Vig
-
Posts
2,317 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Articles
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Vig
-
-
It's the "damage" (that you're claiming as factual/inevitable) that flows from fictional depictions out into the real world that I'm saying is a nebulous construct.
Now we're talking. Yes, I think this is actually a point that is worth debating. I think my use of the word "damage" in my first post was probably confusing within the greater argument; I probably should have worded it differently, but I was only thinking about my point about female vs. male damsels.
One type of damage that occurs from pervasive damsel tropes is that some women feel shitty about the way women are portrayed. I'm sure you can agree that this happens to one extent or another, though whether or not you think it matters is a different story.
A more contentious point would be that the pervasive use of such tropes in media reinforces preexisting gender stereotypes. This assertion is not one I would consider "inevitable," though I do think it makes sense. The gender stereotypes exist for evolutionary reasons, we agree, and Miyamoto did not invent the phallus.
While I don't think one-demensional female characters should be banned from video games, I do think it's not unreasonable to conclude that when such portrayals are pervasive, they can reinforce evolutionarily relevant but somewhat undesirable attitudes towards women.
This is a sensitive subject because it's essentially the same discussion as "does violence in videogames promote violent behavior." Obviously violent elements of human nature have led to violence in media and not vice-versa, and obviously the same is true of sexism. The question is can we really deny that a feedback loop exists, and can some sort of proactive attempt to address the issue (perhaps by providing counterexamples as you suggested) be successful?
Honestly the only opinion I feel strongly about is that women have every right to feel shitty about the pervasiveness of objectified, one-dimensional female characters. Everything else is much more nebulous.
Dude. Did you just make a conscious decision to ratchet up the scale of the discussion by orders of magnitude? Cause it sounds to me like you're trying to start an argument about the nature of agency and free will. If you want we can go there, but it will have to wait for another day.As for the statement above, as written.... a male character HAS to protect or rescue a female character? As in MUST?? As in, is faced with no other options? Sounds about right to me, and damn... it also incidentally sounds like he doesn't have much "agency" either... right? -
I would be so upset, and sad... But I would be neither upset nor sad enough to start claiming that I'd proved it outright, that it was inevitable, that it was self-evident, or anything of the sort..
Again I think you're mischaracterizing me. What exactly do you think I'm claiming is self-evident? The statement I made, which I stand by, is that in a story where a male character has to protect or rescue a female character, that female character by definition must lose her agency. Become "marginalized" as it were. I don't see why you find that to be such a controversial statement.
-
Can we stop with whole "don't patronize me" fad? Just because someone explains something you either a) didn't think of before but realize was a pretty simple point or
already knew before but hadn't thought to put forth yet doesn't mean that person is subtly maligning your ability to think.I'd rather we cut down on comments from the peanut gallery about how the debate ought to be conducted. That's been quite the fad, I've noticed.
-
It's the very definition of the trope as used in this discussion, coming from the video we're discussing. She explicitly defines "damsel in distress" as requiring the damsel to be powerless to rescue herself. In a story where the kidnapee has some degree of agency, she is no longer a damsel in distress. For the purposes of this discussion.Explain how this is inevitable, in detail. I am skeptical of most inevitabilities - it's this disease I have...
Also, if we're trying to appeal to the male protective instinct, that WOULD seem to require a complimentary character who is weak and needs protecting.
No, and I don't think the statement is wrong. I think we probably have different ideas of what I meant by the word "damage."I did focus on that specific statement, yes. Is that unacceptable in some way, though? I mean, you clearly said other things, many of which I agree with, but did any of those things actually change the meaning of that statement? Did I misinterpret that specific statement in my response? I didn't think so, personally.
Yikes. Well come on you can give me more credit than that.Read this thread; it's more accepted than you'd think here in 2013, and that's a large part of what I was responding to.I
We share blame for this. My fault because I did not make my broader opinions clear (I limited the scope of my response), and your fault for assuming you could draw broad conclusions about what I think based on the microcosm of the issue that I was addressing.n fairness to you I could have made that a smidgen clearer, by actually mentioning it, I suppose. As for lack of nuance, well, I really, really like nuance... but I do prefer perception.
Well for one thing. at the top of this very post you tell me you agree with Marginalization Jesse 1000%.I again agree 1000% with the above statement, as written. However, look what you CHANGED!!! What was JUST "very real marginalization" and "inevitable" is now "I make no claim" and "I imagine"... this is a veritable sea change of tone, from absolute certitude to considerate possibility, in the scope of a single post. I strongly agree with the reasonable, second Jesse; the first one still seems a bit off.Yes, the language changes because the scope and content of what I'm discussing changes. When I was attacking the asinine assertion that women have no right to be offended by the overuse of female damsels because they aren't offended by the occasional male damsel, it makes perfect sense to speak in terms of inevitable marginalization given the our historical context.
But then all of a sudden I'm on the defensive from attacks on my evolutionary...preferences because I had the gall to discuss cultural context as a reason for women to feel shitty about damsels, of course I'm going to use a different tone. All of a sudden I'm going from "If you were a woman you'd probably feel pretty shitty about being constantly portrayed as an object" to "No, I do not believe that Shigeru Miyamoto invented the penis and the vagina.." Yeah, the tone of the discussion has to change along with what I perceive as the expectations of my audience.
This is fair.Well, in fairness to my reading comprehension, my response wasn't really directed solely at you, and I basically used specific statements from your comments as tent-posts in a larger point I've been thinking about lately -
I really enjoyed reading your post Dave, and I agree with most of it. Unfortunately most of it is in response to opinions I never expressed.
The only thesis that existed in my post was as follows: "Women are regularly marginalized in media and in society, and therefore women have more reason to be upset about the overuse of such tropes than men do."
All the other opinions you attribute to me are extrapolation on your part.
Given your relationship history, I would have thought you'd have a perspective a little more informed by evolutionary psychologyIt is. Entirely. I know I used the term "culturally ingrained," a bunch of times, but I was discussing our culture and its canon of media. If I had discussed at all where those culturally prevalent ideas came from, I would have brought up evolution. But that was outside of the scope of what I was talking about.
people keep framing damsel-in-distress as a cultural stereotype that reinforces the perception that females are weak and incapable. I think the trope speaks far more to male attitudes of being protective than it does the corresponding sentiment that all females are weak and need protecting.Good point. I agree, however the marginalization of the object female damsels is inevitably an effect of the trope, even though it is probably not the objective.
So what can we DO about that?You would apparently say, "We can repress the instinct entirely through culture, by working towards sanitizing our art!!"
What? No, I never said anything remotely like this. All I said is women have a lot more historical reason to be irritated and hurt by being portrayed as helpless objects than men do. Don't put words in my mouth.
For the next while you rant about the ineffectiveness of censorship which I'll just leave you to in peace because it has nothing to do with what I actually said.
This is purely speculation, but I would tend to buy in.Now, does culture itself evolve? Absolutely. Can it help us overcome many of our instincts that made much more sense 10,000 years ago than they do today? Absolutely. But the most effective strategy towards accomplishing this goal seems to be playing to our inherent strengths while attempting to minimize our inherent weaknesses.
YES YOU'RE SILLY OKAY GET OFF THE DAMN PHONEI believe that any instinct we possess to protect the weak is actually a strength!! Silly me, right??Alright the rest of what you say is generally about why the damsel trope should not be abandoned because it represents positive male traits, and how it is of benefit to provide a more nuanced palate of gender roles etc. which is great and I agree and this has nothing to do with what I was talking about.
Okay Captain Extrapolation. It looks very much like you read my post as though it was my dissertation on all things gender-related. In fact, it was a very narrow response to the point: "Women have no more reason to feel marginalized by the use of the damsel trope than men do."You don't improve human nature by denying it.That's the point I was addressing. The origin of gender-based streotypes? I didn't address that at all. It's evolution. What should be done if anything about these stereotypes portrayed in media? I didn't address that either. Honestly I'm leaning towards "nothing."
I get the feeling you read
and ignored everything else I said, choosing the lazy and ironically not-at-all-nuanced path of treating me like a blank-slate Nurture Only liberal quack, which as far as I can tell is a theory of human psychology that hasn't been accepted since the nineties.a recurring pattern of female damsels does in fact do damage by reinforcing the very real marginalization of women throughout history.Video games didn't create gender role stereotypes. Those stereotypes exist for evolutionary reasons. I make no claim as to how prevalent these tropes are, but to have them rehashed over and over in media would, I imagine, frustrate women who would try to move outside of those traditional gender roles. Full stop. Everything else you talk about is the argument YOU want to have, not a response to anything I said.
As always Dave, your tools of persuasion are sharp. Unfortunately your reading comprehension in this case left something to be desired.
-
she'd be a lot easier to take seriously if she didn't say it's fine as long as it's not happening to women.
like 'historical context' can go screw itself seriously. i don't see minorities being like 'yeah police brutality and harassment is fine as long as it's not happening to minorities like it historically has, etc. etc.
You've built a nice straw man. She's not talking about real police brutality, she's not talking about real kidnapping or real murder. She's talking about media. Stories. There are no actual people being hurt; the damage she's talking about is purely to the consumer of the media, not to the victims themselves, who don't actually exist.
No one damsel story is going to cause the viewer to become a misogynist. The problem arises when it becomes such a common story that it's routine. In the case of women, these stories reinforce deep-seated cultural conventions, that women are weaker than men, and can't take care of themselves. If you're talking about a male damsel in distress, there is no such culturally ingrained assumption of weakness.
So no, a male damsel story is not problematic because it doesn't reinforce existing sexist presumptions (men are weaker than women?) while a recurring pattern of female damsels does in fact do damage by reinforcing the very real marginalization of women throughout history.
-
Strengths: some great arrangement ideas, cool modulations. Right hand has some good riffs.
Weaknesses: Left hand lacks nuance or interesting voicings. Sequencing is mechanical.
Work on humanizing it. You've got some great arrangement ideas I'd like to hear executed a bit better. Work on those harmonies.
NO
-
Hmm. So this is a song that has been done many many times in a very similar style, so it's impossible not to compare this to previous remixes.
The groove and writing is a little bit simple compared to what's been heard, and sometimes lacks nuance. The piano breakdown does not work. The energy just dies. The sax is cool, but ultimately I just don't think this brings enough new ideas to the table for such a well-covered tune.
NO
-
So my problem with the mix is the bass is too loud, the guitars don't cut, and the drums need some compression. There's really nothing going on with high frequencies.
That said, I really like the arrangement a lot. A whole lot. Shit it just keeps getting better. Some of the best drum sequencing I've heard around here. Some of the best guitar playing as well, and the arrangement blends and moves so smoothly. There's such great tension.
Damn. The mixing is whack, but this track has to be on the site.
YES
-
Wow. I read my vote, and I'm impressed, because I don't remember what the last version sounded like. Certainly not like this. Lots of energy now in the mix. There's a lot of bottom still, but there's plenty of presence to go along with it. It's washy at times, and I largely think you don't need those pads sitting underneath cause mostly they just fight with the bass.
That said, this is a very impressive revision.
YES
-
The arrangement is pretty damn cool, though I'd like to hear a slightly tighter performance in terms of timing. Also the mix is a bit...not good. It's dry, uncompressed, and thin. Needs bottom. If you've got the performance in MIDI it should be really easy for you to tighten this up, find a different sample, and do some mixing.
If you don't know how, maybe pass it along to someone who does; it really shouldn't take very long at all.
NO
-
The mix is pretty muddy in the midrange, and sounds to me like it could use more compression to glue the elements together. The drums have a lot of attack but not a lot of sustain, relatively.
I really like some of the ideas, the eerie ambience, detuned music box. Excellent. The feel in general is freaking sweet.
Unfortunately there's some clumsiness in the drums (behind the beat, drifting too much) and the transitions leave something to be desired.
I think what you've got here is an awesome concept with some killer ideas, solid arrangement. It just needs to be tightened up as far as mixing, performance, and maybe some transitions.
NO
-
Thanks guys!
All I want for my birthday is for you to like my stupid facebook page or someshit.
-
It's been said, but a samples that sound good and samples that sound realistic are overlapping but not identical sets. I think people get into trouble when they try for the sample that sounds the most realistic but falls short in that regard, rather than the sample that sounds good, and perhaps not realistic. No samples ever sound quite the same as a musician miked up. Listen to commercially successful music. It's all full of samples, but they are rarely meant to sound "realistic." I love the sound of a saxophone, but I would never try to sequence a saxophone in place of the real deal. I might use a saxophone sample, but I'd probably affect it to the point where it clearly isn't supposed to be a saxophone.
-
Okay. I'm loving this. My criticisms have been addressed, but there's one fairly sizable problem, and that's the vocal. In general I think it could be a little louder, a little less honky (translation, a touch less 700-1500Hz) but the real problem is you need a de-esser like right now, like it's going to save your damn life. Check out 1:07, 1:16, 1:22, 1:45, etc. Holy moly. De Ess that shiz. Once you do that you're good to go.
If I'm being picky, I'd say the kick is too loud, at least the attack is. But that's not going to be a dealbreaker. De-ess the vocal and you're golden.
NO
-
I've been saying for years we need more orchestral polka mixes.
I find it really strange the way the kick sticks out of this mix. There's a ton of click of the bass drum, which sticks above the harmonic instruments, while the body of the drum gets lost among the low-mid clutter. It makes me feel like the horns and strings should be louder. Aside from that, there's not a lot of clarity in the mix. WOrk the high-mids to get those horns to be crisp.
The arrangement is a fairly clever medley, though there aren't a ton of risks taken. It's more or less like the original, though I will definitely give you recognition for some well-executed compositional flourishes.
As it is I can't pass.
NO
-
Woah what's going on at 1:35? Seriously bad notes, I think they are just harmonics in your bell sound, but it ain't right. gonna have to swap that out.
Aside from that I don't have much to complain about. The mix is a bit boomy at times, but It's not a dealbreaker. Gotta fix that bell though.
NO
-
Okay I'm hearing what Larry's hearing, but I think the bigger problem is the untamed bottom rather than the.imprecise top. Gotta clean out room for those frequencies. Here it's just muddy.
I really dig the composition. The synth solo thing as well as the guitars play some really cool stuff, but neither has any presence. All I'm hearing is muddy low mids and then the cymbals. You need some upper mids in your lead instruments.
Cool track. compare the mix to other tracks you like.
NO
-
The advice you're getting here is too general. Post the snare in question for us to listen to and we might be able to give you advice that's actually applicable to your situation.
-
People who hate on tattoos are afraid to live. Not even worth your time.
-
Guys, I took another listen because no one, not even Larry, seems to agree with me, so I figured I must be crazy.
Turns out I'm not crazy. Guys, this is 100% paint by numbers. The composition is super bland, there's zero rhythmic complexity (the resolution of the bass phrasing is a whole note for god's sake), and the soundfield is just empty. The arrangement ideas show some potential, but this track needs a lot of work in terms of writing and production.
-
LoL!!~
7890
-
At that price range it doesn't really matter too much in terms of quality; I'd go with the one that has the features you want.
-
Wow. Frenetic. I thought the intro was cool, but way too long. It could really be thirty seconds rather than a minute. I understand editing is a really difficult process when you've created something you love. It's certainly a problem I have myself.
The mixing is very crisp, perhaps a tiny bit harsh, but not really a problem. I love the energy of the track. If I have a criticism of the arrangement it's that it's a bit repetitive and relies too much on production candy like filter sweeps and glitch edits to keep the listener's interest.
That said, I think my criticisms don't really bring down the track very much as a whole.
Very enjoyable.
YES
Tropes vs. Women / #GamerGate Conspiracies
in General Discussion
Posted
Hey there, Mr..Bleck. You seem to have all kinds of ideas about what I should be doing. And that's super. But maybe I can reassure you.
Mr. Pretzel and I are friends. We get along very well. You sir, are no Jack Kennedy. No wait, I got distracted. What I mean is, he and I have known each other for a decade. We are both passionate, opinionated people, and we both enjoy a good argument about...pretty much anything. We both know this about one another, and I assure you that nothing he has said has made me "mad." I take nothing he says personally. We're having a nice, recreational argument. I'm sorry if that makes you uncomfortable, but I'm not really sorry if that makes you uncomfortable.
Try imagining us hanging up the gloves and having a beer.