TheHarpoMarxist wrote:Beat 4 wrote:Periodically, game developers may attempt to build a more flushed out relationship or emotional bond between Damsel’d character and the male protagonist. In the most decidedly patronizing examples depictions of female vulnerability are used for an easy way for writers to trigger an emotional reaction in male players.
As we discussed in our first episode, when female characters are damsel’ed, their ostensible agency is removed and they are reduced to a state of victimhood.
So narratives that frame intimacy, love or romance as something that blossoms from or hinges upon the disempowerment and victimization of women are extremely troubling because they tend to reinforce the widespread regressive notion that women in vulnerable, passive or subordinate positions are somehow desirable because of their state of powerlessness. Unfortunately these types of stories also help to perpetuate the paternalistic belief that power imbalances within romantic relationships appealing, expected, or normal.
First: Fleshed out.
I agree with Chumpy that this is some good, concrete evidence that the DiD trope is actively harmful to women in real life. A good exercise, I think, would be to alternatively replace the character with a puppy and with a man, and see which one is more/less ridiculous. If a scenario works better as rescuing a helpless little puppy who can't do anything but yip and cuddle vs a man, then the trope is damaging, because last I checked, women were closer in agency to men than they were to puppies.
That's not to discount the desire of some people of all genders to be taken care of, or to be needed just because you exist vs because of what you can do, or what have you. There are times when I'd rather be treated like a puppy than a man, and have someone just put a blanket around me and handle all the sh*t in my life.
The difference is that I get to pick when I get treated like a puppy. These tropes aren't giving women the choice.
You do? I don't. I'm always expected to be a man even when I could desperately use the puppy treatment. People in my life have little patience for me not being able to take care of something.
I envy the reverse situation.
I should clarify. When given the opportunity to be treated like a puppy, I can always turn it down.
I should clarify. When given the opportunity to be treated like a puppy, I can always turn it down.
And women can't?
Seth wrote:I should clarify. When given the opportunity to be treated like a puppy, I can always turn it down.
And women can't?
Correct. Not to say that no woman can ever turn down offered help, but there are certainly men who assume that women need help "whether they'll admit it or not", and will continue to "help" even after being asked not to.
Seth wrote:There are times when I'd rather be treated like a puppy than a man, and have someone just put a blanket around me and handle all the sh*t in my life.
The difference is that I get to pick when I get treated like a puppy. These tropes aren't giving women the choice.
You do? I don't. I'm always expected to be a man even when I could desperately use the puppy treatment. People in my life have little patience for me not being able to take care of something.
I envy the reverse situation.
This is a fascinating statement. If there are two ways in which a person can be treated, you seem to be upset that you don't have the choice, yet you suggest that not having that choice is something enviable.
Chumpy_McChump wrote:I like that we're at least introducing why this trope could be damaging. You could argue whether the notion of "powerless women are attractive" is widespread or regressive; I'm content not to.
I am content to do so. If we're going to go to the appeals are that you feel good about doing something good (helping someone in need is something good, I remind you) and at worst being able to impress someone you might desire.
...as long as your help is desired and actually helpful. With the DiD, the typically male character gets to decide a) that she needs help, and b) what form that "help" will take. Maybe Marian from Double Dragon would rather you call the cops. Maybe she'd prefer a negotiation with the Black Warriors to avoid the inevitable retaliatory gang war that starts about 4 minutes after you "rescue" her. Doesn't matter; we did "something good", so it's ok. /s
I'd also suggest that in a society where women are encouraged to do it all, there's anxiety about not being needed. If the helplessness of the damsel appeals at all its because it's nice to be needed. Feminism has not helped in this regard. So it's nice to have a simple little fantasy to compensate.
So someone else suffering so that you can feel better about yourself is a good thing?
Feminism really isn't the issue here.
Periodically, game developers may attempt to build a more flushed out relationship or emotional bond between Damsel’d character and the male protagonist. In the most decidedly patronizing examples depictions of female vulnerability are used for an easy way for writers to trigger an emotional reaction in male players.
This is where I'd like to see some examples of both types: some that make good use of the DiD trope (again, there's no reason to never use a trope, they have their time and place and can be used well), and some that make troubling use of the DiD trope. So while I think Sarkeesian is explaining her point well, around now I think some detailed examples to elaborate would be helpful.
So narratives that frame intimacy, love or romance as something that blossoms from or hinges upon the disempowerment and victimization of women are extremely troubling because they tend to reinforce the widespread regressive notion that women in vulnerable, passive or subordinate positions are somehow desirable because of their state of powerlessness. Unfortunately these types of stories also help to perpetuate the paternalistic belief that power imbalances within romantic relationships appealing, expected, or normal.
Again, whether we agree or disagree (let's not forget the purpose of the thread), Sarkeesian is doing well here to define her argument as to the potential negative effects of the misuse of the trope. And in doing so, she is not casting aspersion on specific people (or specific groups of people), but on specific concepts.
GTG.
WideAndNerdy wrote:Seth wrote:I should clarify. When given the opportunity to be treated like a puppy, I can always turn it down.
And women can't?
Correct. Not to say that no woman can ever turn down offered help, but there are certainly men who assume that women need help "whether they'll admit it or not", and will continue to "help" even after being asked not to.
WideAndNerdy wrote:Seth wrote:There are times when I'd rather be treated like a puppy than a man, and have someone just put a blanket around me and handle all the sh*t in my life.
The difference is that I get to pick when I get treated like a puppy. These tropes aren't giving women the choice.
You do? I don't. I'm always expected to be a man even when I could desperately use the puppy treatment. People in my life have little patience for me not being able to take care of something.
I envy the reverse situation.
This is a fascinating statement. If there are two ways in which a person can be treated, you seem to be upset that you don't have the choice, yet you suggest that not having that choice is something enviable.
Then she should let other feminists know that they need to stop asking for Male Allies.
Choice is preferable but I'd rather be offered help than have it assumed that I should be man tough at all times. How horrible it must be for these women to be offered help.
Sorry I've not been able to participate in this thread yet, been super busy at work. So I'll just say, "what Farscry said," at least for the time being. He's been more succinct in stating my opinions than I probably ever will be I'm following along/catching up when I can, though.
GTG
WideAndNerdy wrote:Chumpy_McChump wrote:I like that we're at least introducing why this trope could be damaging. You could argue whether the notion of "powerless women are attractive" is widespread or regressive; I'm content not to.
I am content to do so. If we're going to go to the appeals are that you feel good about doing something good (helping someone in need is something good, I remind you) and at worst being able to impress someone you might desire.
As she says right in the beat:
Beat 4 wrote:In the most decidedly patronizing examples depictions of female vulnerability are used for an easy way for writers to trigger an emotional reaction in male players.
So while you might feel good "rescuing the damsel", that's not a universal feeling that people get when they experience the trope. In fact, the trope is intended to solicit that exact feeling from male players.
And the cost of entry for that feeling is the reduction of agency for female characters. Which is how the trope codifies some seriously regressive crap. You get to have a nice escapist fantasy that makes you feel good. Women get told that they are not the protagonist of their own story, that their story doesn't matter, and that they are incapable of achieving anything on their own.
If a work has to appeal universally nothing would ever get made. There's no wrong committed in serving an audience. I don't like the pressure to be a handsome well off performer that romance stories put on men but I don't begrudge women that fantasy. If I had a nickel for every dating profile that said "treat me like a princess" . . .
Beat 4 wrote:Periodically, game developers may attempt to build a more flushed out relationship or emotional bond between Damsel’d character and the male protagonist. In the most decidedly patronizing examples depictions of female vulnerability are used for an easy way for writers to trigger an emotional reaction in male players.
This is where I'd like to see some examples of both types: some that make good use of the DiD trope (again, there's no reason to never use a trope, they have their time and place and can be used well), and some that make troubling use of the DiD trope. So while I think Sarkeesian is explaining her point well, around now I think some detailed examples to elaborate would be helpful.
Beat 4 wrote:So narratives that frame intimacy, love or romance as something that blossoms from or hinges upon the disempowerment and victimization of women are extremely troubling because they tend to reinforce the widespread regressive notion that women in vulnerable, passive or subordinate positions are somehow desirable because of their state of powerlessness. Unfortunately these types of stories also help to perpetuate the paternalistic belief that power imbalances within romantic relationships appealing, expected, or normal.
Again, whether we agree or disagree (let's not forget the purpose of the thread), Sarkeesian is doing well here to define her argument as to the potential negative effects of the misuse of the trope. And in doing so, she is not casting aspersion on specific people (or specific groups of people), but on specific concepts.
GTG.
She keeps saying it's ok in moderation but then she uses words like pernicious and extremely troubling to describe specific cases. It really sounds like she wants enforceme to of some kind but doesn't want to put that in this presentation because she wants us to accept the idea first then accept the need to enforce the idea later. Especially after going to both Google and the UN, I feel justified in assuming this.
Moved a reply to WaN to the meta-dialogue thread. GTG here.
If a work has to appeal universally nothing would ever get made.I don't think anyone is arguing for that.
There's no wrong committed in serving an audience.Nobody has said there is anything wrong with serving a specific audience. What becomes an issue is when that audience gets served at the expense of everyone else.
If I had a nickel for every dating profile that said "treat me like a princess" . . .This seems a good indicator of what Sarkeesian is talking about in terms of these tropes being problematic.
She keeps saying it's ok in moderation but then she uses words like pernicious and extremely troubling to describe specific cases. It really sounds like she wants enforceme to of some kind but doesn't want to put that in this presentation because she wants us to accept the idea first then accept the need to enforce the idea later. Especially after going to both Google and the UN, I feel justified in assuming this.I'm going to remind you, again, to keep the outside meta-dialogue in the meta-dialogue thread.
If you have a textual example of her advocating for "enforcement" then by all means bring it up, but let's not pretend that the word "pernicious" is anything other than what it is. That seems an appropriate word to describe this trope. And I'm "extremely troubled" by how prevalent the trope is - but I don't want to ban or censor anything. Let's try to stick to what is actually being said and not extrapolate out some sort of super secret hidden motive where there isn't one. Thanks.
Her mere presence at those events shows that she's pushing for action now and that she could do something if she wanted to. She's not just a YouTuber. She's in national media and international events. I think it's worth keeping in mind as we go forward.
Moving to metathread
Let's move this discussion over to the meta-dialogue thread and stick to the text here. Thanks.
Then we have nothing but he said she said. Her words could be interpreted either way and even if your interpretation is better supported by the strict text, the conclusion stands to be undermined by the larger context of what she's doing.
TheHarpoMarxist wrote:Let's move this discussion over to the meta-dialogue thread and stick to the text here. Thanks.
Then we have nothing but he said she said. Her words could be interpreted either way and even if your interpretation is better supported by the strict text, the conclusion stands to be undermined by the larger context of what she's doing.
So you're ok with us pulling other things you've said, and your attitude elsewhere, and what we perceive your actions to be, to build our own assumptions about what we think you're really saying or trying to do and stick to that interpretation regardless of your protestations?
Because I could swear that earlier in this very thread, you complained about people doing that. And yet here you are doing it to Sarkeesian over and over.
The whole reason we started the first "close look" thread was to determine whether Sarkeesian said the things you claimed she did in her videos (which you admitted you hadn't seen, but were working off of assumptions). But now that it turns out she's actually being carefully specific (with a couple exceptions) in what she says in these videos, you want to go on a witch hunt elsewhere? That is the very definition of moving the goalposts.
WideAndNerdy wrote:TheHarpoMarxist wrote:Let's move this discussion over to the meta-dialogue thread and stick to the text here. Thanks.
Then we have nothing but he said she said. Her words could be interpreted either way and even if your interpretation is better supported by the strict text, the conclusion stands to be undermined by the larger context of what she's doing.
So you're ok with us pulling other things you've said, and your attitude elsewhere, and what we perceive your actions to be, to build our own assumptions about what we think you're really saying or trying to do and stick to that interpretation regardless of your protestations?
Because I could swear that earlier in this very thread, you complained about people doing that. And yet here you are doing it to Sarkeesian over and over.
The whole reason we started the first "close look" thread was to determine whether Sarkeesian said the things you claimed she did in her videos (which you admitted you hadn't seen, but were working off of assumptions). But now that it turns out she's actually being carefully specific (with a couple exceptions) in what she says in these videos, you want to go on a witch hunt elsewhere? That is the very definition of moving the goalposts.
I'd seen the videos we are examining currently. If I said otherwise in an earlier thread I meant her more recent videos.
As for the rest, fine. But recognize the limits of the conclusions we can come to if we remain limited to this text and this scope.
Or, alternatively, how about recognizing that actually looking at what she is saying - without the noise and the projections of all of the people who have an agenda in regards to her - might actually be illuminating.
Doesn't she herself say nothing exists in a vacuum?
As for the rest, fine. But recognize the limits of the conclusions we can come to if we remain limited to this text and this scope.
Are you kidding me?? My jaw is literally hanging open. Recognize the limits of the conclusions we can come to about what someone has said if we limit our scope of examination to what they actually said? You mean, we might actually think about the actual bloody things they said?? And this is some sort of bad thing?
Yeah, reminds me of DA:O where if you're a male city elf, your bride-to-be is kidnapped by noble-classed racist/rapist... and your desire to save them is your motivation. If you're a female city elf, you get kidnapped along with your friend, and you have to try to save her. While this does keep the story effectively the SAME either way and you're just experiencing it from a different perspective... it's also the only one of these to do so in that way.
GTG, I think she is explaining her points very clearly here, no change from my comment on the previous beat.
Pages