Main Menu

Tropes vs Women in Video Games

Started by Bludshot, December 06, 2012, 11:48:46 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

darthkiwi

QuoteThat isn't a problem at all, his books are not about racism and do not try to justify racism (to my knowledge). In fact as long as you are completely unaware of his inspiration it is completely and utterly a non-factor.
My point is that in Lovecraft, all the protagonists are white, generally Anglo-Saxon (in the sense that they're generally Americans with English ancestry) and fairly well-educated. They are basically like Lovecraft himself. And all of his cultists, who normally perform "unspeakable rituals", and are seen as degenerate, inferior, uneducated, repulsive, and prone to lash out and kill "outsiders" - they're all hispanic or semitic or arabic or black. The one exception to this is Lovecraft's figure of the murderous, insane backwoodsman, but I think that's because the backwoodsman represents something else Lovecraft finds repulsive, namely "country folk". He's a city boy (or at least a towny boy, as he hated New York). My point is that Lovecraft always portrays educated, literary white people as good, and anyone who doesn't fit into that category as bad, to the extent that they're considered degenerate, filthy, repulsive etc.

This doesn't apply to the monsters AT ALL. Let's just leave the monsters out of it and look at the human beings. The Horror at Red Hook? All the cultists are bug-eyed filthy unwashed immigrants. Call of Cthulhu? The cultists are always "country folk", whether that means people indigenous to unexplored locations or worshippers in the swamp. Shadow Over Innsmouth? Again, the town is backward, cut off from the sort of education and culture that Lovecraft considers positive. Facts Concerning the Late Arthur Jermyn only makes sense if the protagonist is opposed to being descended from beings he feels are "inferior" - so it can easily be glossed as "OH MY GOD BLACK AND WHITE PEOPLE ARE FROM THE SAME EVOLUTIONARY BRANCH".

Lovecraft never actually persuades the reader of his views. I don't think he wanted to. But the point is, if Lovecraft's stories were read by someone who knew little about race, or who lived in a racist society, then this reader might end up thinking about race the same way Lovecraft does, because this is what they have to draw on when thinking about it. It's powerful *because* it doesn't actually say "Hey, black people and Jews are inferior!" - it just implies it, so you don't notice it.

And this Lovecraft example is not a problem, as you point out. We know how to read Lovecraft without becoming racist. But what about all the other books and films or whatever that have their own implicit assumptions, which have this power simply because it's difficult to notice them? That's why it's important to keep thinking about this and talking about this, so that we can absorb fiction responsibly (as we do now with Lovecraft).
Prince of the Aquitaine. Duke of York.

Knight errant and consort to Her Grace the Empress Deloria of the Holy Roman Empire, Queene of all Albion and Princess Palatine.

Lambonius

And yet another thread becomes about anti-Semitism.  Excellent work, everyone.

Tomatensaft

Quote from: Neonivek on June 13, 2013, 04:31:41 PM
Honesty I am of the belief that an author's work should stand on its own separate from the author who wrote it. All this channeling the author to see the "hidden narrative" ends up just misrepresenting the story anyhow that often takes these notions and turns them into a good story.

Nyeah, I feel you on this. This is a very bad way of arguing you especially find when it comes to things that are considered to be "art" – which is actually just a category for the works of people who want  to create art, but usually used as a sign of quality and a label for things you can not dislike but just "not understand".

Nevertheless, I wouldn't turn that into an argument against the existence of "hidden narratives". First and foremost, because "hidden narratives" doesn't mean that you can only find them if you know about the artist's biography. Gender roles for example are more or less obvious even if you need a bunch of historians to find out who the writer actually is.

And this also goes for things that might be harder to "uncover". Those reactionist polemics against the big city and the big city life for example, you find -afaik- also in Lovecraft's stories: a schmaltzy idealization of the past, of small town life and nature, as a contradiction to the decadent big city where everything is fake and plastic and impure, and full of pervert queers and kinksters, jews and brown people, a dirty underclass and unhealthy food. This is also something you can trace back from the early 19th century up to modern conservatives.

(Although it's not only the conservatives, because this is one of the things where the left and the right are dangerously close to each other. I've read lately that this anti-catholic songwriter Sinead O'Connor got terribly booed out once at a Bob Dylan tribute concert. And that didn't really surprise me since a good deal of Dylan's fanbase is exactly made out of those anti-modernist new age hippies who idealize or even deify nature and purity, believe in all kinds of esotericism and preach soya, tofu and ascesis as a solution for modern "decadence". And from that point of view it's not a long way to booing out a feminist singer who criticizes religion and defends abortion rights.)

So: yes, an artist's work has to stand on its own when it comes to the quality of the work – but when it comes to it's meaning(s) then it's appropriate to have a look at the author's biogprahy or the circumstances in which he wrote it etc. He could also be a bad artist or make mistakes like everyone else and then his work becomes another meaning than intended. Apart of that, there are of course things you can only cherish if you understand the references. If you never heard of Sigmund Freud and his famous couch then a Woody Allen movie might not be that entertaining for you.

Quote from: Deloria on June 14, 2013, 06:11:37 PM
Also: Tomatensaft, you got me posting again because you seemed clever, so thank you. It had to be someone who liked Wagner. :) *is going to all the Ring proms in London in July* :D

Hehe, thank you and have fun! Although I'm not even such a big Wagner fan since the plot of an opera isn't that important for me. I'm more for Mozart who said that the words and the plot of an opera should be "the music's obedient daughter". And of course: with that attitude you can't fully enjoy "musical dramas" in which words and music are meant to be equal. Rossini once said about Wagner that his music has some magnificent moments but a lot of terrible quarter hours. Which is exactly how I feel about him.  ;D

Lambonius

#383
Quote from: Tomatensaft on June 15, 2013, 11:52:30 AM
"the music's obedient daughter"

SEXIST!!!  ;)

Tomatensaft

Quote from: Lambonius on June 15, 2013, 12:01:19 PM
Quote from: Tomatensaft on June 15, 2013, 11:52:30 AM
"the music's obedient daughter"

SEXIST!!!  ;)

Hahaha! Well ... "Caught in the act" is the saying, I think.  ;D

Neonivek

#385
QuoteLovecraft never actually persuades the reader of his views. I don't think he wanted to. But the point is, if Lovecraft's stories were read by someone who knew little about race, or who lived in a racist society, then this reader might end up thinking about race the same way Lovecraft does, because this is what they have to draw on when thinking about it. It's powerful *because* it doesn't actually say "Hey, black people and Jews are inferior!" - it just implies it, so you don't notice it

Ok, then lets just ask the major question.

How? How does this happen?

QuoteAnd yet another thread becomes about anti-Semitism.  Excellent work, everyone

It is being used as the example of which we are drawing upon the same methodologies that are applied to sexism. Or rather we are drawing parallels to anti-Semitic writing and anti-feministic writing.

So no we are still on sexism but right now we are discussing the idea of subliminal writing.

LadyTerra

Quote from: Neonivek on June 15, 2013, 04:20:25 PM
QuoteLovecraft never actually persuades the reader of his views. I don't think he wanted to. But the point is, if Lovecraft's stories were read by someone who knew little about race, or who lived in a racist society, then this reader might end up thinking about race the same way Lovecraft does, because this is what they have to draw on when thinking about it. It's powerful *because* it doesn't actually say "Hey, black people and Jews are inferior!" - it just implies it, so you don't notice it

Ok, then lets just ask the major question.

How? How does this happen?

Lack of knowledge.  If you didn't understand what racism was, you wouldn't recognize it.  And if you didn't know anything about other races, you'd be more inclined to agree with the first few bits of information about them, even if they were wrong.  Same situation with any -ism.
I have my cake and eat it too, until it's gone.  Then I can't do either.


Aww!  You have the Sword of Hugging +3!  All of your attacks deal affectionate damage!

Neonivek

QuoteLack of knowledge.  If you didn't understand what racism was, you wouldn't recognize it.  And if you didn't know anything about other races, you'd be more inclined to agree with the first few bits of information about them, even if they were wrong.  Same situation with any -ism.

So then you basically invalidated Anita's entire argument and the entire reason it is called "Tropes Versus Women".

LadyTerra

Not really.  While I find her videos more and more frustrating due to the lack of research, she is bringing attention to a serious problem in our media.  Unfortunately, with how publicly charged this issue became, threads like this are probably going to be the only way we can talk about this, and there's no way anyone can reach Anita to even correct her. 

What would be really cool is if we had a discussion between women actually in the games industry and get their input, maybe as a panel at a convention since talking face-to-face with people reduces the chance of trolling.
I have my cake and eat it too, until it's gone.  Then I can't do either.


Aww!  You have the Sword of Hugging +3!  All of your attacks deal affectionate damage!

Lambonius

#389
Quote from: LadyTerra on June 16, 2013, 09:30:41 AM
Not really.  While I find her videos more and more frustrating due to the lack of research, she is bringing attention to a serious problem in our media.  Unfortunately, with how publicly charged this issue became, threads like this are probably going to be the only way we can talk about this, and there's no way anyone can reach Anita to even correct her.

I agree with this.

The thing I find really frustrating is that people are equating the seriousness of the issue and even debates of its very existence with criticism of the quality of Anita's specific work and research into it.  These are two separate things.  I am in full agreement that the video game industry has a sexism problem.  I just think Anita is doing an utterly s****y job of researching and discussing it--and I think her poor handling of public relations is undermining the whole public conversation.

"Anita--you feel like people aren't taking you seriously?  DO A BETTER JOB."   :suffer:

Neonivek

Quote"Anita--you feel like people aren't taking you seriously?  DO A BETTER JOB."

I could easily predict the exact words that would come out of her mouth had you said that to her.

But she is doing that already.

KatieHal

Actually, Lady Terra, they had something exactly like that at this year's GDC. You can watch it here: http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1018080/

Katie Hallahan
~Designer, PR Director~

"Change is the constant, the signal for rebirth, the egg of the phoenix." Christina Baldwin

I have a blog!

Rosella

David Gaider also had a great talk about sex in video games (and sexism and sexuality) which is much less about women in the games industry but is about women in games. :P

Anita Sarkeesian was there. XD

I'm a princess even if my kingdom is pixelated.

Official Comfort Counselor of the TSL Asylum © ;D

It's funny how you find you enjoy your life when you're happy to be alive.

Lambonius

This response video is very close to the way I feel about the issue.  This is NOT your typical anti-feminism response--this guy contributed to the kickstarter and defends its validity, but does a good job of highlighting the real problems with the way she has handled public relations, among other things.

http://youtu.be/0kHOn1UsWao

snabbott

Quote from: Deloria on June 14, 2013, 06:11:37 PM
Also: Tomatensaft, you got me posting again because you seemed clever, so thank you.
Yay! Deloria! And good job, Tomatensaft!
Quote from: Neonivek on June 15, 2013, 04:20:25 PM
QuoteLovecraft never actually persuades the reader of his views. I don't think he wanted to. But the point is, if Lovecraft's stories were read by someone who knew little about race, or who lived in a racist society, then this reader might end up thinking about race the same way Lovecraft does, because this is what they have to draw on when thinking about it. It's powerful *because* it doesn't actually say "Hey, black people and Jews are inferior!" - it just implies it, so you don't notice it

Ok, then lets just ask the major question.

How? How does this happen?
Very gradually. If it were blatant, people would recognize it and dismiss it if it went against their views. Because it is subtle, people won't tend to analyze it. A single book/game/movie/whatever isn't going to make any significant difference. It's when a large proportion of the media you consume that it starts to significantly affect the way you think about it. I think that's part of Anita's point. Isolated cases of these "tropes vs. women" aren't such a problem - it's the fact that they are pervasive throughout society that perpetuates negative attitudes toward women.

Steve Abbott | Beta Tester | The Silver Lining

snabbott

Quote from: Rosella on June 17, 2013, 09:30:34 AM
David Gaider also had a great talk about sex in video games (and sexism and sexuality) which is much less about women in the games industry but is about women in games. :P

Anita Sarkeesian was there. XD
I just watched it - it's really well done. Going back to the topic of privilege, he made this statement:
Quote
Privilege is when you think that something's not a problem because it's not a problem for you personally. If you're part of a group that's being catered to, you believe that's the way it should be - it's always been that way. Why would that be a problem for anyone?

Steve Abbott | Beta Tester | The Silver Lining

Neonivek

QuoteVery gradually

No, no, no... That is when it happens.

How does it happen?

Numbers

It happened because Lorelei Shannon--a woman--was mostly in charge of KQ7 and Mark Seibert--a man--was mostly in charge of MoE. It all comes back to King's Quest. Everything.
I have no mouth, and I must scream.

GrahamRocks!


Lambonius

Quote from: GrahamRocks! on June 18, 2013, 06:30:46 PM
Wasn't Jane in charge of KQ6?

Yep.  The whiniest and most romantic of all the King's Quests.