Anita Sarkeesian posts her first "Tropes vs. Women in Video Games" video.

[SP33Demon]

The fact you thought it was supposed to be funny says a load about you.

Its facts, which are often unfunny.

People's shirts need more ironing.

Not watching the OP vid, couldn't care less about old women who can't get laid and have to take up a cause to fill the void.

 

[shortylickens]

People's shirts need more ironing.

Not watching the OP vid, couldn't care less about old women who can't get laid and have to take up a cause to fill the void.

You dont know thats necessarily the case. She could have valid points and a genuine interest in helping women.
Its just the way she's expressing herself right now that people take issue with.

 

[UglyCasanova]

You do realize the point of ads is to sell stuff. Toy companies will target ads involving weapons, war, building etc to boys because *gasp* that is what sells the most toys.

Lol. And then she complains that only the boys toy commercials involving making things. Although apparently making cakes isn't making things

Wow, and then it goes on to the moon sand and how its marketed differently to boys and girls.

So lets think about this. Do you think toy companies are using different advertising strategies because they want to push a patriarchal agenda. Or because *gasp* they have found those to be the most effective way to sell toys?

Sounds to me like she is just butt-hurt that boys and girls are different even at a young age. As this shows feminism to be fundamentally BS it must be put to a stop even if it means suppressing free speech.

Making cakes is making things, but there is certainly a difference in what boys are encouraged to make/explore/create than what girls are. Creating worlds with Legos, engineering who knows what with knects, etc vs "making" cupcakes which reinforces societies stereotype of women's domestic roles.

You are certainly correct in that they do advertise what sells, but that doesn't mean that it is a healthy, good thing for these kids. My daughter did not come out liking princesses, pink, ponies, and housework any more than my son came out liking tanks, Legos, blue, or being independent, individualistic, and creative. It's a product of societies expectations and pressure on them consciously and subconsciously that as a parent I'm able to see has a very profound effect on them. Before getting a toy that isn't pink, my daughter will ask to verify if that's a girl toy or not. That is sad, and as hard as I try at this point in her life my reasoning is no match for the psychological force of advertising, peer pressure and acceptance, and the like.

 

[nehalem256]

Making cakes is making things, but there is certainly a difference in what boys are encouraged to make/explore/create than what girls are. Creating worlds with Legos, engineering who knows what with knects, etc vs "making" cupcakes which reinforces societies stereotype of women's domestic roles.

You are certainly correct in that they do advertise what sells, but that doesn't mean that it is a healthy, good thing for these kids. My daughter did not come out liking princesses, pink, ponies, and housework any more than my son came out liking tanks, Legos, blue, or being independent, individualistic, and creative. It's a product of societies expectations and pressure on them consciously and subconsciously that as a parent I'm able to see has a very profound effect on them. Before getting a toy that isn't pink, my daughter will ask to verify if that's a girl toy or not. That is sad, and as hard as I try at this point in her life my reasoning is no match for the psychological force of advertising, peer pressure and acceptance, and the like.

Are you really saying there are no inherent gender differences?

 

[Geosurface]

Making cakes is making things, but there is certainly a difference in what boys are encouraged to make/explore/create than what girls are. Creating worlds with Legos, engineering who knows what with knects, etc vs "making" cupcakes which reinforces societies stereotype of women's domestic roles.

You are certainly correct in that they do advertise what sells, but that doesn't mean that it is a healthy, good thing for these kids. My daughter did not come out liking princesses, pink, ponies, and housework any more than my son came out liking tanks, Legos, blue, or being independent, individualistic, and creative. It's a product of societies expectations and pressure on them consciously and subconsciously that as a parent I'm able to see has a very profound effect on them. Before getting a toy that isn't pink, my daughter will ask to verify if that's a girl toy or not. That is sad, and as hard as I try at this point in her life my reasoning is no match for the psychological force of advertising, peer pressure and acceptance, and the like.

Thing is, toy advertisers didn't land in a UFO from another planet. The nature of toys and how they are promoted arose to mirror biological realities which have always been there.

There are always exceptions, boys who don't fit the typical boy mold and girls who don't fit the typical girl mold. Kids who mix and match the two to some degree.

When you're running a company and you are advertising I think it's understandable to target your commercials and your toy designs in a way that goes for the MAJORITY the BULK of kids. This has been the case for decades and it hasn't stopped those more unique kids from existing and being themselves...

As to the bolded portion: are you saying that having boys' toys which focus on building things doesn't 'reinforce society's stereotypes of men's roles'? Is it telling boys they belong on the construction yard?

Has this stopped plenty of boys from doing other things in life, which have nothing to do with construction?

 

[UglyCasanova]

Are you really saying there are no inherent gender differences?

There are of course gender differences, but I would not imagine they are inherently in line with what is being marketed (as a course of nature, not society's stereotypes). Why do many of the underlying themes of boy toys routinely involve creativity, problem solving, using their imagination, etc while girls toys routinely involve reinforcing stereotypes of female domestic roles such as cooking, cleaning, etc. Walk down the boys aisle, then the girls. The differences should be glaring. I guarantee you that whatever inherent gender differences there were naturally between my son and daughter, my daughter was not born with an inherent desire to clean, be overly concerned with dressing up for some Prince Charming, etc and the fact that she needs to ask me if something is a girl toy if it doesn't neatly fall within her canon of what society means to be female is a testament to the power of all this on kids even at very young ages.

 

[nehalem256]

There are of course gender differences, but I would not imagine they are inherently in line with what is being marketed (as a course of nature, not society's stereotypes). Why do many of the underlying themes of boy toys routinely involve creativity, problem solving, using their imagination, etc while girls toys routinely involve reinforcing stereotypes of female domestic roles such as cooking, cleaning, etc. Walk down the boys aisle, then the girls. The differences should be glaring. I guarantee you that whatever inherent gender differences there were naturally between my son and daughter, my daughter was not born with an inherent desire to clean, be overly concerned with dressing up for some Prince Charming, etc and the fact that she needs to ask me if something is a girl toy if it doesn't neatly fall within her canon of what society means to be female is a testament to the power of all this on kids even at very young ages.

If girls were as interested in building things as boys why hasn't lego figured out a way to market to this?

Do you think lego wants to abandon 50% of its potential market?

 

[Geosurface]

I believe our culture is a reflection and a manifestation of our genetics. It's sort of a summary of it, because there are always more complexities to it than can be covered in what is sort of a "one size fits all" culture (though that's less and less the case.)

Perhaps boys' toys involve creativity, problem solving, etc more for the same reason almost all inventors have been male? The same reason the VAST majority of important philosophers, writers, directors, composers, military strategists etc... have been male?

I've heard some theories that males are sort of an area where evolution can experiment a bit more. Because they tend to be more plentiful and expendable. Women have inherent value as far as natural selection is concerned because they can give birth. For that value to be meaningful the child has to survive though... so nature may play it a bit more safe with female instincts and behaviors. There is still room for some incredibly creative, genius females to appear. Just don't expect it to happen as often.

Men are expendable, in the eyes of natural selection. So you are more likely to see the real risk takers who end up dying in crazy schemes among the male gender. The theory I've heard is that in the distant past, if you had a few males who were predisposed to great risks... say, crossing some dangerous river in search of another food source, if it paid off your group/tribe whatever now has access to that food source, if it turned out that crossing that river was dangerous but doable. Whereas, if they drown or get swept off? They prove to the rest of the group that the risk isn't worth it, and your group is only out a male or two. Women aren't going to take these risks because their value is too great. The women with the genes and instincts to take those risks, will exist but will occur far less often because they don't leave behind offspring. These traits are then selected against.

In the modern world these things manifest in guys being the ones to try sky diving from low Earth orbit as we recently saw, or circumnavigating the globe in a hot air balloon and disappearing... or dying in the early attempts at flying machines and doing high wire crap between skyscrapers etc etc...

Again, this isn't an absolute, you will see females who can become incredible inventors, and everything else. They just won't happen as frequently. Could stereotypes from advertising and toy design discourage some who could have been to instead pursue a more stereotypical life? Yes, no doubt. I think that a lot will still pursue their instincts though and I think you cannot by any stretch blame this all on culture.

 

[lxskllr]

I believe our culture is a reflection and a manifestation of our genetics. It's sort of a summary of it, because there are always more complexities to it than can be covered in what is sort of a "one size fits all" culture (though that's less and less the case.)

...

Good analysis, and I find it very plausible. Even if it turned out your were wrong, it's closer than the "everybody is the same" meme many like to put forth. which is obviously incorrect.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

http://youtu.be/hzipB3lS-bo

 

[lxskllr]

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/...is-daughter-princess-pauline-now-saves-mario/

 

[Geosurface]

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/...is-daughter-princess-pauline-now-saves-mario/

See now that's kind of a sweet story about a father doing something nice for his daughter, and I have no problem at all with that.

Likewise I would have no problem with there being more games with female playable characters than there are now, or more games with more realistically portrayed women AND MEN than there are now. That's already a trend that's happening, though.

My issue is with someone basically saying "you know that stuff that's popular in this medium and has been in place for a long time? It offends me, stop it." - I hate that shit.

I will say this though, as a young girl she may get a kick out of being able to play as a female character... but odds are, as an adult woman she will not really be very turned on by the weak guys who aren't confident, or aren't masculine, and don't project some strength. She could be... anything can happen, of course... but I am just talking about biological averages here.

There is a reason these things are stereotypical. In a movie you can use camera tricks and wires and stunt doubles and villain actors who will fall down with one soft hit, to create the impression that a woman can be some supernatural fighting machine like Mila Jovovich in every movie she's ever starred in... etc... and to a large degree they're doing the same with the male heroes too, who are portrayed as being way more adept at fighting groups of opponents than someone would be in real life...

but the deception with female heroines is even more deep, and it just doesn't line up with reality at all. I remember watching Under Siege 2 again recently and Steven Seagal's young daughter completely flipped this much larger guy... with no effort.

It's silly enough when it's Chuck Norris or something but it's grounded a bit more in reality. When it's a slight girl taking out dudes left and right, it's just downright silly. If people want to watch that stuff... more power to them. I've been entertained by a few of those movies myself, but the trend is off the rails at this point. Too many films doing that crap.

And in it's own way it's just as sexist toward women as anything else... it's like the only way they can think of to make something for girls is to just make something they'd make for boys/guys but substitute a female and still have her doing exactly the same shit the guy would've been. That's not really being pro-woman... that's not really giving girls what they TEND to want.

Many women have bought into the shallow "yea girl power! you go girl!" thing of getting a temporary kick out of seeing the woman kick the guy's ass in films, etc... but in the end, so may women have found themselves unsatisfied with the incredibly emasculated modern, western male these days.

 

[Ricochet]

<snip>
I remember watching Under Siege 2 again recently and Steven Seagal's young daughter completely flipped this much larger guy... with no effort.
<snip>

I believe that the young gal is suppose to be Seagal's character's niece. Oh and she was played by a very stunningly hot Katherine Hiegl.

 

[Geosurface]

Here's another good video tearing apart Anita Sarkeesian's BS, and I especially like the part where it SEEMS like maybe her entire deal was influenced by some seminars about how to make money. Who knows: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpodGi3y_V0

 

[Geosurface]

I believe that the young gal is suppose to be Seagal's character's niece. Oh and she was played by a very stunningly hot Katherine Hiegl.

True, I stand corrected. And yes, she was very hot. Still is, I believe.

 

[SMOGZINN]

My issue is with someone basically saying "you know that stuff that's popular in this medium and has been in place for a long time? It offends me, stop it." - I hate that shit.

Why would that be? Lets see, maybe because it challenges the status quo that makes sure you have an advantage? I bet you don't feel that way about other things that give you a disadvantage.

And in it's own way it's just as sexist toward women as anything else... it's like the only way they can think of to make something for girls is to just make something they'd make for boys/guys but substitute a female and still have her doing exactly the same shit the guy would've been. That's not really being pro-woman... that's not really giving girls what they TEND to want.

That is right, make sure we only give them the things we men think the TEND to want. Like cooking and cleaning and taking care of babies.

Many women have bought into the shallow "yea girl power! you go girl!" thing of getting a temporary kick out of seeing the woman kick the guy's ass in films, etc... but in the end, so may women have found themselves unsatisfied with the incredibly emasculated modern, western male these days.

So you think that seeing strong women kick guys ass causes men to be emasculated but don't think that seeing women portrayed as liking nothing but 'house wife' things influences them?

Sorry, but what they are fighting against is the advertising industry that teaches women that they have a limited usefulness in the world. To say that you know what women really want, even if they keep telling us it isn't, is nothing less then misogynistic.

 

[Geosurface]

Why would that be? Lets see, maybe because it challenges the status quo that makes sure you have an advantage? I bet you don't feel that way about other things that give you a disadvantage.

An advantage? There are plenty of game genres I have no interest in whatsoever. For instance, sports games. Should I be whining like Sarkeesian about the prominence of sports games and the trends to show athletic men who are good at sports and how this bothers me? Or should I do what I've done since Tecmo Bowl, and act like sports games basically don't exist?

I play the games that appeal to me, and ignore the ones that don't. I don't like the Call of Duty/Modern Warfare stuff but I spend precisely zero time badmouthing the people who do. To each his own.

If Sarkeesian wants to produce, or promote, or support games that convey women in the way she prefers, like maybe this upcoming game with Ellen Page from the people who made Heavy Rain... more power to her. What I don't like is trying to get things other people enjoy destroyed. That ain't cool.

That is right, make sure we only give them the things we men think the TEND to want. Like cooking and cleaning and taking care of babies.

So, men are the only source that has ever existed of the idea that women prefer certain things? I would argue that, particularly before the 60's, women were much more at peace with their own nature and not fighting it tooth and nail... they acknowledged what things came more naturally to them, and what things came more naturally to men. It was not a perfect time by any stretch of the imagination, and I'm glad that women's opportunities expanded. However, we now live in a time when women have been convinced they must be men in order to be happy. This may help explain why so many of the young women I've known have been on anti-depressants.

The cultural revolution was done from good intentions... but the world we've set up now just doesn't speak to or address our biological realities as well as the world prior to it did in some key respects. This leads to massive unhappiness in both genders.

So you think that seeing strong women kick guys ass causes men to be emasculated but don't think that seeing women portrayed as liking nothing but 'house wife' things influences them?

No I'm not connecting the emasculation of men to kick-ass female movie heroines.

Sorry, but what they are fighting against is the advertising industry that teaches women that they have a limited usefulness in the world. To say that you know what women really want, even if they keep telling us it isn't, is nothing less then misogynistic.

Isn't it sort of insulting to women to imply that they are just these blobs of clay that the advertising agencies and big corporations can influence completely? Aren't they fierce, independent thinkers who do their own thing? Or, aren't men just as vulnerable to these stereotypes as women?

You seem to think that these stereotypical gender paradigms were brought to us by malicious space aliens... they weren't. They are an outgrowth of our own biology and evolutionary past. They aren't one size fits all, and some people end up feeling left out. That's unfortunate.

Of course, I'm not denying that at some point the cultural stereotype can go beyond what the mere biology necessitates, and yes I agree young girls should not be pigeon-holed into feeling like they can't do anything but be a housewife. That's not right at all.

But we've gone too far in the other direction, where now a lot of girls are lead to believe there's something SHAMEFUL about raising a family, etc. And that isn't good either.

 

[Geosurface]

Here's a really good deconstruction of Sarkeesian's lies and simplifications by a female YouTube user. At first her sloppy, lazy way of talking put me off but she made some really excellent points. Well worth watching:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cj29-hepBiA

 

[Eug]

Didn't watch any of the videos. Didn't feel like sitting through hers, or the so-called rebuttals.

I'm not a hardcore gamer now, and I'm not sure what the definition is anyway, but back in the old days I used to play unreal engine games like forever. But I was a gamer, just as she probably was. Just not as hardcore as some of the geeks here are.

But yeah, there is definitely a sexist component to a lot of games. You're lying to yourself if you ignore that truth.

BTW, I can't believe somebody actually used Tomb Raider to try to argue that it's not sexist. The whole point about Lara Croft's design is that she has big boobs. Hell, Angelina Jolie had to wear fake boobs for the movie to fit the role.

 

[CZroe]

The solution from Maddox:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpJGkG1g-Lk

 

[T9D]

There are of course gender differences, but I would not imagine they are inherently in line with what is being marketed (as a course of nature, not society's stereotypes). Why do many of the underlying themes of boy toys routinely involve creativity, problem solving, using their imagination, etc while girls toys routinely involve reinforcing stereotypes of female domestic roles such as cooking, cleaning, etc. Walk down the boys aisle, then the girls. The differences should be glaring. I guarantee you that whatever inherent gender differences there were naturally between my son and daughter, my daughter was not born with an inherent desire to clean, be overly concerned with dressing up for some Prince Charming, etc and the fact that she needs to ask me if something is a girl toy if it doesn't neatly fall within her canon of what society means to be female is a testament to the power of all this on kids even at very young ages.

I think you got it wrong. It's the majority of other women that want to do these things and then the others just feel pressured to fit in who are those outsiders. It's exactly the same as sports. Most boys want to do it. Then their are the few that feel they have to fit in. But the fact is that the majority of people in certain groups want to do things certain ways. Then you have fringe groups outside that but they are small. So society follows the majority in how things are set up and work.

Nobody is stopping girls from joining auto or woodshop. None of them do though. Well very very few do it. They just don't want to get dirty and don't enjoy those things. Go into an crafts stores and there are almost NO men. It's just how it is. Nobody forced them. Those women enjoy it. Bring a man along and he's bored silly. Not because society told him he had to be bored. Because crafts suck lol.

I'm not saying society isn't screwed up. They do some pretty screwed up things. But like anything it basically comes down to people not liking outsiders and others wanting to fit in. No matter who you are if you are different people don't like it. The general norms are real. That's what advertisers play off.

Personally I'm glad we are so different from one another. Life and relationships would suck if I was married to myself and women were just like men or the other way around.

That being said you just have to do what you want to do. In all areas. Don't give in to peer pressure. They will always try to fit you in a mold and make you conform. Everybody everywhere. Men women and children. Your best friends, your family, your work, these forums, youtube, school, everyone. sadly people are to weak and want to fit in to much to bother.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

The solution from Maddox:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpJGkG1g-Lk

That's what Maddox looks and sounds like? Disappointing, he meets very few of the masculine traits I expect of him and others of his sex.

 

[Stringjam]

You dont know thats necessarily the case. She could have valid points and a genuine interest in helping women.
Its just the way she's expressing herself right now that people take issue with.

I think the main issue a lot of folks have with her is that she received a mass of cash from Kickstarter and produced.....what?

The whole situation discredited her, as it would have anybody.

I agree with you that she has valid points, but those points are so old. A video series on "Damsel in Distress?" How many of us don't understand that archetype? It's has been around since the dawn of written story.

I do think that her presentation and speaking style was decent, but her defense of it when encountering criticism once again discredited her, using a string of fallacies to counter valid arguments, and attributing YouTube troll comments to the gaming community as a whole (which was insulting to say the least).

I actually agree with her on a lot of observations, but it's not anything I didn't notice long before she tried to build notoriety off of the topic.

If she wants real discussion and logic-driven debate on her views, she should only take criticism from a demographic capable of it, not a bunch of trolling adolescents. Isn't this internet 101? I don't think she's that naive, I just think she is using it to try to build social pressure and promote herself, yet another reason I can't take her seriously.

 

[shortylickens]

Dude, my post was made back in march.
You cant use anything against me from that era. I was a different person

 

[Stringjam]

Dude, my post was made back in march.
You cant use anything against me from that era. I was a different person

Good, because I didn't use anything against you. I actually I agreed with your post.