treated in reality, even if one holds that neutral or tame negatives do not have a corresponding opposite effect.

At worst, those depictions do have a negative effect, reinforcing already held negative opinions and unconsciously sowing the seeds of that in others. The thing is, there isn't that much difference between the best and worst cases when it comes to any single instance, rather the cumulation of examples absorbed from an entire culture of which games are a part. That's the common message I've taken from all Sarkeesian's videos - re-use and reinforcement of themes for which, even if one chooses to believe are not causing a net negative effect, it's certainly worth considering how taking a moment to examine the situation may produce a net positive.

[NEG]

Videos in order of Anita's YT channel! Began watching 19:20 on the 13th, commenting as I go. Won't be skipping/fast forwarding anything unless I say.

1) Dollhouse Renewed

Nothing to say, know nothing about the show. Interesting that the other examples in the video that are serial killing dramas (csi, bones, dexter) are also shows I've not watched. Dexter was one I was mildly interested in catching. Nice earrings. Oh, haven't watched Buffy either.

2) Why we need you Veronica Mars

Similarly no idea about the show. I'd argue there have always been strong female characters on TV (she mentions rarity), but obviously the majority is not. (which makes her comment correct I guess? Depends on what people like watching/what they manage to catch?) She says shows usually don't display/mention racism and classism...I'd say we've always had plenty of both on TV throughout the years Do you want it to be it's own genre with non-stop racism? /sarcasm

3) Beyond True Blood's Sensationalism

Another show I know nothing about. Writers can make vampires any race/colour/sexual preference they want, really. In fact isn't that more unusual to have gay vampires compared to typical plain old straight dracula sucking the blood out of some fair lady? Also, vampires beside Christopher Lee don't exist. Well okay, maybe the duck one from ITV...

Her examples seem valid in the sense that this is typical boring TV, though I've no idea if that girl still manages to stand up for herself later on in the show, for example. Just from this one scene I wouldn't judge the entire development of that character. But of course, viewers would need to realize Anita herself is commenting on the show up to that point.

She makes a point near the end that women live in constant fear against violence on a daily basis? Erm...really? On some level we're all cautious of our surroundings is as far as I'd go in believing that. Do women tend to be (perhaps the better term: need to be) more cautious? Depends on what your doing? Not a statement I agree with, if anything it diminishes the idea of confident women.

It's pretty clear she's still learning how to film these, actually starts to point out her annoyances with scenes, the camera is still a little too close for comfort.

4) The Real Reason Guys Should Hate Twilight

Twilight is another I've stood away from thankfully, though now it makes sense why it got so popular male character-wise. There is indeed nothing wrong with a sensitive vampire. What Anita implies what he actually is sounds like bad writing. (Twilight bad writing, that is)

5) The Bechdel Test for Women in Movies

First thought is if it is an actual real test film makers use that's pretty sad. My method is just write what one thinks is good and don't care what anyone would possibly think about it. If it's good it'll be told as such through it's own merits.

There is nothing wrong with movies not applying that test either, mind. Many of the examples are amazing movies.Why is Wall-E even in the examples? The focus wasn't even on humans/human interaction in general. Something like Austin Powers is too obvious and shouldn't be there, either. Hrm, I could swear LOTR had some non-male discussion among the women...Toy Story is another silly example, the toys love Andy, darn it. Home Alone, as well.

6) Caprica and the Queerness of Sam Adama

Another no idea about. The first example is great indeed (about not needing a long blarg coming out story). Nothing wrong with evil, though. Plenty of straight evil in our movies too. Nice glasses.

7) Too Many Dicks - Video Games

Depends on the game, but there has always been variety. You could just about make the same complaint about animal mascots in the 90's (whom, no doubt, had dicks too). Is the majority McDick especially before the indie movement got bigger and bigger? Sure. McDick doesn't affect gameplay, though.

8) Fembots, Advertising and Male Fantasy

Yeah, crappy ad campaign for sure. And the second. Whilst control as a fantasy (for both genders, and by that I mean something like tying up in the bedroom fun) is fine, does it have a place in beer ads? Ads in general? Her point is valid about sci-fi as well, with all the imaginative fantastic things you could think up, a robot women is the one you go with?

9) What Liquor Ads Teach Us About Guys

Whilst the ads made me laugh they're still valid pointing out, sure. Can't help feel it's far more innocent then something like female robots with beer installed, though. The last example concerns me though, should guys not be captivated by a good looking woman crossing the street? Surely on some level women like looking good just as much as men when out and about? If it's again more a case of 'does it need to be in a ad?', eh, again, I'd class it as far more innocent. Oh, and appreciated the brief Johnny Cash. Was probably around the time he died, actually..

10) No Girls Allowed: File Sharing Culture and BitTorrent

Not sure if BitTorrent can choose the ads it puts around, but if it can, shame on them indeed. I've been using AdBlock for years so don't usually see ads on the net in the first place, but it was getting worse and worse in general for sure. Not sure if the ads were telling her she doesn't fit in, though. I'd think more a case of ad makers going where the money (clicks) is and not being considerate.

I'll carry on later. Hold onto your butts.

[Scribblor]

Without wanting to criticise the fact that you're actually, finally watching Anita's videos for yourself rather than just dumping someone's dreadful 'rebuttal' video here and calling that discussion... Those aren't the Tropes Vs. Women in Video Games videos that people have actually been asking you to watch.

[Unofficial Who]

Stop trying to limit my free speech.

Joking aside, I see this as valid comment - I make no claim to psychological expertise but I still think its fair, based on my judgment, to comment on how past events in people's lives may have shaped their attitudes and opinions today. We've spent quite a lot of time trying to understand, as much as is possible, the GG/ anti-feminist/MRA mindset in this thread. I don't see that as harmful and hopefully it can be constructive to the debate, in some ways.

I think it's out of order and creepy to bring other people's personal stories into this thread. We're better than that.

And as much as I hate to say it, I think you owe Jez an apology for doing that.

[NEG]

Without wanting to criticise the fact that you're actually, finally watching Anita's videos for yourself rather than just dumping someone's dreadful 'rebuttal' video here and calling that discussion... Those aren't the Tropes Vs. Women in Video Games videos that people have actually been asking you to watch.

I figured the whole channel would be even better. Think of it as a slow amazing wank leading up to Christmas. A short wank wouldn't be anything great, we need to make it last.

[SMD]

Fucks sake

[Mentazm]

I like Tina Fey's advanced Bechdel Test.

Is the woman over 40?

Do they still have their own teeth?

Does their face move when they laugh?

[Dudley]

You've fundamentally misunderstood the whole premise. The Bechdel test is a very very low bar set by feminist critics to show how few female characters have any agency in films. It isn't used by film makers or to determine plot. It is used as a very very blunt tool to measure the imbalance of characterisation in the film industry.

Absolutely and it's disturbing how often they don't pass it.

That said, expecting Toy Story to pass it would be bloody stupid. I doubt that would pass "Two blokes talk about something that isn't a woman" either.

[NEG]

That's a huge assumption on your part. Try walking alone in the dark in an unfamiliar area as a woman. You absolutely do feel anxiety. I've never walked around as a man as a point of comparison, but the risks of different types of crime objectively vary by gender. Men are more often victims of violent crime from people they know (eg gang crimes, homicides), but stranger attacks, sexual assaults, and harassment are all much more prevalent towards women. There is also a difference in perception of vulnerability between the genders, whether or not there is a real discrepancy.

IMO I'm the epitome of a confident woman. I'm successful, outgoing, physically strong, and I've still felt incredibly vulnerable on many occasions. In fact I've been the victim of crime several times. One I can remember was my flat being burgled which I nearly interrupted. I couldn't have been more relieved to have done so in the company of a male friend. On the times I've been alone (eg cornered in my room by an aquaintance and facing sexual assualt) I've had to choose non-confrontational strategies for escape, because of the very real knowledge that I was physically smaller and weaker and would not win if it came to a physical confrontation.

You've fundamentally misunderstood the whole premise. The Bechdel test is a very very low bar set by feminist critics to show how few female characters have any agency in films. It isn't used by film makers or to determine plot. It is used as a very very blunt tool to measure the imbalance of characterisation in the film industry.

But your repeated premise is "this is the way it is, men look at pretty girls, it's just innocent", which is your belief not a fact, and something I've refuted pretty comprehensively already.

1) There are certainly situations where women can feel more at risk, not denying that. Anita said all the time though, perhaps she certainly didn't mean that literally.

It goes for men as well, we'd just as much be feeling blarg walking around in the dark.

2) Doesn't sound like a good test, honestly. At least in terms of 'does a woman talk about anything but males' as Anita put it. Measuring a film as a good film, is, well, better. Does that mean we should ignore lack of that female element in movies? No. But no writer should be applying a set of rules upon themselves, it would be better if it was just common sense instead. (to write good, varied characters)

3) The latter ads were more innocent then the fembot stuff, women check out guys as well. Is it more a case of having both kinds of ads in a fairer society? Or not at all of either? Sexual attraction not used for any ads perhaps? I wonder how you'd advertise perfumes/fragrances without sex appeal to a degree...

Well I mean, I just try out whatever in Boots, but you know!

[Opinionated Ham Scarecrow]

It goes for men as well, we'd just as much be feeling blarg walking around in the dark.

I'm trying so hard not to just virtual slap you, but your dissonance is actually unreal. Do you honestly think that as a man walking at night you have any idea whatsoever how this might be a little more risky for a woman? I'm beyond asking you to use your brain at this point. I remember being in my first ever job at 15 and talking with a girl about a nice walk I found on my break and she was all like mate, I'm a girl, nice off the beaten path walks are a no go. That point made sense to me at 15 Neg. A guy thinks nothing of popping to an all night garage at midnight, and most women would never consider it for a second. That you don't get that as an adult just tells me you have turned your brain to blancmange with fucking Sonic games.

[Gorf King]

Videos in order of Anita's YT channel! Began watching 19:20 on the 13th, commenting as I go. Won't be skipping/fast forwarding anything unless I say.

1) Dollhouse Renewed

Nothing to say, know nothing about the show [...] Nice earrings.

2) Why we need you Veronica Mars

Similarly no idea about the show.

3) Beyond True Blood's Sensationalism

Another show I know nothing about.

4) The Real Reason Guys Should Hate Twilight

Twilight is another I've stood away from thankfully

5) The Bechdel Test for Women in Movies

First thought is if it is an actual real test film makers use that's pretty sad. My method is just write what one thinks is good and don't care what anyone would possibly think about it.

6) Caprica and the Queerness of Sam Adama

Another no idea about. The first example is great indeed (about not needing a long blarg coming out story). Nothing wrong with evil, though. [...] Nice glasses.

7) Too Many Dicks - Video Games

Depends on the game, but there has always been variety. You could just about make the same complaint about animal mascots in the 90's

WHAT?!

Tell me something. Is this thread called 'St. NEG's Crock of Shit'? If not, could someone please shut this fucking inane babbling diary of emptiness down and let the discussion return to the topic at hand. Otherwise, it's a bit of a waste of everyone's fucking time coming in here at all.

[DukeOfEarlsfield]

But then what of other media? Most people here will be aware of the 'male gaze' in film, and whilst alternative/indie cinema offers a counterpoint, the objectification of women persists in mainstream cinema and is often emulated in videogames as they aim to replicate the cinematic. But what of genres which are based entirely on the characteristics and tropes Sarkeesian finds problematic. A particular example being the slasher/horror genre. Violence and sexual objectification are celebrated tropes in these films! They were a staple for myself and my teenage mates growing up. How can you progress that genre to appease Sarkeesian and her followers without turning it into something completely different and destroying it entirely?

You have got to be shitting me. Much of the best slasher/horror films of the past few years have either ignored age-old gender tropes or have taken great delight and pleasure in subverting or exploring them. You are also dismissing how many of the best slasher/horror movies of the past also did the same.

In other words, the horror films that are the most aware of the stupid gender stereotypes that exist in movies tend to be the best ones.

Finally: "appease Sarkeesian"? Really, fuck off with that shit, she hasn't taken anyone hostage and she hasn't issued a list of demands. You're straying into full blown MRA/GG talk with that post.

[NEG]

I'm trying so hard not to just virtual slap you, but your dissonance is actually unreal. Do you honestly think that as a man walking at night you have any idea whatsoever how this might be a little more risky for a woman? I'm beyond asking you to use your brain at this point. I remember being in my first ever job at 15 and talking with a girl about a nice walk I found on my break and she was all like mate, I'm a girl, nice off the beaten path walks are a no go. That point made sense to me at 15 Neg. A guy thinks nothing of popping to an all night garage at midnight, and most women would never consider it for a second. That you don't get that as an adult just tells me you have turned your brain to blancmange with fucking Sonic games.

There is a difference, not denying that. Men would be weary too was what I was getting at. Very few of us are truly fearless of all situations.

[NEG]

You've fundamentally misunderstood the video you've watched, my response and the underlying premise to all of that, on every single point. I don't know how many other ways I can explain it. I'll try one last time:

The Bechdel test is not an overarching test of quality of plot for film-makers to do as they write the film. It is a test to be done as a survey of all films out in a particular sample to show how few films have meaningful female roles. The fact that even when the bar is set that low, so few films pass it is a clear indication of the sexism inherent in the movie industry.

In a fairer society, female bodies would not be used as the main defining characteristic of women's values and would not be limited to the narrow range of appearance currently deemed as attractive (and that ideal would not be so unrealistic as to require photoshop and/or plastic surgery to achieve). Likewise making male bodies hyper-masculine and idealised, and valuing only a narrow range of looks for men, is part of sexism too. People can be attractive at a variety of ages, and with a variety of body shapes, and with a variety of skin-colours. People can be valued for their achievements, their qualities, and what they do as well as what they look like. If every single advert features pulling a slim-but-curvy-straight-white-girl-in-her-20s as every man's goal, and pulling a chisel-jawed-gym-buff-straight-white-man as every woman's goal, how does that impact on an audience of all colours, ages, shapes, sexualities and tastes? Overall, it makes people feel inadequate and disenfranchised. Girls of ever younger ages are dissatisfied with their bodies and feel they are ugly, 90% of teenage girls are unhappy with their body (2/3rds of under 13s had already tried to diet). Young women feel more hopeless about equality than previous generations. And it is the perception of what men want (note, not what men really want, but what women think men want, which is much more influenced by the media) that determines whether women feel okay about their own bodies. Men were historically much more contented with their body shape, but I suspect the same patterns will in time be evident in men, for the same reasons, but both are a product of sexism.

1) I didn't say The Bachdel Test was a plot quality test, and I understood from your last post that filmmakers do not use it. Anita didn't describe the test like you did. If it was very literally 'women speaking more then about men' as Anita described, my response is in relation to that. I then said it doesn't sound like a good test and hope filmmakers don't adopt to it (due to the reasoning I gave above). I suggested/hoped that writers having common sense of well written characters to be better, rather then forcing themselves.

2) I think you changed the discussion slightly rather then answering my question on advertising. So sexual attraction in advertising is fine, nothing wrong with that, cool. As long as the humans represented in those ads come in all shapes and sizes. I agree!

[Anne Summers]

I've been contemplating how best to respond to ZOK. There was a discussion going on about the last Fem Freq video before I also needed to respond to but I'll leave that now... I did find some critiques of Sarkeesian's tropes videos but they weren't presented very well: a drunk guy who made some valid criticism but also he was drunk and the video was stupidly long. He missed some pretty key points himself before descending into Gamergaterism hate speech. There are lots of similarly dumb or misguided responses, which is frustrating. A female game developer gave a pretty good effort, but lacked detail and included some unconvincing fence-sitting. So nothing to present to you here.

The other idea I had was tackling the Tropes videos myself, but the problem is that's a lot of content to wade through and I'm conscious of getting dragged down into the mire and writing essays on this myself. Also, I'm not sure we're on complete agreement as to what Sarkeesian's position actually is, which means any attempt to define a counter-position will only result in more disagreement. We sort of agreed that her position could be summarised as:

but ZOK and Alex have stated:

Essentially, that Anita is not using the tropes videos by way to pass criticism on an "oppressive patriarchal agenda", which tallies with her statement about how "systems of oppression are maintained by our participation in them...larger than any one persons choicres", she's pointing out what's wrong with the system, so what is there to argue with that? Well, she also says a lot of things in this video:

including the criticism of "choice feminism", discouraging women from choosing what they find empowering for themselves, because any women that are empowered within this current system (which is an oppressive patriarchy), are in turn contributing to the system and having a negative impact on other women's lives.

She then goes on to say women have narrow choices... well, women have pretty much the same choices open to them as men as far as I can see. It's also pretty insulting to women that are successful to suggest they've done so by making an oppressive system work for them. How have they done that if not by hard work? Is the suggestion they've somehow colluded with patriarchal forces, or "sold out" in some way?

So I'm not sure I agree with you Alex... I think this is direct evidence that Sarkeesian does view these tropes as perpetuating an oppressive patriarchal agenda, even if this isn't explicitly stated in her tropes videos, she herself states, "We are born together under the oppression of patriarchy" - "within a systematic and institutional framework you see how many subtle ways, under what Bell Hooks calls, white supremacist capitalist patriarchy" This isn't being selective about Sarkeesians sources, Bell Hooks is who Sarkeesian herself name checks in influencing this thought process.

"We cannot choose a way out of our constraints"... What constraints? The constraints of being objectified in some small sections of a niche subculture? Of course I know she's not talking about videogames, but society at large, however do women seriously have it that bad nowadays that she would make these allusions to slavery? The only choices available to women are those "amenable to patriarchy"? Again, how can you rationally agree with these points Alex? It's patently not true.

So while I was scouring Youtube, I did find another useful video to make my point, but it's from Sarkeesian herself. It condenses all of my problems with her tropes videos into one morsel.

The Real Reason Guys Should Hate Twilight.

In this video it's clear she views her opinion as explicitly "right", and what she generalises as the male reaction to Twilight as "wrong".

"I wanna explain a little confusion with the guys" So all guys? She knows what all guys opinion on this film is. And the guys need this elucidation, because they're confused. Luckily Anita is here to help with some clips from some Twilight Youtube reviews made by men.

Firstly a 40 year-old man wearing a backwards cap who wanted Twilight to be about "bad-ass vampires, kicking ass and drinking blood". Then another clip mocking the vampire for being too sensitive, followed up by some random Twitter abuse. The point Sarkeesian is trying to make, by cherry-picking internet responses is that the predominant male response to Twilight is to direct homophobic rhetoric at the vampire, and demand more violence. Disregarding the facts the clips she chose are from video blogs which are obviously exaggerating their reaction for comic affect, and that internet trolls have been calling everything gay forever. But discounting the latter it's still "wrong" to criticise the character of Edward for being too sensitive and not violent enough.

Now, is this because all men are homophobic, blood-thirsty neanderthals or is Anita deliberately missing out some crucial contextual information, and misrepresenting the male response to make her point? The contextual information being that Edward isn't criticised for not measuring up as a man, he's criticised for not measuring up to centuries worth of vampire fiction. He doesn't behave like a vampire. Vampire's are suppose to be, to coin the phrase of a guy with his cap backwards, "bad-ass". There's absolutely nothing "wrong" with that whatsoever.

She continues: "The right reason is that Edward is a creepy, manipulative, controlling, overprotective, stalker"... or "sensitive"? I guess she isn't a fan of Twilight either.

"So as well as being emotionally abusive, you want Edward to be violent sadistic and physically abusive?"... what? LIKE A VAMPIRE, YOU SAY?

Then the icing on the cake, "So the next time you're with your buddies repeat after me..." complete with subtitles and a Sesame Street bouncing ball. It's pretty clear Anita's intended audience is a man, any man, and she is patronising and educating him for his mistakes. Her Tropes vs. Women videos have toned down the chastisement, but it's still there.

This is all fine and I honestly have no criticism with this type of critique of Anita. But this isn't what most of Gamergate say about her - Most of Gamergate would write what you wrote, and then add "And this proves that Anita is an evil, manipulative, man-hating liar, who is part of an international conspiracy to de-masculinate men and impose a matriarchal communist dictatorship, and ban boobs in video games."

[NEG]

2) I think you changed the discussion slightly rather then answering my question on advertising. So sexual attraction in advertising is fine, nothing wrong with that, cool. As long as the humans represented in those ads come in all shapes and sizes. I agree!

To expand on this, where would we draw the line? We all want to be healthy, we all don't want to be fat, we all want to look good and sure society should dictate less on what looking 'good' is but at the same time not all role models are bad, beauty isn't inherently bad either (though certainly exploited to terrible degrees as Geek mentions). Is a society where the thin blonde blue eyed girl seen as equal in beauty to FatMcFatters (in physical terms) even possible? I mean that with all respect in the world to fat people, because I'm fat too.

More fat role models might give me less anxiety and less social stigma and all the rest, but it wouldn't eliminate the fact that if I were slimmer it would be good for me.

I think it comes down to teaching 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder' more often then it probably is now. I think we're (painfully slowly) moving towards that with/if the sugar tax starts to happen, for example.

[squirtle]

The Bechdel test is not an overarching test of quality of plot for film-makers to do as they write the film. It is a test to be done as a survey of all films out in a particular sample to show how few films have meaningful female roles. The fact that even when the bar is set that low, so few films pass it is a clear indication of the sexism inherent in the movie industry.

Whilst I agree with most of what you've written here, I don't agree that the Bechdel Test is an indication of inherent sexism in the movie industry. Sexism, for me, implies a purposeful decision to be sexist. I'm not sure that half the films that fail the test are inherently sexist, nor the product of a sexist set of ndividuals. I don't like these kind of broad stroke statements, when the real reason is probably far more complex. Don't get me wrong, I'm well aware of the notion that media is a representation of the society that produces it, but I don't believe that the media that is produced is sexist because the society that produces it is a patriarchal one.

[Fry Crayola]

I understand this, but what is the positive outcome? What does Sarkeesian want?

If Nintendo start to diversify the role of Peach (which they already do to some extent), which is one of the easier points to address, will the games be any better for it? Perhaps on a superficial level but mechanically probably not.

Super Mario Bros would be the exact same game, mechanically speaking, if you played as Maria and had to rescue Pete. It'd be the same game if your objective was Luigi, Toad, or a cup of coffee, or indeed if it was nothing but the desire to defeat Bowser.

The damsel is an excuse plot, particularly in the case of the Mario games, and as such the basis of the criticism is that its repeated use unthinkingly casts women in a certain light through exposure. The positive outcome being sought, as far as this trope is concerned, is that people aren't repeatedly being shown, however seemingly benignly, that women are helpless creatures in need of a dashing male hero to get them out of some sticky bother (and, in other tropes, into a different kind of sticky bother). That more variety and broader representation that casts people of all types paints everyone in a much better light than the default tropes.

Don't make the mistake of thinking this is a targeted criticism of a particular game. Sarkeesian doesn't think the Mario series is bad for it, nor is she making any sort of judgement on the gameplay. Generally, numerous examples of the trope being discussed are offered to show that the trope is widespread enough to be worth discussion, and the fact that they're tropes in the first place - an effective narrative shorthand for particular themes - indicates that to a degree, we've already internalised the ideas even if we don't recognise individual instances as particularly harmful.

Which is fine, because individual instances generally aren't.

But then what of other media? Most people here will be aware of the 'male gaze' in film, and whilst alternative/indie cinema offers a counterpoint, the objectification of women persists in mainstream cinema and is often emulated in videogames as they aim to replicate the cinematic. But what of genres which are based entirely on the characteristics and tropes Sarkeesian finds problematic. A particular example being the slasher/horror genre. Violence and sexual objectification are celebrated tropes in these films! They were a staple for myself and my teenage mates growing up, millions of other men and women love them precisely because of those things. How can you progress that genre to appease Sarkeesian and her followers without turning it into something completely different and destroying it entirely?

First - there isn't a call to appease Sarkeesian. She isn't a demon that needs a the sacrifice of a handful of tropes before she retreats to her lair for a thousand year sleep. She's just a woman who engaged some much needed discussion, but gets frequently painted as a bogeyman coming to take away our tits. That isn't the case.

It isn't the case because, as repeatedly stated, she's not a censor, and because people will still create the art they want to. The "goal", for want of a better term, is to get creators to think first. To consider the things they might previously not have, and what that might be contributing towards. The concern, as I see it, isn't with the parts that define the work (as may well be the case with the slasher genre), but the tropes that don't, but get used anyway.

Genres aren't going to disappear and things are still going to be created if there's a market for them. You've nothing to fear on that front. But would you really miss it if Mario didn't have to save Peach and GTA VI didn't have a strip club?

[DukeOfEarlsfield]

Sexism, for me, implies a purposeful decision to be sexist. I'm not sure that half the films that fail the test are inherently sexist, nor the product of a sexist set of individuals.

Still find it amazing that some of the guys in this thread think it's acceptable to mansplain feminism and/or sexism to geekette. If you're male and you think you have the right to tell a woman what is or isn't sexist/feminist then you've just failed Feminism 101.

Also, you're wrong. Sexism doesn't have to be intentional. Christ knows where you got your interpretation from.

Edit: Oh god, I've just realised it's gone midnight and I'm replying to people who don't even understand the Bechdel Test.

[Anne Summers]

Still find it amazing that some of the guys in this thread think it's acceptable to mansplain feminism and/or sexism to geekette. If you're male and you think you have the right to tell a woman what is or isn't sexist/feminist then you've just failed Feminism 101.

Actually I disagree with this - Gamergate has taught me that there are certainly women who just don't "get" feminism - I would say that GG's pet porn star Mercedes Carrera is a good example - and I, as a man, feel completely justified explaining feminism to people like her. I think you were right to challenge this point of APM's - but I just wanted to say that I don't subscribe to the theory, which I have seen expressed several times, that all women are intrinsically more understanding of feminism than all men.