TRIGGER WARNING : The following contains many,many words and ideas that you may or may not agree with. Parents are advised to read this with extreme caution,or not read it and move on with their busy lives. If this triggers you in any way,well,theres nothing to do about thatexept advise you to calm your tits. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.
Hello everybody,and welcome to another entry of I'm Not Fond Of. So,what am I gonna talk about THIS time? Will it be the Xbox One,whose parent company have done everything in their power to alienate gamers and make their console more of a VCR than a gaming consol? No. Will it be E3? Anticipation is on a steep rise,and its not too much longer before we can get some info on the next Smash Bros. May be THAT will be my next topic? Nope,sorry. Today's topic will be...Anita Sarkeesian again. Now,i've talked about this in my last part,and I WAS going to do the Xbox One,but since her second part has just recently been released,well this was just too good to pass up.
Anita posted her second part of her Damsels in Distress topic in her Tropes vs Women series on May 28th 2013. As per usual,she has disabled comments and ratings for her videos,preventing those who support her and those who don't from giving their insight on it. This behavior is quite in opposition of her desires for open discussion on these topics. Also,and this may be a minor nitpick,but would it be much of an issue for her to perhaps change her outfit every so often? I say this because she looks exactly the same in each video to a VERY creepy degree.
She starts by providing a quick recap on the topic. For those of you who don't know,she talked for about twenty minutes about how the Damsel in Distress trope is apparently offensive to women. In actuality,anyone can be kidnapped,and just because someone requires aid from someone else,whether male or female or alien or dog,it doesn't mean the kidnapee is weak and inferior in any way,but only a victim of situation.
She also adds. "Now it might be tempting to think the Damsel in Distress was just a product of its time, and that by now surely the trope must be a thing of the past. Well, while we have seen a moderate increase in the number of playable female characters, the plot device has not gone away. In fact the Damsel in Distress has even seen a bit of a resurgence in recent years." Well,i've nothing to say about that exept that just because something is old it doesn't always mean it has to be discarded,especially a trope such as the Damsel in Distress,which has become a continued staple of many a movie,tv show and video game.
Now is where her video begins to slip far down the same slope her last video has slid. She starts going on about...well,this: "And since the majority of these titles focus of delivering crude, unsophisticated male power fantasies," Now what kind of talk is that? You know,for someone who wants this kind of stuff shown in classrooms and to children,she sure does like to use unprofessional phrases such as "crude" and "unsophisticated". "developers are largely unwilling to give up the Damsel in Distress model as an easy default motivation for their brooding male heroes or anti-heroes. Remember that as a trope the Damsel in Distress is a plot device used by writers, and not necessarily always just a one-dimensional character type entirely defined by victimhood.
Now and then Damsel’d characters may be well written, funny, dynamic or likeable.
However this extra character development tends to make their eventual disempowerment all the more frustrating." Exactly how is this frustrating? If the character is written well,what would lead to aggrivation over their getting kidnapped? The only thing I would be mad about would be that all of that characterization would've been for naught if we never see them. I'm starting to think the only reason Anita finds this frustrating is because its a girl whose being kidnapped,'cause as i've said,Anita has more in common with a Misandrist than an actual Femenist despite what her name would tell you. "Damsels on the more sassy end of the spectrum may struggle with their captors…
… or even attempt an escape on their own but inevitably their efforts always prove futile. Occasionally they may be allowed to offer the hero a last minute helping hand or to kick the bad guy while he’s down but these moments are largely symbolic and typically only happen after the core adventure is over or the danger has passed.
These token gestures of pseudo-empowerment don’t really offer any meaningful change to the core of the trope and it feels like developers just throw these moments in at the last minute to try to excuse their continued reliance on the damsel in distress." Now,many people who have seen her previous videos have been calling bullshit her whole thing about calling Double Dragon Neon "Regressive Crap",stating that she left out the part where Damsel in Distress Marian *SPOILER ALERT* uppercutted the badguy in the balls. In this video,she adresses that,but just goes "Oh no that doesn't count because she was still a damsel lol".
Alright,this is getting a little too exhausting to type out,so i'll just cut through the fat and get to the main topics. She goes on quite a bit with exceeding verbosity and uses an innumerous amount of buzzwords,but the main things that she talks about are:
(1) Stuffed in the Fridge. tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php…
This trope covers instances when someone very dear to the hero is killed and left somewhere for them to find,usually a fridge. It is essentually a very sick present from villain to hero in order to cause a negative reaction in the hero. This trope often happens to women,more specifically women who are very dear to the hero such as a girlfriend,wife,daughter,sister or mother,for instance,but thats not to say that men don't fall victim to this. Anita mostly focuses on instances of women in such a perdicament and completly ignores any instances of men being killed as a message for the hero. She also spends alot of time repeating the same phrase over and over; "In [X] your wife is brutally murdered and you then have to rescue your daughter." She also spends alot of time repeating the same phrase over and over; "In [X] your wife is brutally murdered and you then have to rescue your daughter." She also spends alot of time repeating the same phrase over and over; "In [X] your wife is brutally murdered and you then have to rescue your daughter." She also spends alot of time repeating the same phrase over and over; "In [X] your wife is brutally murdered and you then have to rescue your daughter." She also spends alot of time repeating the same phrase over and over; "In [X] your wife is brutally murdered and you then have to rescue your daughter." She also spends alot of time recycling her dialogue many times; "In [X] your wife is brutally murdered and you then have to rescue your daughter." She also at one point duiscusses how no women in fiction ever loses their husband or boyfriend and then brings up the flashback scene from WRECK IT RALPH. Okay,Wreck-It Ralph may be a movie about Video Games,but its STILL a movie. There was NO reason for her to even mention it. She also says "The gender role reversal is so unusual that it borders on the absurd, which is one of the reason’s why this scene from Disney’s Wreck it Ralph is so humorous." *Sarcasm* Yeah,its not mostly funny because a monster alien all of a sudden showed up at her wedding. Its not because it gobbled up her husband at lightning speed. Its not because she then proceeds to pull a huge-ass blaster from out under her dress and shoots and screams like a maniac. And it SURE as hell isn't because she was made with the most overly dramatic backstory even to begin with. No,its because shes a women,and its unusual to see women do that. *Sarcasm Over* Sure,she stated it was ONE of the reasons why the scene was so funny,but for some reason its the ONLY reason she cares to list.
(2) The Lost Lenore. tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php…
The hero's beloved (And it HAS to be a beloved and not a sibiling or parent) is dead. They typically die during or even before the story begins and must affect the plot more or equally when dead compared to when they are alive. Also,if you still want the character to affect the story more directly,make them a ghost,that way they can do stuff even after they're dead,though it may take away a bit of the emotional sting their death may have invoked. Anita has her own pet name for this; the "Damsel in the Fridge",and apparently it only happens to women and makes them damsels and all the supposidly oppressive thing that entails,maybe. And if i'm being too vague here with all these supposidlys and maybes,well i'm just doing that to highlight something that Anita does quite often. As she talks she proceeds to avoid using concrete phrases or cement her one opinion as anything other than POSSIBLE,using vague-sounding words like "might", "not necessarily", "may", "maybe", "occasionally", "periodically", and the like. Its as if shes keeping her options open whenever talking about something so that if someone disagrees,she can weasel her way out of doing any actual disputing by just saying "lol i said maybe so u rong bro".
(3) Mercy Kill. tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php…
Something horrid is happening to someone that so bad,so undeniably VILE,that the only way to end their suffering is to end them,lest they continue in agony and later end up dead anyways or pose a threat to others. This trope is generally gender neutral,as ANYONE can be put into a situation upon which salvation is futile and they only option is a quick and easy exit. In Anita's world,however,its ONLY women who are afflicted,its ALWAYS men who do they mercy kill,its called a "Euthanized Damsel" for some reason,and its all done to assert men are better than women and to justify DOMESTIC ABUSE. Yes,I shit you not. This person has just claimed that video games cause domestic abuse...WELP,I'MMA JUST LEAVE THAT ONE THERE AS IS.
(4) I lied,i'm not gonna leave that one as is. "These stories conjure supernatural situations in which domestic violence perpetrated by men against women who’ve “lost control of themselves” not only appears justified but is actually presented as an altruistic act done “for the woman’s own good”.
Of course, if you look at any of these games in isolation*, you will be able to find incidental narrative circumstances that can be used to explain away the inclusion of violence against women as a plot device. But just because a particular event might “makes sense” within the internal logic of a fictional narrative – that doesn’t, in and of itself justify its use. Games don’t exist in a vacuum and therefore can’t be divorced from the larger cultural context of the real world."
* - In isolation? You mean what you do? So by "isolation",do you mean taking each scene out of context and using that as a justification for how wrong it is despite each scenario REQUIRING each different context to understand why each scene happens and whether it is right or wrong? I think you've just shot yourself in the foot,madam.
"It’s especially troubling in-light of the serious real life epidemic of violence against women facing the female population on this planet.* Every 9 seconds a woman is assaulted or beaten in the United States and on average more than three women are murdered by their boyfriends husbands, or ex-partners every single day.** Research consistently shows that people of all genders tend to buy into the myth that women are the ones to blame for the violence men perpetrate against them. In the same vein, abusive men consistently state that their female targets “deserved it”, “wanted it” or were “asking for it”***,
Given the reality of that larger cultural context, it should go without saying that it’s dangerously irresponsible to be creating games in which players are encouraged and even required to perform violence against women in order to “save them”.
Even though most of the games we’re talking about don’t explicitly condone violence against women, nevertheless they trivialize and exploit female suffering as a way to ratchet up the emotional or sexual stakes for the player.****"
* - But what does that have to do with video games? Last I checked,theres never been and instance in a video game i've played that inspired me to act like they do,i mean not since i was a child,but even then i wouldn't go around flattening turtles 'cause Mario does it or stab pigs 'cause Link does it or steal rings 'cause Sonic does. And has there ever been a case when some guy plays a video game and then suddenly becomes a sleazy wifebeater with bad breath and who doesn't shower? No. Y'see this is the same kinda crap Jack Thompson used to do,only with him,he did it for shits and giggles,but with Anita,she seems to turely think that her reasoning is genuine,which when we get right down to it,is quite admirable. If its even true,that is...
** - To say NOTHING of any men who are domestically abused by their wives. Female on Male violence happens,and while it may not be as widespread or as reported as Male on Female violence,it still happens. But then again,this STILL has nothing to do with video games.
*** - Yeah,because they're ASSHOLES. Well,okay,maybe not entirely because they're assholes,as its been proven that men tend to overstate and women tend to understate violence from and to their partner,but assholiness is quite a contributing factor.
**** - And whats wrong with that? If you're saving someone it surely doesn't hurt to have them be attractive whether they be men,women,cat or squid.
"Most probably just haven’t given much thought to the underlying messages their games are sending and in many cases developers have backed themselves into a corner with their own game mechanics.* When violence is the primary gameplay mechanic and therefore the primary way that the player engages with the game-world it severely limits the options for problem solving. The player is then forced to use violence to deal with almost all situations because its the only meaningful mechanic available** — even if that means beating up or killing the women they are meant to love or care about."
* - WHAT underlying message? That saving people is good? That if you (The Villain) do wrong,you deserve to have someone (The Player) teach you a lesson? That you must never give up in the face of adversity? Are THOSE the underlying messages that the video game industry haven't thought much about?
** - Ignoring games such as Iji,wherein you can complete the game without directly killing a single person,Super Smash Bros,where its possible to wim matches without attacking or being attacked (Switzerland),Portal 2,Deus Ex,Mega Man 9,not counting the bosses you have to kill,The Touhou Project games,The Metal Gear Solid games,The Fire Emblem games,and many more,you can ONLY win games with violence. Yeah,okay,play Iji and come back to me.
(6) Final Thoughts and closing.
Well,theres not much left to talk about that I haven't already said in my last part,so lets do what i've done for the last and explain what i've learned here:
1.Women die in games 'cause men are evil.
2.Women dying in games is bad and shouldn't happen.
3.The japanese are sexist pigs. (All of the games shes spoken of tend to come from there.)
4.Domestic violence is video games' fault.
The whole time writing this,i've wondered many a thing about her,like why exactly she felt the need to split her Damsels in Distress topic into three videos when one would've SURELY been enough to get the point across. I've also wondered why she seems to have a severe lack of positive things to say about anything in her video. Notice in her video how she keeps using negative words when describing any women in video games,claiming they're all weak and powerless when compared to men and compalins on how there are no strong,capable females whilst blissfully ignoring everything from Samus to Iji,Cortana to even Princess Peach (Sure she gets kidnapped often,but at least shes cabable at kicking ass from time to time.) I've also wondered why she goes talking about topics that have no bearing on the current topic,why she moves goalposts,lies by omission,uses a DUKE NUKEM GAME as proof of her argument,why she only seems to care if its a WOMEN being "objectified" but if it were a man she'd give no shits about it,and why she didn't just use the money to make her own game. But what i often wonder about her the most is that,after all of her rhetoric on how the video game industry is so sexist and making women weak,why does the only person actually calling women weak...seem to be Anita herself? Hoo boy this sure has dragged on,i mean she REALLY went all out on her verbosity in that video. She just goes on and on and on with her topic,to the point that shes practically run out of things to talk about with Damsels in Distress and shes just TRYING to come up with something to say.
And i'm practically done with saying things for now. So when Anita releases her third part in about two months or so,which will be about the Dude in Distress,i'll be right there to talk about it regardless of its content or verbosity. But until next time,this has been Mike1967-now,goodbye and goodnight!
And if you're expecting Anita to enable comments,don't hold your breath.