So Angry Harry, the dotty old British uncle of the Men’s Rights movement, has a post up vaguely warning that the virus software company Symantec just might soon have some sort of shareholders revolt on its hands because it dared to put a bunch of men’s rights sites on a “hate sites” blacklist, blocking access to them for some users of Symantec’s Rulespace software.
That’s kind of an old whine at this point, but what captured my fancy was this recent discussion about Harry’s article in the Men’s Rights subreddit.
Oh, where to begin with all this? I’m charmed, of course, by the idea that feminism is just ruining things — ruining things! — for all the nice ladies in the tech world. I mean, it’s not like feminists have anything to complain about with regard to sexism amongst male techies. They’re just complainy complainers. Ladies in tech are doing just fine, thanks! Don’t take their word for it. Take the word of some random dude in the Men’s Rights subreddit for it.
But the real treat here is Hamakua’s nightmare vision of an army of secret “imbedded” Anita Sarkeesians infiltrating major corporations and … doing what, exactly? Secretly making videos about sexist tropes in video games in hidden compartments underneath their desks, like that secret nap compartment George had built under his desk at work on Seinfeld?
Beware the stealth Sarkeesians!
(Found this through the AgainstMensRights subreddit.)
“Would you care to explain why they are crap, instead of sounding like a pissy little boy with no points to make?”
Could be tricky …
I don’t think Fist is here anymore.
Quackers: It’s a mark of how bad the whole dialogue is that I want to immediately go “Wow, what a great response!” just because she isn’t screaming and has a disclaimer that it’s just her opinion.
Unfortunately her position is bullshit and shows a lack of comprehension both of the tropes and of Sarkeesian’s video. She complains about Sarkeesian assuming her own conclusion, as though one is never allowed to already know about something before formally researching it. She calls it “a one-sided argument against what she believes to be a negative formula that should be completely retired from use,” when Sarkeesian never says either that it’s completely negative or that it should never be used, only that it’s often negative and overused, and totally ignoring that the third video is going to address the flip side of the issue.
And her basic thesis: “The big problem I have with this statement is its implication that a single act of misfortunate [sic] upon a female character somehow disempowers her entire being and invalidates any opportunity to be considered a hero.” In other words, sure they inevitably get kidnapped, but as long as there’s some other part of the game where she does something cool, what’s the big deal? Again, she’s ignoring that Sarkeesian does positively acknowledge characters that are interesting and capable in other ways. She’s also completely sweeping the gender inequity under the rug: The fact that this happens to virtually every female character but virtually no male characters is completely meaningless?
The clincher: This logic could be used to brush off any criticism leveled against any character. “The gay character is a mincing nancy boy? What makes that an appropriate measure to judge his worth?” “All the black characters have big lips and eat watermelon? You’re denying all the other aspects of the characters for consideration!” “The character who’s supposed to be a role model has a scene where he kills and eats puppies? Why should that invalidate any opportunity to be considered a hero?”
What? Did he stomp off to his treehouse with the “NO GIRLS!” sign on the door?
Erm, the comment being held up in moderation was me, from a completely unrelated WordPress account. My blogging habit is getting out of hand.
Probably. “Screaming Fist” is pretty much a poor rendering of “hissy fits” in his case.
one criticism about her was that she isn’t doing true SCIENCE because she came to a conclusion then uses evidence to support it, rather than gathering evidence first.
correct me if I’m wrong but a) when did she ever claim to be doing a scientific analysis and b) wouldn’t “these tropes appear to be sexist” be her working hypothesis and all the evidence she gathered in these vids the proof?
Quackers, it’s only a real research project if you knew absolutely nothing about it beforehand and had formed no opinions. If you noticed that something was widespread through casual observation and then decided to research it in more depth and see if it was really as common as it appeared, then the results are automatically invalid.
“correct me if I’m wrong but a) when did she ever claim to be doing a scientific analysis and b) wouldn’t “these tropes appear to be sexist” be her working hypothesis and all the evidence she gathered in these vids the proof?”
Yep. Sociologists, for example, have used that approach for a long fucking time.
@Kim
Btw i’m not trying to defend games from the accusation of racism or anything, and I agree with your point entirely. The fact that every video game protagonist, antagonist, and supporting character is likely to be a grizzled macho white guy is /inherently/ racist, even if every other artistic medium does the same. If a million people do a stupid thing it’s still stupid.
Also jeez I didn’t know there were so many gamers here to get offended at me judging them! Sorry about that, I’m just referring to MOST gamers then. Not you guys, obviously. Seriously, I’ve seen too many gross ass gamers rally around too many virtual burning crosses to NOT make some judgments about them – again, sorry for labeling every gamer a reactionary… but It’s pretty obvious I’m not just being mean for the sake of it.
katz, no, no, it’s only TEH SCIENCE if it’s a dude doing it, and it proves what he knew already with his manly man brain, like, oh, women who’re gold diggers not being funny.
Stealth Sarkeesian
And on that note, I’m off to bed.
That’s actually a really interesting viewpoint and a fun discussion about game mechanics in general.
(And it ties into the entire bit about violence and go-to hatred for the muslim-like (“But they’re terrorists!”) or the Chinese (“But they’re evil!”) or aliens! (“They’re different!”).
Obviously, the idea that non-violent games are commercially non-viable is strange. Tetris is regarded all over the world, and I don’t think that’s a very violent game.
The problem with RPG’s though is that they’re based on a sense of progress and abilities increasing over time when faced with adversity, and the easiest way of offering quick, simple escalation in games with limited control input is violence. Or, put differently, conflict. And conflict between two or more forces is most readily visualized with violence.
Skyrim is a great, beautiful game – but without the combat it’s also little but an investigate sighseeing tour of a wonderful world. There is, however, a few quests where all you do is investigate sleuthing and collecting of clues – plus a cool quest where you end up going out and having a drink with the Daedric Icon of Confusion – think the Lord of All Jesters.
You wake up in a field, naked and confused…
It’s a very neat Memento / Hangover style quest.
You get the same in most basic pen and paper roleplaying games on the market – most of it is balanced around combat and fighting, because it’s the easiest way to add drama, tension and simple goals to an on going story. Plus, when designing advancements, the easiest way to make them feel worthwhile is to have them have a direct, visual impact on something threatening – combat. It’s why the third edition players handbook for Dungeons and Dragons have 40 pages on the rules of combat… and 4-6 on the rules for social interaction, intrigue, politics and resolving social differences.
It’s also problem of rewards kind of a significant part of RPG mechanics. You level up, you get a new skill. You can now Snark at a +2, or even do a Witty Repartee.
Or you can channel the elemental might of forces unknown to crush your enemies.
It’s easier to market the latter, sadly. It’s also why FPS are churned out at a such a high rate – they’re easy to program (within a certain understanding of easy, coding’s no joke) you understand it pretty quickly and almost everyone gets the notion of “Here’s a gun, there’s the enemies trying to stop you, you’re in danger!”.
Sadly, we just don’t really have the in put capacity to program beyond simple things yet. Give it a few years and I think that’ll change, as the hint has been towards quite a few other things (Journey, Minecraft, Scribblenauts)
—
However, this is me blathering on and trying to reach a different point. You can find games without violence, and even RPG’s without it. There’s been a few…
Minecraft actually springs to mind, if you disable monsters.
Deus Ex can be played non-violently (Because dear lord, if I’m a super efficient robot the last thing I’m going to bloody do is murder people who aren’t)
I’m personally a great fan of the Thief series, 1-3, which features you sneaking about and pilfering things (the clue’s in the name). There is combat, but only if you get caught and even then, its short, because you’re a thief and they’re the professional guards.
In Nomine is a pen and paper game, but it’s fantastic – and set up in a way that fighting is often… a less good idea.
Planescape: Torment has some few combat segments, but the entire game is really more like a fantastically weird roleplaying adventure visual novel surrealist… thing.
(What can change the nature of a man?)
I’m told Ace Attorney doesn’t have any violence, but I don’t know anything about that beyond the “Objection!” meme.
So, they exist.
@J I agree that there are a lot of sexist/racist/obnoxious gamers. So much so that I searched high and low for a wow guild that explicitly states a zero tolerance policy for any sort of bigotry (I have found one yay! I wanted to start one myself called Manboobz but I don’t think a name with boob in it would be allowed. Alternate name Feminist Hivemind). I have noticed a correlation between high end raiders and arseholes but that might be a) confirmation bias by me b) selection bias because people who are very talented are less likely to be punished for being an arsehole c) people who are very competitive are more likely to be hard-core and also less patient with other people.
But neither you or I can make a generalised statement about MOST gamers without actual data, and an agreed on definition for the word gamer.
*pops in* idk about the rest of the White Wolf games, but Vampire the Masquerade can be played violence free. Between what is basically subtle magic and using “the rules for social interaction, intrigue, politics and resolving social differences” you can get a long way (and really, vampires can beat each other in combat, when somebody calls in SWAT you just got killed, fighting is best avoided)
Pen and paper, I only know oWoD which is all/mostly out of print. But yeah, it can be done (requires a story teller who’ll play the social game, but it’s certainly feasible [hell, if my notes ever get played it’s theoretically possible to run the entire plot without more than smooth talking, though some of the “magic” wouldn’t hurt])
Oh darn, I missed myoo, who inspired the latest Artistry post.
It should be noted that what Argenti Aertheri means is that you can defeat the SWAT team. Bullets don’t do much to the dead.
You cannot defeat the rest of vampire society turning against you and hunting you down for Masquerade breach.
😀
One of my favorite older games is “Beyond Good & Evil” which features a lady protagonist named Jade who isn’t overly sexualized and which doesn’t involve a lot of combat. Most of the puzzles involve using stealth to get around (and SO MUCH SWEARING on my part) and a lot of the side quests involve taking photos of creatures in the game world (Jade is a photo journalist) and helping some rebels fight an alien conspiracy.
It was a commercial flop, but very highly regarded critically, and I think it was due, in large part, to the title. When I heard about it, the title made me either yawn or think of Nietzsche, depending on how awake I was at the time.
Oh, and hi. I lurk. A lot. I’d post more but I’m already trying to figure out what to cull out of my life before I die of the exhaustionz!
@Quackers: yeah, of the bunch – it’s the least crass. Though I still have problems with the arguments made, particularly the tired “those negative qualities are just projections of the critics” – which just comes off as another way to say “shut up” in a more polite fashion.
This notion that a critic dislikes something because of some personal fault is not only an ad hominem but also a deflection tactic. If you’re going to make a counter-arguments, it should be towards the argument and not the individual making it. That single aspect was almost enough to make me dislike the video as a whole. I’ve heard this as a response to people who dislike Power Girl’s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Girl) “tit-window” and it annoys me how dismissive it is. Maybe the reason people point it out is to make comics more inclusive? Perhaps, change the notion all readers are sexually insecure and frustrated geeks who are titillated by drawn characters? Yeah – that’d be awful!
Given superhero movies are becoming popular – it just makes sense to consider it might be pandering in an incredibly juvenile fashion. Saying “well, that’s what the audience wants!” is just a sign the person doesn’t consider non-white 18-35 year old men a valid demographic to appeal to. I’d rather see more women enjoy things like comics and videogames and anime – I assumed, like all other geeks/nerds, that’s what we wanted. Apparently not…
The other problem with the video is that, even if you do see those character qualities are seen in the games, they are still almost always “damsels in distress” and it implies a particular dynamic. It shouldn’t be surprising to anyone who knows anything about storytelling. All this stuff about how they handle themselves in a dire situation and other tertiary traits is irrelevant to the discussion. Sarkeesian didn’t say these female characters had no personality traits or admirable qualities – but they function specifically as an objective for the hero and part of the motivation of the villain. This has been obvious since the time of Ancient Greece!
The worst argument I heard about Sarkeesian’s video – in pointing out these FICTIONAL tropes – she is saying anyone who is put in that situation in real-life is “objectified.” The basis for that? ‘Cause Art reflects reality. I just think he was taking shit too personally (to think that about a video on trope is a HUGE leap to make) and forgetting she’s not applying this to real-world events at all. It’s such inane and over-emotional bullshit over something that is ultimately benign and not hurting anyone. The fact someone feels THAT strongly says more about them than Sarkeesian (especially when accusing her of being anti-sex based on…I just don’t care, it was silly and meaningless).
Surely the opposite is true. By making a convention out of something that would be an exceptional and traumatic experience IRL, we’re trivializing it and undermining the impact it would have on a real person, since in video games getting kidnapped is just a part of life for women.
“You cannot defeat the rest of vampire society turning against you and hunting you down for Masquerade breach.”
Admittedly I was thinking that a whole swat team has enough bullets to drop a vampire into torpor, which, on a city street…you’ll be dead at dawn. But yes, having vampire society after you is worse, they’ll track you to the North Pole if they need to (and if you’re a Malk, they’re probably waiting for you).
Fibinachi — one of my “maybe someday” players wants a Tremere who thinks he’s a Malk pretending to be a Tremere. I told him I’m putting all kinds of rules on that shit, including a blood hunt the moment he so much as thinks of openly using thalm. (One of my other maybe someday players wants a Malk, so learning dementation is feasible.)
And I built myself a dues ex machina salubri. For the inevitable mess when they try fighting out of a situation they were supposed to talk through. Because guys, interrogate the enemy, don’t just start fighting, ze’s got good info! (Really. Really. Good.)
@Katz: Right, but that’s part of the reason Sarkeesian does these videos. To point out these tropes can often be exploitative. The notion she thinks everyone who is somehow captured or in need of help as such, in a real-life scenario, is an absurd conclusion to come to when she’s pointing out fictional tropes and what notions they push. Like I said – it came off as the individual taking the observation too personally.
It wouldn’t be much different than talking about a movie with someone and, after pointing out a plot hole, would get angry and say “stuff like that happens in real life!” The person is judging a movie – not reality. Nor does the observation imply an ulterior motive. Being offended by that comes off as odd…
On oWoD and combat:
Vampire is the least likely to lead to some sort of physical confrontation, followed, I’d say, by Wraith, where there’s just no incentive (also, Wraith: the Oblivion, is the best game no one ever played).
Changeling will have lots of Chimerical combat, which is, by definition, not real. If you’re getting into actual brawls, someone’s usually screwed up, or this is a high-stakes session.
Mage doesn’t have to get physical, but it just very often does, because Magic makes this a bit easier.
Werewolf is almost impossible to NOT get into combat in–by definition, it’s a game about the horror of war. Similarly for Hunter: the Reckoning.
Demon and Mummy, I’ve got less to go on. I suspect neither NEEDS violence, but Demon at least encourages it.
A slight clarification: Mage is often free of traditional combat, but can still be quite violent. Any game where you can inflict someone with cancer with a few choice words, or cause a car driven by an innocent bystander to run into someone by shaking a few chicken bones, is going to require that kind of distinction.
Demon encourages it, to some extent – its the nature of the pacts and the problems they try to solve. You will, if nothing else, be fighting other demons, at some point.
@Argenti:
Yeah, I was kind of joking. I’d actually love to see a coterie try to take out a SWAT team. But I imagine that’s because I have a soft spot for Hunter. And the nWod Task Force VALKYRIE.
(Of which a three man team showed up during a session of mine. “Oh, we’ll just go dominate the mayor. What possible repercussions could there be” they said. “Breathers are weak, they’ll never find out” they said. “And besides, what’s the worst they can do? Get angry at us?” they said. “It’s not like human firearms offer any danger to us any more!” they said.
And then, boom, Cheiron Corp and Valkyrie Agents and chase scenes through the streets. At least if they’d bloody got the security footage from the video camera or, I don’t know, also taken care of the witnesses. )
—
How would he pull off the.. triple? Triple layer bluff? Like, thinking you’re a Malk who is thinking he’s a Tremere while actually being a Tremere just results in a Tremere being a Tremere through a circuitous route in my head. So it’ll be a Tremere who everyone is slighty wary of, because the poor fellow occasionally spouts gibberish.
Am I missing something?