Support NeoGAF

[Shinta]

There should be an obvious difference and the fact that you're equating the two as if the two situations are somehow comparable is sufficient indication of either your severe bias or your lack of willingness to comprehend the world around you and the people within it.

If you disagree with lime you are severely biased and purposely try to not understand the world around you. That doesn't even make sense honestly.

You only get away with ad hominem attacks because you pack them into such overwrought language that most don't unpack it and derive the true meaning of what you're saying. Then if someone responds to you in kind, they get disciplined because they don't mask it as well as you do.

In the future you should try to debate ideas without attacking people, because it's not necessary and it doesn't help your case at all.

 

[Weltall Zero]

I take it you are in favour of banning guns, too, since there's a clear link between gun violence and the proliferation of guns in the USA? And even if you actually are in favour, good luck trying to convince the rest of your country of that, haha.

You say that as if it's an unreasonable or counterintuitive position to pick (which is out of character for the little I know of you). Fortunately I don't have to convince anyone, because literally every single person I've ever know in real life agrees that legal gun possession in a civilized country is one of the crazies ideas ever. The perks of living in Western Europe! Hopefully, at some point, Americans will realize that there's a reason why gun ownership is only a debate in countries that have legalized it.

Back on topic, if videogames were ever demonstrated to be harmful to the player, and indirectly to others, I fully expect society to restrict or ban them, most certainly to minors at least; that's what society does. Fortunately I'm pretty convinced that evidence thus far points to the contrary.

 

[Brakke]

It's a dodge. You're basically saying that pixels don't matter, only people. And that could be said to basically undermine any motivation for Anita even making a video series if we applied something like that to her.

In reality, you overreached, and nothing about "damsel" in the context of this debate is wildly misogynistic.

The reason patronizing is a gross thing to do is it's you putting yourself on a higher plane than another person. It's presumptive and rude and if you have such a thought you're almost certainly not "better" than other people.

Representations of people *are* of a lower plane than actual people. Other people create them with the express intention that the rest of us look down on them.

To call a human a damsel is to say "you exist for the gratification or fulfillment of others". That's gross. Video game damsels *do* *literally* exist for the gratification and fulfillment of others.

 

[Brawndo Addict]

I have nothing to add that Brakke didn't already say. To say the video misses the point is an understatement.

 

[Gestault]

The reason patronizing is a gross thing to do is it's you putting yourself on a higher plane than another person. It's presumptive and rude and if you have such a thought you're almost certainly not "better" than other people.

Representations of people *are* of a lower plane than actual people. Other people create them with the express intention that the rest of us look down on them.

To call a human a damsel is to say "you exist for the gratification or fulfillment of others". That's gross. Video game damsels *do* *literally* exist for the gratification and fulfillment of others.

I utterly agree with you, but you're over-thinking this: Criticisms of fiction simply don't apply to human interaction. It's trying to use a less complex model to analyse a more complex one.

 

[frequency]

I just want to tackle that point because I'm busy. But it's not patronizing or misogynistic, and I've also noted the irony of someone making a video series criticizing the DiD trope basically using that same social dynamic as the entire context and content of her TED talk, her initial rise to fame, the rush of donations to the site after bullying was highlighted, and in some ways (though less related), the anti-gamer articles we're seeing right now.

Her entire career as a game critic is framed in the DiD narrative.

That's wrong. She is not a damsel in distress. Getting help does not make you a damsel in distress.

A damsel in distress is a character that exists only as narrative motivation for the hero(ine). The purpose of that character is to be rescued (and often awarded as a prize to the rescuer).

 

[Shinta]

I utterly agree with you, but you're over-thinking this: Criticisms of fiction simply don't apply to human interaction. It's trying to use a less complex model to analyse a more complex one.

I disagree because I've never thought that DiD was merely a narrative trope. It's a deep seeded reflection of the value society places on female life.

It's the same thing as distinguishing "women and children" in casualty reports. It's the same phenomenon as society upholding the value that it's never okay to hit a woman. The pretext of a DiD storyline is that women are valuable and men should be encouraged to risk their lives to protect them.

One of the main reasons I reject most interpretation of DiD as a display of extreme objectification (not in every case, there are a couple examples I agree with), is because in a lot of cases it can just as easily be interpreted as a display of female worth. The reason this relates to Anita in real life is because often times, female harassment will receive much greater attention and sympathy than male harassment. The people coming to their aid in disproportionate numbers are in a sense acting out the DiD trope in real life.

 

[Brakke]

Who says she doesn't respond to fair criticisms anyway?

https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/507240458557222912 : "A fair point. RT @Sandflapjack: @femfreq Actual criticisms of you: you arent as sassy as you should be. Bring up that sass to 11."

I utterly agree with you, but you're over-thinking this: Criticisms of fiction simply don't apply to human interaction. It's trying to use a less complex model to analyse a more complex one.

Yes, that's much more succinct.

 

[Gestault]

Who says she doesn't respond to fair criticisms anyway?

https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/507240458557222912 : "A fair point. RT @Sandflapjack: @femfreq Actual criticisms of you: you arent as sassy as you should be. Bring up that sass to 11."

This is profoundly charming, lol

 

[frequency]

I disagree because I've never thought that DiD was merely a narrative trope. It's a deep seeded reflection of the value society places on female life.

It's the same thing as distinguishing "women and children" in casualty reports. It's the same phenomenon as society upholding the value that it's never okay to hit a woman. The pretext of a DiD storyline is that women are valuable and men should be encouraged to risk their lives to protect them.

One of the main reasons I reject most interpretation of DiD as a display of extreme objectification (not in every case, there are a couple examples I agree with), is because in a lot of cases it can just as easily be interpreted as a display of female worth. The reason this relates to Anita in real life is because often times, female harassment will receive much greater attention and sympathy than male harassment. The people coming to their aid in disproportionate numbers are in a sense acting out the DiD trope in real life.

I may be misunderstanding you. If so, please clarify. I have a few questions about this perspective.

Isn't that saying that any woman who has ever received assistance is a damsel in distress then? You are operating under the belief that women are considered more valuable and so any time a woman is helped it is because the helper places her worth above that of man.

If this isn't what you're saying, what makes Anita's case different from someone helping me carry my bags?

And what of assistance given to men? Like the various donation drives that have appeared even here on NeoGAF for a man suffering an illness and needing help with medical bills? How is that different?

What of other Kickstarters? When Tim Shafer appealed to us so that he could create his game and we pledged our money in assistance so that Double Fine could continue on?

What of discussions defending specific developers? Or journalists? Someone may say, "Iwata is faking his illness and hospitalization and should be fired". And many come speak in his defense. Is Mr. Iwata a damsel in distress? If not, what is different in that situation?

What needed to be different in Anita's situation to make it so she is not considered a damsel in distress to you?

 

[Shinta]

I may be misunderstanding you. If so, please clarify. I have a few questions about this perspective.

Isn't that saying that any woman who has ever received assistance is a damsel in distress then?

No, I would never say that. These aren't universal, airtight theories. I don't think it applies to every single individual case of helping a woman ever. It's more of a broad social construct that has been in the subtext of society for a very long time. Like the 5 boyfriends that jumped on top of their girlfriends in the Aurora theater shooting, dying by shielding them from bullets. Or the gender distribution of survivors in the Titanic life rafts. Or the gender differences in how we view physical violence.

That's not to say that every single person is bound by this social construct. There's still sexism and misogyny. These are broad things that don't apply to every single case. And it's still really just an abstract theory in the end. Same with most of objectification theory. The flip side of that theory is male disposability being emphasized in every game on her list when the man dies 100s of times in an attempt to save a woman's life. You can really view it either way depending on your ideological leanings.

You are operating under the belief that women are considered more valuable and so any time a woman is helped it is because the helper places her worth above that of man.

No, it's a social construct that doesn't apply to every single case. But you do hear distinctions to this day on the news that separates "women and children" as more valuable (and horrific) casualties than male civilian casualties. That is not new, and I think it's a pretty strong reflection of this social construct. It's a very strong construct that govern decisions of life and death.

If this isn't what you're saying, what makes Anita's case different from someone helping me carry my bags?

I guess I don't really follow. It's kind of related, but not really. It's more of a representation of culture, and etiquette that women shouldn't work at all, even straining to open a door. It's kind of insultingly polite, based in almost equal measure on notions of female worth, and female sexism. I can see how opening a door is a compliment in the man's mind, and an insult in the woman's mind, despite being the exact same action. It depends on the perspective of the person and their ideology.

And what of assistance given to men? Like the various donation drives that have appeared even here on NeoGAF for a man suffering an illness and needing help with medical bills? How is that different?

Men can get assistance too, but I'd argue it is often times less visible and with less sympathy involved. One of the biggest gaps in gender today is the sympathy gap. Feminists usually argue this same point. All of masculine socialization is about "toughening up" and "taking it like a man" which runs counter to asking for help. Many men still don't even go to the doctor unless it's very bad because they feel they can take it.

What of other Kickstarters? When Tim Shafer appealed to us so that he could create his game and we pledged our money in assistance so that Double Fine could continue on?

What of discussions defending specific developers? Or journalists? Someone may say, "Iwata is faking his illness and hospitalization and should be fired". And many come speak in his defense. Is Mr. Iwata a damsel in distress? If not, what is different in that situation?

I don't really know where you're going with these, and I'm running out of energy replying.

What needed to be different in Anita's situation to make it so she is not considered a damsel in distress to you?

Nothing. It's not up to her to decide. These are social constructs that motivate people to even sacrifice their own life. She has no power to erase it or prevent it from influencing how people act. It doesn't mean it will be the only thing that influences people, and it doesn't mean it's universally effective on everyone. I'm talking about broad, generalized cultural themes.

 

[mavs]

I didn't know men white knighting Sarkeesian was still a hot topic on GAF. Learning is fun!

 

[frequency]

Thanks for taking the time to reply.

I wasn't really leading to something with the questions. I am genuinely curious what makes it different because I really don't understand how you're deciding that Anita should be considered a damsel in distress.

I ask of Kickstarter with Double Fine because, like Anita, they went for crowdfunding and got significantly more than they asked for. They both appealed for outside assistance in creating their thing (game, video series) and got a disproportionate amount of support.

The only difference I can see of the two is Tim Shafer is a man and Anita Sarkeesian is a woman.

I am sad that you skipped that one for lack of energy as that one is one I care the most for your answer. May I ask you to muster the energy to explain to me?

I'm still unable to determine what is different that makes one a damsel in distress while another isn't.

And regarding your last paragraph, Anita is a damsel in distress no matter what? I am not speaking of what she could have done different but how the situation could have been different so that you would not consider her a damsel in distress. Or are you really saying there is nothing that could have kept her from being a damsel in distress by your definition?

 

[Shinta]

Or are you really saying there is nothing that could have kept her from being a damsel in distress by your definition?

I view it as a social constant. It's like asking what could Charles Manson have done to convince people murder wasn't wrong? Not much. People have viewed murder as being wrong throughout history and it's been enshrined in multiple social constructs and our legal system. It's not in his power to change that.

What could Anita have done to not be seen as a more sympathetic figure than a man in the exact same position? Not much. It's a broad social construct that has been in place throughout history, and is enshrined in multiple aspects of our culture. For all I know it could even literally be tied to our evolution at the genetic level to help engender feelings of protection towards caregivers of infants and ensure survival of the species, like how women feel biological duty to help protect their children.

I'm not a scientist though, just speculating. So in short, every situation can be different because of other factors. If she was especially rude she would probably not be seen as a sympathetic figure. But she has no power to influence the presence of the social constructs I'm talking about. And so I just find it ironic at times that she views the DiD trope with such disdain when I think that same sentiment in society kind of helped promote the rise of her career at key points. Not by any action of hers, just by virtue of it being a societal constant.

 

[Lime]

I didn't know men white knighting Sarkeesian was still a hot topic on GAF. Learning is fun!

What do you mean? Please elaborate.

 

[Tuhbakee]

This is really silly. I've never seen so much ignorance, cherry picking, and disingenuousness rolled up into a single video. I have no problem with what she stands for and I think some video games really do paint women in a bad light. But just as many games out there have strong female leads and supporting characters that she chooses to not acknowledge. There isn't a complete absence of one or the other but she represents the video game medium as being that way to an audience who is likely unfamiliar with it. Truthfully, I feel that her going after video games isn't really in favor of feminist beliefs but rather for this woman to bask in the attention she's getting. Just my two cents.

 

[mavs]

What do you mean? Please elaborate.

The poster above you conflating tropes in video games with real-life attitudes towards women. There's no one left to hear this, but for the record the "damsel in distress" trope in video games is a problem when it limits the representation of women to the roles that fit that trope. There is no irony in Sarkeesian criticizing it while being subject to whatever "special" treatment society reserves for women.

Put more bluntly, that poster's entire derail was equivalent to claiming Sarkeesian got off the ground because people were white-knighting her. It seemed blatantly obvious to me that that was the case, but I wasn't sure if it was obvious to him.

 

[EdibleKnife]

This is really silly. I've never seen so much ignorance, cherry picking, and disingenuousness rolled up into a single video. I have no problem with what she stands for and I think some video games really do paint women in a bad light. But just as many games out there have strong female leads and supporting characters that she chooses to not acknowledge. There isn't a complete absence of one or the other but she represents the video game medium as being that way to an audience who is likely unfamiliar with it. Truthfully, I feel that her going after video games isn't really in favor of feminist beliefs but rather for this woman to bask in the attention she's getting. Just my two cents.

Do you really think she or any other woman would spend their time or energy pointing out these tropes if there really were just as many strong female leads? Or if those leads came anywhere close to the overwhelming amount of male representation in games as a whole? It's not at all disingenuous to say female representation in video games is nowhere near the amount, especially not the quality, of male representation. It's a vast disproportionality same way as minority representation. Also this "attention grabbing" results in days of pages and pages of hate vomit from blood-angry people all over the world, so much that it finally caused her to fear for her own safety so I really don't think attention-seeking is a valid criticism.

 

[Lime]

EDIT: Nevermind, he or she got banned.

 

[Mesoian]

This is really silly. I've never seen so much ignorance, cherry picking, and disingenuousness rolled up into a single video. I have no problem with what she stands for and I think some video games really do paint women in a bad light. But just as many games out there have strong female leads and supporting characters that she chooses to not acknowledge. There isn't a complete absence of one or the other but she represents the video game medium as being that way to an audience who is likely unfamiliar with it. Truthfully, I feel that her going after video games isn't really in favor of feminist beliefs but rather for this woman to bask in the attention she's getting. Just my two cents.

Which is why the developers of said games are agreeing with her.

Mmkay.

I haven't weighed in on the actual video yet, but it really is one of her strongest ones yet. But her strongest point, by far, is the idea that repeatability is not commentary. Yes, you can have the ideal violence against women paint the tone of the world and the characters within as good or evil and the use the option to stop said violence as an empowering factor. But those points should have weight and gravity and not be a throw away moment that are completely inconsequential at the end of the day. Writers need to get a lot stronger when it comes to how they handle that stuff besides using hookers as disposable damsels, which they do a LOT (especially ubisoft). I think it can be handled well (that scene from Bioshock 1 she uses at the beginning gave me chills the first time I saw it, I thought it was a great moment in that game) and really boils down game devs rethinking the disposable nature of game vignettes, not necessarily the characters within them. Some examples she uses are better than others, but yeah, good points, good video.

And man, that GTA4 stuff, what a disappointment. That mission does a great job highlighting how the narrative of that game really doesn't give a shit about what the player wants to do, it basically takes the controller out of your hands. It's the single biggest criticism that you can make about that game.

This is interesting:

You are operating under the belief that women are considered more valuable and so any time a woman is helped it is because the helper places her worth above that of man.

I think that's the attitude that 90% of game developers have, yes. In games, men are disposable and useless, who cares who they are, you're there to shoot them in the face. Women are supposed to be held in a higher regard than than, which makes the act of saving them so rewarding for the player. I think that's a pretty common ideal in all media. Who cares about the 30 some odd murders Vicious enacts against Spike's friends and family, it's only until Julia is killed that Spike goes after him. So many examples of that.

Games need to stop treating their casts solely as wicks used to ignite powder kegs.

 

[Gestault]

I'm pretty sure this just happened to Mavs:

(Too Human revival sequence. Thank you based mods.)

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

I'm sort of confused as to what exactly Shinta was banned for.

 

[Lime]

I think that's the attitude that 90% of game developers have, yes. In games, men are disposable and useless, who cares who they are, you're there to shoot them in the face. Women are supposed to be held in a higher regard than than, which makes the act of saving them so rewarding for the player. I think that's a pretty common ideal in all media. Who cares about the 30 some odd murders Vicious enacts against Spike's friends and family, it's only until Julia is killed that Spike goes after him. So many examples of that.

Games need to stop treating their casts solely as wicks used to ignite powder kegs.

In general, I think games should focus on less characters, because most game developers and their employed writers do a terrible job at characterization and depth and complexity. Thus, the solution to solving the problem of game developers' incapability to provide believable and complex characters could potentially be to restrict developers to only focus on a couple of characters.

Developers, especially AAA, usually attempts to depict these grandiose, almost operatic, character galleries with a lot of different character types. But because of this large amount of characters, the resulting problem is that players only get to experience these characters briefly and superficially. It's more about quantity than quality.

One could apply this principle of characterization to Vampire Bloodlines in comparison to something like Assassin's Creed 4: Black Flag. The former has a limited range of characters that is given sufficient time and breath to be properly characterized, while the latter is filled with a lot of different characters who end up feeling hollow and uninteresting, because their characterization makes them seem like they only serve to advance the plot rather than being organically intertwined into the themes and plot of the game.

 

[Mesoian]

In general, I think games should focus on less characters, because most game developers and their employed writers do a terrible job at characterization and depth and complexity. Thus, the solution to solving the problem of game developers' incapability to provide believable and complex characters could potentially be to restrict developers to only focus on a couple of characters.

Developers, especially AAA, usually attempts to depict these grandiose, almost operatic, character galleries with a lot of different character types. But because of this large amount of characters, the resulting problem is that players only get to experience these characters briefly and superficially. It's more about quantity than quality.

One could apply this principle of characterization to Vampire Bloodlines in comparison to something like Assassin's Creed 4: Black Flag. The former has a limited range of characters that is given sufficient time and breath to be properly characterized, while the latter is filled with a lot of different characters who end up feeling hollow and uninteresting, because their characterization makes them seem like they only serve to advance the plot rather than being organically intertwined into the themes and plot of the game.

Agreed. The sheer girth of the rolling cast for a game makes it hard to care about protagonists and antagonists at all (I don't remember 1 single person's name except for Sam Fisher's in Splinter Cell). With AC4 it's especially problematic because they try and make every one of the side characters a sympathetic story, which in turn makes it seem like Edward never actually matures or progresses as a person. So the only turn he ever actually makes is not openly mocking his enemies in combat, and then the credits roll. It makes it all seem hollow and...well...video gamey.

Meanwhile Enslaved has a cast of 3 and you can feel the emotions they're having through sheer sight. That game is a masterclass of characterization (and not much else).

In everyone's scramble to make the biggest game with the most things, I think they're finding that in order to fill said game with the most things, they're winding up with literally nothing to say, and thus they rely on shit like "save these women" or "kill these men" because "reasons", and when you're done, get ready to do it again, for 8-14 hours.

Makes me miss RPGs.

Makes me wish AAA developers would consult smaller studios when it comes to scenario design.

 

[SixMachine]

Just a hypothetical question, if there was a way to portray sex trade in videogames how would you do it? Saying just don't do it is counter-productive to this because many movies can portray and even make the viewer contemplate the horrors and struggles that crime has on the impact on the lives of people, so subject matter like this shouldn't just be ignored.

If there were gigolos or male sex workers, would they elicit the same reaction if they were being assaulted by a pimp? And I'm not talking about the Saints Row kind of sex worker, where there are a bunch of gimps and played for laughs but portrayed in a straight faced and serious manner that is in other open world games. What would be your reaction if something in a game had the equivalent of those stories you hear about those young boys who unfortunately have to work in the sex trade in Southeast Asia. Just curious how people view or handle these things. Even though I know the expected response would be it's horrible either way, I always wonder if that's truly always the case especially since watching "What Would You Do" episodes show that people react to men and women in situations like harassment in vastly different ways. Would you view it with the same amount of sympathy if it was a effeminate young man being pimp slapped or would it seem kind of out there because it's not usually seen in media?

 

[Gestault]

I've gotta say, I don't think her inclusion of the examples from Bioshock are fair game. Part of the game's whole thesis is a rejection of commodifying humanity. It's a statement on moral extremes implicit in truly libertarian governance. I think game context (and further still if you've read the book Rapture) makes this a poor subject for an arbitrarily sexualized window-dressing. And by her own definition, I don't find the mangled bodies she references titillating on any level.

 

[Mesoian]

Just a hypothetical question, if there was a way to portray sex trade in videogames how would you do it? Saying just don't do it is counter-productive to this because many movies can portray and even make the viewer contemplate the horrors and struggles that crime has on the impact on the lives of people, so subject matter like this shouldn't just be ignored.

If there were gigolos or male sex workers, would they elicit the same reaction if they were being assaulted by a pimp? And I'm not talking about the Saints Row kind of sex worker, where there are a bunch of gimps and played for laughs but portrayed in a straight faced and serious manner that is in other open world games. What would be your reaction if something in a game had the equivalent of those stories you hear about those young boys who unfortunately have to work in the sex trade in Southeast Asia. Just curious how people view or handle these things. Even though I know the expected response would be it's horrible either way, I always wonder if that's truly always the case especially since watching "What Would You Do" episodes show that people react to men and women in situations like harassment in vastly different ways. Would you view it with the same amount of sympathy if it was a effeminate young man being pimp slapped or would it seem kind of out there because it's not usually seen in media?

I guess the only thing I would ask about that is, why would you inherently use the sex trade as a method to paint your world as a gritty deplorable place? What does doing that give you? And is it really more important than simply making you understand what the characters in the scene are thinking?

Let's look at Monster (because I'm full of weird examples today). They never paint the sex trade as something without grit or dirt, but the sheer act of being within a brothel or a strip club isn't inherently laden with negativity. There aren't women being slapped around by their johns or pimps around every corner, there aren't groups of women weeping against one another as their situation crushes the very fiber of their being (because geeze Dishonored...) there aren't men screaming at nude women using profanity every other word as they go over new pole dancing routines in private (That scene was so odd in The Wolf Among Us). There are a lot of women with different motives and characteristics doing what they can to get what they want. Some of them are good people, some of them are bad people, some of them are powerful people, very few of them are defined by their bodies. Some are in tragic situations, many in alleyways begging for heroine or money, but they come off as people, not trophies to obtain from an opposing house. Some of them need help but won't take it. Some of them are fine and are refusing help from people who "just want to take them away from that life". They come across as people, not things, which makes what they do in their specific situation stand out.

So start there. If you want to depict the sex trade business, make the women out to be PEOPLE and not WHORES. Bioshock 1 does this. Bioshock 2 does not.

 

[Gestault]

I guess the only thing I would ask about that is, why would you inherently use the sex trade as a method to paint your world as a gritty deplorable place? What does doing that give you? And is it really more important than simply making you understand what the characters in the scene are thinking?

I will say, people think of the physical locations of the sex trade as gritty and monstrous because in real life, they are. I think that's a perfectly good rationale for using it to present that setting a game scenario, but Sarkeesian's point about the double role as grit and titillation is spot on in some of these examples. I'm astonished I haven't seen more games simply use this setting after hours, where you'd see women interacting as women, not performing as decor. This would achieve the design goal, but also create a wider range of properly humanized characters in the environment. I would find that twist on the setting more compelling, personally.

 

[Mesoian]

I will say, people think of the physical locations of the sex trade as gritty and monstrous because in real life, they are. I think that's a perfectly good rationale for using it to present that setting a game scenario, but Sarkeesian's point about the double role as grit and titillation is spot on in some of these examples. I'm astonished I haven't seen more games simply use this setting after hours, where you'd see women interacting as women, not performing as decor. This would achieve the design goal, but also create a wider range of properly humanized characters in the environment. I would find that twist on the setting more compelling, personally.

Totally, but I think that's the question that needs to be asked. If the inclusion of a brothel area or a strip club or a sex den results in nothing different than if the location was a bar, a back alley or a convenience store, you aren't using that setting correctly and you're better off just changing it. Give your locations meaning and weight, opposed to being titillation for titillation's sake. Bioshock 2 does a really bad job of justifying the location. Bioshock 1 does a GREAT job with it though, in my opinion anyway. It almost feels like the only reason you go there in Bioshock 2 is because you need recognizable locations from Bioshock 1 to make Rapture seem "familiar".

 

[SixMachine]

I guess the only thing I would ask about that is, why would you inherently use the sex trade as a method to paint your world as a gritty deplorable place? What does doing that give you? And is it really more important than simply making you understand what the characters in the scene are thinking?

Let's look at Monster (because I'm full of weird examples today). They never paint the sex trade as something without grit or dirt, but the sheer act of being within a brothel or a strip club isn't inherently laden with negativity. There aren't women being slapped around by their johns or pimps around every corner, there aren't groups of women weeping against one another as their situation crushes the very fiber of their being (because geeze Dishonored...) there aren't men screaming at nude women using profanity every other word as they go over new pole dancing routines (That scene was so odd in The Wolf Among Us). There are a lot of women with different motives and characters doing what they can to get what they want. Some of them are good people, some of them are bad people, some of them are powerful people, very few of them are defined by their bodies. Some are in tragic situations, many in alleyways begging for heroine or money, but they come off as people, not trophies to obtain from an opposing house. Some of them need help but won't take it. Some of them are fine and are refusing help from people who "just want to take them away from that life". They come across as people, not things, which makes what they do in their specific situation stand out.

So start there. If you want to depict the sex trade business, make the women out to be PEOPLE and not WHORES. Bioshock 1 does this. Bioshock 2 does not.

I like Monster, and I do agree with you not every brothel or strip club really needs to be seedy or gritty. I remember VICE doing a documentary on high class escorts who make 6 figures and are healthy and well off, it seemed like a decent practice with the correct infrastructure. What I had in mind when I wrote the question was to the more violent depictions, which are not an organized establishment. Like that pimp harassing a women in the street. It's understandable if you don't want to see dark or grit, but there are some products whether movies or game which would aim for that theme, no matter how played out it may seem. I think the reason why sex trade is usually seen as such is because within crime brackets, prostitution is often involved in their operations (At least it is in the US since it is illegal, except for some places in Nevada). Not saying all games should view it that way because brothels are legal in some other countries but in a game like GTA where it is based on something similar to a US city, prostitution is a crime and brothels are illegal.

And the people and not whores comment also brought to mind something. Why not have someone be a person and a whore? Negative wording aside, I mean something like a person who like being sexually liberated and getting paid for sex. I think I saw a BBC documentary on proud women who date and bang rich guys, and they seemed happy about it. Or maybe a proud prostitute like the high class escorts I mentioned before?

 

[Brawndo Addict]

I'm sort of confused as to what exactly Shinta was banned for.

You can PM a mod about it but it's probably because:

I view it as a social constant. It's like asking what could Charles Manson have done to convince people murder wasn't wrong? Not much. People have viewed murder as being wrong throughout history and it's been enshrined in multiple social constructs and our legal system. It's not in his power to change that.

What could Anita have done to not be seen as a more sympathetic figure than a man in the exact same position? Not much. It's a broad social construct that has been in place throughout history, and is enshrined in multiple aspects of our culture. For all I know it could even literally be tied to our evolution at the genetic level to help engender feelings of protection towards caregivers of infants and ensure survival of the species, like how women feel biological duty to help protect their children.

So implicitly comparing Anita to a serial killer when you have literally a universe of other possible comparisons you could make while simultaneously implying murder is only considered wrong by chance or circumstance rather than reason. Castigating Anita as exploiting the DiD trope while completely ignoring the entire question of whether Schafer exploited the same trope and ignoring the question of whether its makes sense to draw a distinction if the only meaningful difference was gender. Defending everything by defaulting to a 'Everything's a social construct, it's all subjective, maybe it applies, maybe it doesn't, nothing is really true in the end, biological determinism' derail.

Whether things are a social construct or not is meaningless to the underlying question of whether the social construct is positive or negative or whether we should be adhering to it at all or at least applying it equally regardless of gender. If you don't believe any value or truth statements can be made about this, then everyone is just forced to believe whatever they already believe and nothing deeper can be said, comparisons or preferences among positions are impossible and discussion is utterly meaningless. That and the post is a half-step away from justifying behavior by saying its hard-wired in our genes to treat women particular ways. So yeah, it's not proper form to accuse someone of doing something and then suggest that there is no evidence or possible universe of alternative actions that would have ever changed your mind.

Regarding game design, it's just the laziest possible choice to default to brothels or sexual violence in a quest to be gritty or dark or whatever (and I would still argue the inclusion is for marketing purposes and 'sex sells' more than any creative/artistic reason). Are developers so starved for ideas that they can't think of anything else to include? Unlike film or television, games have never really proven that they're capable of the same kind of quality artistic merit or that they could reach it without having to rely on overwrought and overused tropes. I simply don't believe that whatever 'creative' decision is going on behind the scenes could not be satisfied in some other more meaningful way. That these kinds of things existed in history or real life is besides the point, so do child molesters and rapists but I don't see us arguing that they need to be included in games in order to make it feel true or make a point.

 

[Kinitari]

I guess the only thing I would ask about that is, why would you inherently use the sex trade as a method to paint your world as a gritty deplorable place? What does doing that give you? And is it really more important than simply making you understand what the characters in the scene are thinking?

Let's look at Monster (because I'm full of weird examples today). They never paint the sex trade as something without grit or dirt, but the sheer act of being within a brothel or a strip club isn't inherently laden with negativity. There aren't women being slapped around by their johns or pimps around every corner, there aren't groups of women weeping against one another as their situation crushes the very fiber of their being (because geeze Dishonored...) there aren't men screaming at nude women using profanity every other word as they go over new pole dancing routines in private (That scene was so odd in The Wolf Among Us). There are a lot of women with different motives and characteristics doing what they can to get what they want. Some of them are good people, some of them are bad people, some of them are powerful people, very few of them are defined by their bodies. Some are in tragic situations, many in alleyways begging for heroine or money, but they come off as people, not trophies to obtain from an opposing house. Some of them need help but won't take it. Some of them are fine and are refusing help from people who "just want to take them away from that life". They come across as people, not things, which makes what they do in their specific situation stand out.

So start there. If you want to depict the sex trade business, make the women out to be PEOPLE and not WHORES. Bioshock 1 does this. Bioshock 2 does not.

Hmmm... I agree more than I disagree with a lot of what people are saying here - but this sort of thing is a little... off putting. Essentially you are saying now that there are -right- ways to portray brothels - ones that are empowering to women. I say that there is absolutely nothing wrong with that portrayal of brothels and I would appreciate more games that did - however if someone wanted to portray a historically accurate brothel from 14 century europe or something, it may not fit your criteria - but I don't think there is anything wrong with that.

I think that's where this whole thing sort of gets tricky. I think it's important to have variety, and have healthy representations of women in gaming media, and I also think that there isn't nearly enough of both when it comes to the worlds I regularly enjoy. That being said, I don't think the solution is to not portray women in non-empowered ways ever, and I don't think that's exactly what you are trying to say, but it's sort of where the argument goes if it's pushed.

 

[ChawlieTheFair]

They essentially are. From the video. "Developers regularly utilize the brutalization of women’s bodies, and especially the bodies of female prostitutes, as an indicator of just how harsh, cruel and unforgiving their game worlds are. In some of the most pernicious examples, dead or mutilated female bodies are used to decorate virtual game environments as a way to invoke a sexually charged creepy mood or edgy atmosphere."

It's the same basic thing. They just happened to extend it to their ad campaign.



I'm not sure what you mean by "it is still in its purpose a tool or tone for clarifying."



Part 2.


Because how they're represented is part of a trend that is common throughout the gaming industry.


Can you be more specific about the women? Since there is a broad array, who are they and how are they a positive representation and "morality personified."



I would like to bring up one of your points in the quote you linked to:


Is this a reference to the Watch Dogs scene? That scene would have been better placed in part 2 than 1. It was in no way a criticism in any substantive sense other than a hamfisted "human trafficking bad!!" Which is no different than Assassin Creed 2's apparent "murdering an infinite number of courtesans bad!" criticism.



She also references studies and experiments on the subject during that part of the video, plus provides links to the studies on the episode's blog post on her website.

But they aren't part of the actual game, and I imagine most people who played the game have not seen those ads. Ignorance isn't an excuse I can agree, but I bought the game on a steam sale, and many others just bought it off the shelf, new when it came out or used years later. Surely that's a entirely seperate problem?

By that I mean that context can be used to, and I mean this in a loose sense, though it may make me sound ignorant, "justify" certain happenings/aspects of a game/gameworld/characters etc etc. Justify is a very poor choice of words, but I'm not sure how else to phrase it.

And again, this is where my context argument comes in, as although RDR features some women that some may find negative, it also features representation of women that some may find positive. It's well aware it's doing both so to speak.

Spoilers for the sake of it:

Spoiler

Bonnie MacFarlane, rescues main character, is very much a country girl and is aware "city folk" may try to take advantage of her based on their pre-concieved notions, hard-working and tough. Abigail Marston, former prostitute, main character and her fall in love, she wants main character out of the gang life and to be at home more for their son/for the sake of their family, doesn't beat around the bush with main character. Luisa Fortuna, a revolutionary fighter who believes in her and her people's right to freedom, willing to die for that cause, a leader within the revolution, however the man she is in love with is cheating on her, is somewhat unwilling to recognize that.

Those are the ones I can recall.

 

[Gestault]

The segment at 9:21 on Assassins Creed II troubles me for two reasons.

For one, this game seemed to humanize courtesans, even unnamed ones, within its narrative in ways most games simply don't. These faces you see all over the city are understood as disenfranchised, generally kindred spirits. They're shown to have interests and intentions besides those of the men around them. Their entracted roles in society are consistently criticized. Even when they aid the player, it's in a subversive, empowered use of their own social roles.

And two, the chase scene she focuses on plays out the way she describes because of a failure to follow the intended tutorial prompts to use ranged weapons (which would also make sense in the case of similar real-world events). Her criticizing the repetition of the events she herself is causing to repeat borders on bizarre. Even in the version of the events included, there's obvious take-downs of misogynistic ideas and statements justifying violence against women in the hapless shouting of the killer you're pursuing. What we're seeing in the game itself is intended as criticism, along the same lines as Sarkeesian's work itself.

 

[Lime]

I don't think the solution is to not portray women in non-empowered ways ever, and I don't think that's exactly what you are trying to say, but it's sort of where the argument goes if it's pushed.

But that's not what Sarkeesian and others are proposing. When it is a systematic and unbearably common trend to portray women in video games in non-empowered or objectifying ways, then it is a problem that needs to be addressed. The solution is not to completely remove all instances of non-empowerment, but to identify the structural problem and letting developers and producers and so forth decide how they want to proceed with their products given this newly acquired awareness of "hey, maybe it's not necessary to do yet another instance of naked victimized stripper to justify our weak-as-shit shooter plot"

 

[hydrophilic attack]

I really love these videos. They let me view games I like from a new perspective, showing me issues that I wouldn't have discovered on my own.

I would be interested in hearing her take (or from people in this thread) on the Wall Market and Honeybee Inn section from Final Fantasy VII.

 

[Brawndo Addict]

The segment at 9:21 on Assassins Creed II troubles me for two reasons.

For one, this game seemed to humanize courtesans, even unnamed ones, within its narrative in ways most games simply don't. These faces you see all over the city are understood as disenfranchised, generally kindred spirits. They're shown to have interests and intentions besides those of the men around them. Their entracted roles in society are consistently criticized. Even when they aid the player, it's in a subversive, empowered use of their own social roles.

And two, the chase scene she focuses on plays out the way she describes because of a failure to follow the intended tutorial prompts to use ranged weapons (which would also make sense in the case of similar real-world events), and even in the footage included, there's obvious take-downs of misogynistic ideas and statements justifying violence against women in the hapless shouting of the killer you're pursuing. What we're seeing in the game itself is intended as criticism, along the same lines as Sarkeesian's work itself.

ED: I'm not saying that I reacted that way, I'm saying that's the reaction I believe the developers intended (if they intended anything at all) and that the average player would likely react in this way (not that this reaction is a positive thing). My point is not that the mechanic of a no-game over screen is bad, but that using continual courtesan murders as the method is unnecessary when you can teach the player how to use the gun in a different way.

I never really got that sense playing through AC2 beyond the superficial. And Anita specifically says that he kills the women "if the player gets too close" and that he will continue to do so "until the player manages to shoot and kill the perpetrator from a sufficient distance". She's not hiding or misleading anyone about the mechanics or the sequence. I think you're also overlooking the fact that the game doesn't appear to have a fail state for this particular chase, which Anita emphasizes by repeating herself verbatim. The fact that the game's fail state is continuous murder of courtesans is itself problematic. Why make the effort of coding all these VO lines and path-finding when you could just have a 'fail state' after getting too close the first time and seeing the result. Especially because, if I recall correctly, this is a sort of embedded training mission teaching you how to use the gun rather than a full-fledged mission.

There's no real value to such an elongated fail path beyond the amusement of seeing how many courtesans the game has coded for this guy to kill before a true fail state occurs or some other final resolution manifests. And I would call it charitable to describe the murderer's lines as subversive or inherently self-critical. Having him say "I killed her because she laughed at me" doesn't reinforce a negative appraisal of the violence being done (hopefully players already understand that kind of murder is wrong), it's included for more humorous purposes to show how unhinged this murderer is. But by doing so it takes the focus off the women being killed, and puts it onto the motivations of the killer, diminishing the impact of what's actually being done by him. If the game instead had audible and realistic gurgles of the women having their throats slit, it might be different, although that would be problematic for different reasons.

 

[Kinitari]

But that's not what Sarkeesian and others are proposing. When it is a systematic and unbearably common trend to portray women in video games in non-empowered or objectifying ways, then it is a problem that needs to be addressed. The solution is not to completely remove all instances of non-empowerment, but to identify the structural problem and letting developers and producers and so forth decide how they want to proceed with their products given this newly acquired awareness of "hey, maybe it's not necessary to do yet another instance of naked victimized stripper to justify our weak-as-shit shooter plot"

I was specifically responding to

...
There aren't women being slapped around by their johns or pimps around every corner, there aren't groups of women weeping against one another as their situation crushes the very fiber of their being (because geeze Dishonored...) there aren't men screaming at nude women using profanity every other word as they go over new pole dancing routines in private (That scene was so odd in The Wolf Among Us).
...
So start there. If you want to depict the sex trade business, make the women out to be PEOPLE and not WHORES. Bioshock 1 does this. Bioshock 2 does not.

Which seems to be saying that non-empowered positions shouldn't be portrayed. I don't know enough about what Sarkeesian has said, or even other people have proposed - just specifically this one poster.

 

[Brakke]

It's been a while since I played Assassins Creed: The Ezio Ones, but they definitely leave a really good thing on the table with Madame Auditore. Does Ezio's sister actually take clients, or does she just run the brothels? In either case, Ezio's interactions with her boil down to rescue her / one of her girls from kidnapping, and murdering men who've mistreated her / one of her girls. Her competency is always established in dialog, never activity, so it's kind of hard to buy in to.

I'm not sure where you see the courtesans pursuing any of their own interests?

The "deliberately failing" examples are always a little weird with me, too. I think in this case, it's fair to assume someone would fail it at least a couple times: the instructions are unobtrusive and it's the first time you'd be using the gun I think. The failure cases do highlight the assumptions of the simulation. The murders are so quick and usually poorly framed that they don't really read with much gravity. There's an interesting story you could tell with that sequence, that you should master techniques before risking lives or something, that competency is important, but that definitely isn't a theme of the game generally, which constantly puts you in positions of using new techniques under pressure and frames it as adventure.

 

[aeolist]

http://femfreq.tumblr.com/post/96569154020/yes-please-explain-to-me-again-how-this-has

trigger warning: everything

 

[Gestault]

I never really got that sense playing through AC2 beyond the superficial. And Anita specifically says that he kills the women "if the player gets too close" and that he will continue to do so "until the player manages to shoot and kill the perpetrator from a sufficient distance". She's not hiding or misleading anyone about the mechanics or the sequence. I think you're also overlooking the fact that the game doesn't appear to have a fail state for this particular chase, which Anita emphasizes by repeating herself verbatim. The fact that the game's fail state is continuous murder of courtesans is itself problematic. Why make the effort of coding all these VO lines and path-finding when you could just have a 'fail state' after getting too close the first time and seeing the result. Especially because, if I recall correctly, this is a sort of embedded training mission teaching you how to use the gun rather than a full-fledged mission.

There's no real value to such an elongated fail path beyond the amusement of seeing how many courtesans the game has coded for this guy to kill before a true fail state occurs or some other final resolution manifests. And I would call it charitable to describe the murderer's lines as subversive or inherently self-critical. Having him say "I killed her because she laughed at me" doesn't reinforce a negative appraisal of the violence being done (hopefully players already understand that kind of murder is wrong), it's included for more humorous purposes to show how unhinged this murderer is. But it takes the focus off the women being killed, and puts it onto the motivations of the killer.

This is a tutorial event, and the fail state is the killing of the women on the street. It's necessary for it to repeat only if the player can't execute the attack-from-a-distance mechanic. Ideally, no one in the chase is harmed except the attacker. I think it's monstrous the way you assume those particular events are for comedy and amusement. I think it's quite justified to believe showing someone harming women as using phrases and excuses associated with misogyny is a type of criticism of those concepts.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

I'm sort of confused as to what exactly Shinta was banned for.

PM a mod

and fortify your arguments

 

[Brawndo Addict]

I was specifically responding to


Which seems to be saying that non-empowered positions shouldn't be portrayed. I don't know enough about what Sarkeesian has said, or even other people have proposed - just specifically this one poster.

But ask yourself what it is that these non-empowered positions are supposed to be doing. Do you think the games are including sex workers because of some underlying artistic reason that they could not otherwise achieve in any other way? Or do you think it's more likely motivated by the need for sexy promotional material? Did the Witcher 2 have the Triss sex scene because it was necessary or because it probably helped sell more copies by having her magically dissolve her clothes in trailers?

Even if it's supposedly creatively motivated, we shouldn't be happy with people defaulting to a lazy and tired way of making things. Why does the game need sex workers at all? What is the underling rationale and could it be achieved a different way? Games have hardly proved they're on the same footing as film or TV, so I'd like to see them successfully implement empowered positions first before we give them the benefit of the doubt on non-empowered positions being artistically necessary.

This is a tutorial event, and the fail state is the killing of the women on the street. It's necessary for it to repeat only if the player can't execute the attack-from-a-distance mechanic. Ideally, no one in the chase is harmed except the attacker. I think it's monstrous the way you assume those particular events are for comedy and amusement. I think it's quite justified to believe showing someone harming women as using phrases and excuses associated with misogyny is a type of criticism of those concepts.

I'm not saying that I reacted that way, I'm saying that's the reaction I believe the developers intended (if they intended anything at all) and that the average player would likely react in this way (not that this reaction is a positive thing). My point is not that the mechanic of a no-game over screen is bad, but that using continual courtesan murders as the method is unnecessary when you can teach the player how to use the gun in a different way.

Otherwise, I think you're giving the developer way too much credit here. AC2 is such a mechanically simple game that I can't imagine a player failing that task more than once or twice with honest effort. I find your tongue-twisting efforts to try to turn that into an example of positive sexual violence off putting. I wrote that out of anger over the monstrous comment not because I actually think you're being disingenuous. I should have been happy with clarifying my position. Apologies.

 

[SixMachine]

I never really got that sense playing through AC2 beyond the superficial. And Anita specifically says that he kills the women "if the player gets too close" and that he will continue to do so "until the player manages to shoot and kill the perpetrator from a sufficient distance". She's not hiding or misleading anyone about the mechanics or the sequence. I think you're also overlooking the fact that the game doesn't appear to have a fail state for this particular chase, which Anita emphasizes by repeating herself verbatim. The fact that the game's fail state is continuous murder of courtesans is itself problematic. Why make the effort of coding all these VO lines and path-finding when you could just have a 'fail state' after getting too close the first time and seeing the result. Especially because, if I recall correctly, this is a sort of embedded training mission teaching you how to use the gun rather than a full-fledged mission.

There's no real value to such an elongated fail path beyond the amusement of seeing how many courtesans the game has coded for this guy to kill before a true fail state occurs or some other final resolution manifests. And I would call it charitable to describe the murderer's lines as subversive or inherently self-critical. Having him say "I killed her because she laughed at me" doesn't reinforce a negative appraisal of the violence being done (hopefully players already understand that kind of murder is wrong), it's included for more humorous purposes to show how unhinged this murderer is. But by doing so it takes the focus off the women being killed, and puts it onto the motivations of the killer, diminishing the impact of what's actually being done by him. If the game instead had audible and realistic gurgles of the women having their throats slit, it might be different, although that would be problematic for different reasons.

I could see why they actually opted for not having a fail state in that part. Let me tell you from experience, non-standard game overs piss people off if they are done wrong. Like for example if a game suddenly changed to a protection or escort mission without as much warning and the player lost suddenly because some random person died. If someone was playing and they were still trying to figure things out and they got a game over just walking up to the man, then it probably would peeve them quite a bit. Granted this is one situation where a game mechanic designed for playability rather than any ill implications could turn some people off. But personally I think it works for this situation and it works better than having a game over for each courtesan killed.

 

[Lime]

http://femfreq.tumblr.com/post/96569154020/yes-please-explain-to-me-again-how-this-has

trigger warning: everything

"Why don't women just enter programmer educations?"

"Why don't they just come into the games industry?"

"Why don't they just develop their own games?"

"I cannot for the life of me understand why we receive so few applications by women for our vacant position in the games industry."

and on and on and on.

Next time I hear one of the above deflections on why women are less prone to be in the games industry and culture by some ignorant dude, I am going to blow a gasket.

 

[Kinitari]

But ask yourself what it is that these non-empowered positions are supposed to be doing. Do you think the games are including sex workers because of some underlying artistic reason that they could not otherwise achieve in any other way?

There are a lot of ideas presented that have analogous ideas. Instead of having someone commit suicide in a game to provide a point of grief for a main character, it could be a car accident, it could be a trip and fall, it could be a wild animal attack... it could be a lot of different things. I don't think just saying "You could have done it a different way" is a compelling reason to do something a different way.

Or do you think it's more likely motivated by the need for sexy promotional material? Did the Witcher 2 have the Triss sex scene because it was necessary or because it probably helped sell more copies by having her magically dissolve her clothes in trailers?

I don't think -all- sex workers in game media are there for the same reasons, so I think it's important to remember that of course everyone is going to have different motivations for the things they put in their games, even if it's the same thing across many games.

That being said, I also don't think it's inherently wrong to present sex and sexual themes in games - if the Triss sex scenes are just there for sexual appeal and gratification... well I don't inherently have a problem with that. I think the issue arises from not enough variety, not from the fact that there are games that have sex and show sexy things.

Even if it's supposedly creatively motivated, we shouldn't be happy with people defaulting to a lazy and tired way of making things. Why does the game need sex workers at all? What is the underling rationale and could it be achieved a different way? Games have hardly proved they're on the same footing as film or TV, so I'd like to see them successfully implement empowered positions first before we give them the benefit of the doubt on non-empowered positions being artistically necessary.

I don't quite understand this. You're saying that until games prove themselves to you, in some way, they shouldn't portray women has non-empowered? I don't know if that's going to convince anyone.

 

[ChawlieTheFair]

I never really got that sense playing through AC2 beyond the superficial. And Anita specifically says that he kills the women "if the player gets too close" and that he will continue to do so "until the player manages to shoot and kill the perpetrator from a sufficient distance". She's not hiding or misleading anyone about the mechanics or the sequence. I think you're also overlooking the fact that the game doesn't appear to have a fail state for this particular chase, which Anita emphasizes by repeating herself verbatim. The fact that the game's fail state is continuous murder of courtesans is itself problematic. Why make the effort of coding all these VO lines and path-finding when you could just have a 'fail state' after getting too close the first time and seeing the result. Especially because, if I recall correctly, this is a sort of embedded training mission teaching you how to use the gun rather than a full-fledged mission.

There's no real value to such an elongated fail path beyond the amusement of seeing how many courtesans the game has coded for this guy to kill before a true fail state occurs or some other final resolution manifests. And I would call it charitable to describe the murderer's lines as subversive or inherently self-critical. Having him say "I killed her because she laughed at me" doesn't reinforce a negative appraisal of the violence being done (hopefully players already understand that kind of murder is wrong), it's included for more humorous purposes to show how unhinged this murderer is. But by doing so it takes the focus off the women being killed, and puts it onto the motivations of the killer, diminishing the impact of what's actually being done by him. If the game instead had audible and realistic gurgles of the women having their throats slit, it might be different, although that would be problematic for different reasons.

What? It's a gameplay tutorial, I don't see how in anyway it was humorous? Maybe they thought it would better rather than sitting through a loading screen.

 

[Gestault]

One of my favorite points in the whole Part 2 video is Sarkeesian simply asking (12:37) why so many games that don't have a thesis about the mistreatment of women (note: some of her examples ignore this intent, but the underlying idea is still a good one) use the victimization of women as a tool for characterizing unrelated figures.

 

[Snacks the sober sea lion]

One of my favorite points in the whole Part 2 video is Sarkeesian simply asking (12:37) why so many games that don't have a thesis about the mistreatment of women (note: some of her examples ignore this intent, but the underlying idea is still a good one) use the victimization of women as a tool for characterizing unrelated figures.

Well, we could just say because so many interactions are written by hacks, but that's also a pretty big generalization. But still, why so goddamn many? It's such a played-out trope and yet it's like every damn M-rated game needs to have a brothel and/ or prostitutes.

 

[Señor Coyote]

"Why don't women just enter programmer educations?"

"Why don't they just come into the games industry?"

"Why don't they just develop their own games?"

"I cannot for the life of me understand why we receive so few applications by women for our vacant position in the games industry."

and on and on and on.

Next time I hear one of the above deflections on why women are less prone to be in the games industry and culture by some ignorant dude, I am going to blow a gasket.

While I'm not denying misogyny within gaming you should really read up on women in STEM fields. For instance the gender gap between men and women in engineering is far worse than programming and it's not because engineers have a misogyny problem.