djpretzel

I think you mean "many of Sarkeesian's detractors'" - it's not all one big group, there are varying perspectives (to put it mildly - I personally dislike some of the "company" I'm apparently in, but not enough to abandon my perceptions and/or reasoning!) Unless the skepticism should actually apply en masse, to any & all "detractors" - which would be rather prejudicial, wouldn't it? Unless you're saying that everyone has good reasons to be skeptical of almost everyone else's motivations, all the time, in which case I applaud your nonpartisan skepticism as being quite reasonable, however depressing it may seem to some Well, look... yes, one should be able to engage in a lively & substantive debate on the actual issue(s) without questioning someone's ulterior motives, you're absolutely right. But when so many objections have focused on the $$$, or the production quality of the videos, or her release schedule, or the nonsense with the comments, or other items that are ultimately incidental to the argument she's trying to make, it DOES end up looking like a smokescreen for some deeper objection/offense that "dare not be voiced" for one reason or another. At the very least it sometimes seems like sidestepping whether she's making a persuasive argument by instead mounting a style-over-substance attack... I think that's where the concern about motivations might be coming from, I don't know...

What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.

This makes a bit more sense, thanks for the explanation. If we limited ourselves to only the concepts, ideas, theories, and facts that couldn't potentially be abused, usurped, & twisted, then we'd scarcely be able to have a meaningful conversation now, would we? When that happens.... the terrorists win. I don't disagree that someone, somewhere might attempt to misappropriate the type of argument I'm making, but I've been extremely consistent about qualifying everything, emphasizing the motivation behind the reasoning, and explicitly identifying the types of arguments that this methodology does not inherently support. When you say my arguments could be "easily" abused, you must be observing that simply ignoring HALF of an entire argument is "easy"?? While I agree that it is, for some folks, that type of litmus test for what's "easily abused" is again far too wide, and could encompass almost any statement. This is basically a non-argument, or a permutation of slippery slope that forms an implicit argument against ANY OTHER argument, for fear it could be misunderstood and/or misused!! This is not a recipe for progress, needless to say. As a species, we need to improve our ability to learn about ourselves without tearing ourselves apart. Furthermore, as a separate point, I would argue that those desperate enough to misappropriate a scientific argument they don't even understand are not rational, that this will become apparent as they attempt to execute the "robbery," and ALSO that they probably would have latched onto anything remotely resembling evidence for "their side" regardless - if not this, then something else that employs logic & reason but can be similarly corrupted. You do not cure illiteracy by eliminating written language. It's funny, because you're basically so afraid of OTHER people committing appeal to nature fallacies that you're justifying a slippery slope fallacy, more or less. This appears to be a genuine case of.... METAFALLACY!! (holds up magnifying glass... "This is FASCINATING!!")

That was... not at all what I said. In the slightest. To borrow a page from Jesse's book, either your reading comprehension skills need honing, or you're intentionally mischaracterizing what I'm saying, or I'm being wildly unclear... If anyone else believes that Bleck has made individual points that do deserve addressing & make sense, please let me know specifically what they are, and I've got no problem responding to them, but from where I'm sitting he's just repeating himself and not actually reading what I'm saying... I lol'd. Okay JUST for the interest of context, the "short" version, from MY perspective: Anita makes a series of videos identifying/exploring tropes surrounding the depiction of females in video games. While there are a good number & variety of examples, some examples are a bit of a stretch, and/or she ignores important contextual elements. More problematically (to me at least), she peppers the videos with exaggerated one-liners reflecting an absolutist version of second-wave feminism. Brandon makes a thread, people chime in. I primarily take alarm because no one seems to be noticing or discussing these comments she's making; everyone seems more interested in how much money she got, her release schedule, etc. zircon initially agrees with almost everything she says. I think I've kinda-sorta convinced him that at least some of it is very outdated, extreme rhetoric, and that the certainty surrounding the supposed consequences of these tropes is less than self-evident. From here the conversation does diverge onto several topics - the merit of science, more recently, but also social construction vs. evolutionary psychology, the role of art, white male privilege, gender roles, sexism from a historical perspective, etc. To make any Blecks happy, I suppose I'll throw in an explanation of why all of this is relevant... first off, I don't think that it should be, because I think Anita should have made a series of videos that focused more on the details & specifics of the tropes, argued on a general level for the improvement of the art form, and specifically avoided many of the quotes that I isolated and discussed in previous posts. Had she done this, none of these topics would have been particularly relevant to the scope of the conversation. I also think her videos would have been more persuasive, to a wider audience of people that actually NEED to be persuaded, as opposed to preaching to the choir. Nevertheless, because she did things the way she did, and because Andy and Alex and a couple others doubled-down on some of the more... subjective... claims that she made, suddenly the scope of the conversation became much wider. Gender roles are observable patterns of human behavior, nothing more. How "natural" or "unnatural" any given pattern is could, I suppose, be measured by how often it appears in multiple, disconnected cultures across the globe and throughout history - in other words, how likely any given group of humans is to adopt the same, or similar, practice, if left to their own devices. Even so, this is simply being observed as an increased probability - NOT an inevitability, and certainly NOT an ideal! The relevance to the discussion at hand links back to my comment about male-female protective instincts, and the DiD trope appealing to men on this level. If gender roles are completely constructed and extremely flexible, then hell, we should attempt to eliminate any & all instincts that are the least bit irrational, because why not?? If, however, people are a bit more complicated than that, you might want to cater to their strengths, as I've been saying, while trying to address their weaknesses. In other words, it changes your whole perspective on how to improve the human species - you're not starting with a blank slate, and this should inform, temper, & enhance your approach. This specifically explains why I believe a combination of both the trope itself AND numerous examples that question, defy, or subvert the trope makes the most sense. I believe the male-female protective instinct is strong, and actually something we want to nurture, but that it also needs constant calibration, lest it misfire. This is a different conclusion entirely from "This trope is bad, it is no longer necessary, we should get rid of it!" I've said this at least a dozen times, and I'm getting exhausted having to reiterate it over and over and over, but I personally believe that culture can, and more importantly should, help us overcome our biology. There is no reason to think that we evolved into an organism that, coincidentally, shares all of our modern values and attitudes about equality, and freedom, and human rights. Nature doesn't give two shits about any of this; it optimizes for survival & procreation, plain and simple. This can result in many unfortunate things, not the least of which is a ubiquitous tendency towards patriarchy. You can explain that tendency by claiming that men have met in dark rooms, since the dawn of time, to secretly coordinate the systematic subjugation of females, and that it's been super-hyper-effective up until the last century or so, but I think that's giving men FAR too much credit, don't you? Does it really pass the laugh test? To simply say that patriarchy is a pattern/system homo sapiens tends to fall into is not in any way an endorsement, so long as you remember that nature doesn't directly optimize for the things I think we all basically agree are our values - equality, freedom, justice, tolerance, reason. These are primarily human concepts, and we have fostered them not by denying our nature, but by building a system of checks & balances around it (Leviathan) and by reinforcing the good while discouraging the bad. I am articulating & endorsing a similar approach to how we think about potentially harmful tropes in media. I'm not sure how many more dots I need to connect to illustrate the relevance, but hopefully this helped someone....

You misunderstand; I was arguing that the lack of characters like Guybrush was the offense, i.e. that the offense was forcing every male character to be physically overpowering, assertive, etc. I guess you missed the point, but that's okay, because again, if you're going by the number of people claiming offense unpolled, it'd probably be low. If you did some digging and didn't wait for people to speak up but actually asked them directly, I don't know, you might be quite surprised... Nothing's changed, women DO have more reason to be offended over stereotypes of their gender as helpless objects. Why would men be equally offended by that? But saying that women have had it worse throughout the totality of history is going eighteen steps (or so) further. Also, saying that men are not offended, or should not be offended, by the flip side of the very same trope is, I think, missing the point. I suppose there's a big difference here between "are not offended" and "should not be offended" and perhaps that's what's tripping us up? It should. I like the thinking you're applying here, it's very measured and point-for-point, and yes, it should absolutely hold some weight in how we - and really, how game developers - consider the issue. But here's the thing... what about how many people DO like them? What are you going to do about that? Have you measured that? How much weight would you give it? Surely if a bunch of people legitimately like something, and others don't, the rational approach would be to allow for both avenues to be explored. And surely if you're a game developer, and you want to sell games, you'll listen to a substantive demographic and at least attempt to appeal to them? The games industry seems to be having a hard time doing that, and there are a lot of risk-reward dynamics at play which make certain formulas continuously appealing. What if someone - myself, for instance - completely and totally gets that not every woman needs saving, but still has no problems whatsoever with a plot that involves rescuing a female, so long as she isn't so completely ditzy that it comes off as blatantly disrespectful? Anita is making a "whirlpool" argument that sucks extended, vague definitions of this trope into its perimeter and pulls them down ALONG with more flagrant examples that I would personally find unappealing. This is precisely the risk when transparently applying an ideology without reservation or analysis. Or our own art

Definitely? Just curious, how would you describe this very definite agenda of the institution? I think that groups and individuals have agendas, but I'd be curious as to what your take was on the overall agenda of science itself... We should discount nutty arguments as nutty, and insubstantial ones as insubstantial. Arguments that run counter to the scientific mainstream should absolutely be considered, but that consideration should still involve the scientific method itself. Happily, this process seems to be working rather well, relative to anything else you might compare it to. There's always room for improvement, though... which is a very scientific sentiment! It's interesting to describe it as "burdening ourselves with labels" - why isn't it, quite simply, "discovering our nature"? Unfortunately, for everyone involved, people LOVE to burden themselves with labels. We are categorizing creatures, through and through, hence my concern about the concept of "white male privilege" - or almost anything that requires a true understanding of probability vs. actuality. But I digress; while anthropologists love to point out anomalies, there are also a ton of similarities when it comes to human culture. Learning about them doesn't require inherent assumptions about what is preferable or ideal. Your point about the plasticity of human intellect is quite valid (although it's really the plasticity of the human brain, isn't it?), but there are still some very common characteristics which, if better understood, could be more easily manipulated, for better or worse. Do be sure to read http://www.newrepublic.com/article/114127/science-not-enemy-humanities - I really think you'll get a lot out of it. Absolutely; I think studying the origins and nature of gender roles will go a long way towards undermining their apparent inevitability to some, and NOT the other way around. But part of that conversation also helps explain why some patterns keep manifesting themselves over and over, and why SOME things that seem natural to us ACTUALLY ARE. Social construction would have you believe that 100% of what seems culturally natural to you is constructed, and I suppose there are extremists on the other side who would argue for moral objectivism or a direct genetic causation for every last aspect of human behavior, but the reality appears to be somewhere in between. Learning about that dynamic and interplay means having an open mind towards biological and environmental explanations. Nothing about Anita's outdated feminism, or ideas about sexual objectification, or belief in an almost conspiratorial patriarchy is conducive to that sort of frank & open inquiry.

Did you just mention strawman arguments and then, in the same paragraph, play the Social Darwinism card? You, sir, deserve 500 bonus points and a delicious burrito! The ad hominem thing is nice, but that line of reasoning could be used to dismiss any argument that values objective data; it doesn't put forth an alternative perspective, it doesn't address the objective data being put forth, it simply sidesteps the entire conversation with an accusation of bias. Do you find that acceptable, or mentally stimulating? When you ask what my suggestion would be, my suggestion would be for everyone to use precise language, to allow for multiple possibilities, to value what objective data we DO have without necessarily deeming it final and conclusive, and to be respectful that each person is unique. I sometimes struggle with that, personally, but it's a fine set of guiding principles. Since you asked. Sometimes a generalizing theory is the best we have at the moment, but I wasn't articulating anything as controversial as saying that testosterone is the end-all, be-all dictator of human behavior! If I had, you'd be absolutely justified in questioning such certainty. I was merely articulating that it DOES have a measurable effect. Since you mentioned strawman arguments, if you want to twist that statement into something more than what it was to make your own point, go right ahead, but don't expect me not to notice. Additions to the theory to fully explain everything are absolutely critical, but you still work with what you ALREADY have. You do your best not to let it color what else you expect to find, but science is cumulative. You know that, of course... I agree, more or less. Anecdotal evidence can have value, but it needs to be sussed out, as I think you've alluded to. As for dismissing "white privilege" - I don't believe I did. I think I was only stating that the concept is abused, and results in prejudices of a similar nature to what it is intended, ostensibly, to address. It's the best we've got. You can hoist up an argument that it will always be fallible due to human nature, but most of what we know ABOUT human nature has been discovered through science. The fundamental assumption of science is that the world is intelligible - knowable. It makes no claims to complete objectivity or perfection, but it IS designed to address human weaknesses by virtue of the processes we've already mentioned. In order to challenge it on any given topic, rather than simply saying "well, science isn't perfect!!!," I really do think there's an obligation to put forth more of an actual... argument. Yes, but less so than any other method of inquiry, as peer-review, repeatable experimentation, and sigma certainty measurements are all powerful measures to address what you're describing. No competing methodology or method of inquiry about the nature of the universe has such protections. I like how you categorized sociologists as not being scientists... I'm not sure all of them would agree. Science can of course be looked at in a variety of ways, but none of them truly undermine its core values; that the world is knowable, that we should attempt to discover as much about it as we can, that we should admit uncertainty and revise our understanding as new information is presented, and that humans are fallible and measures need to be taken to address this infallibility. You can of course point out numerous instances where science has gotten it wrong... but what else is getting it as right, as often? Speaking for myself, I don't feel threatened by her, I feel disappointed that people I know and respect are agreeing with her without fully analyzing her arguments and their implications.

An "ideal" very clearly states desire and intent - it is something to be striven towards. To conflate the concept of "gender roles" and "sexist ideals" as you have done above is to misunderstand the English language on a fundamental level. Gender roles are observable patterns of behavior, not goals or edicts... or ideals. Your statement was none of the above; it was, rather, that there was no evidence for any biological influence on gender roles. Lions are sexist? Ants are sexist? Penguins are sexist? Chimpanzees are sexist? It's meaningless to say that gender roles are the "epitome" of sexism; sexism is a human construct, gender roles are a biological phenomenon that, for us, are ALSO strongly influenced by culture. Once again, sexism is about how we think of gender roles, not whether they exist, or whether there are biological causes that tend to precipitate their development. The fact that culture can so strongly affect our ideas about gender roles is a fantastic thing, so fears that any rough biological factor will subvert decades of progress towards human rights are far-fetched and, frankly, a little bizarre. You're doing the same sort of backtracking that you accused Jesse of in his post. Do I really have to quote you AGAIN? This isn't a statement of whether the information might be abused, it is a statement that the information does not exist. Use your words. All over the place, in Evolutionary Psychology and elsewhere... See the list of links I provided in my recent post. Reasonable adults can discus information without jumping to conclusions, and to say that the information shouldn't exist because YOUR experience has been that it is abused is at once both wondrously egocentric and optimistically short-sighted. Furthermore, I'm doing this very thing right now, as I write this - I'm bringing up the concept, and I'm not at all arguing (nor do I agree) that women should "basically be in the kitchen"... so there you go. Done. Do you need me to regurgitate this entire thread for you? Do you honestly not recall? I can certainly do so, but it would require a modicum of effort, and I'm not sure you'd bother parsing it, so I think it might be a waste of my time. Does anyone ELSE not understand how we got here, and want to request a recap along with Bleck? I can certainly spell out how we got from point A to point B, for anyone who missed it, who forgets, or who can't follow things. If I get another taker, I'll go for it...

I'm not sure how what you said actually contradicts what I said, per se; it seems like more of an extension... a bit pessimistic, perhaps, but not at odds. Surely the worst thing anyone can do is inflict suffering and injustice, not deny that it occurred? At any rate, at this point in time, if you scope the statement enough and add enough qualifiers, you CAN come up with a meaningful definition for "white male privilege" that I could agree with. As a concept, it can have merit, at least in exploring pervasive bias. But it is also vulnerable to a form of abuse & bad faith assumptions that are just a shade off from the very racism it seeks to expose!! The ones employing the concept in arguments also appear to be the ones abusing it in this fashion, from my own personal observations. Okay, firstly, no. While science is the first to acknowledge fallibility, "codification" into "hard science" without "questioning" is, simply and plainly, NOT science at all. Perhaps you're referring to science the institution as opposed to science the methodology, but even so, there clearly WAS questioning or we wouldn't know now that we were wrong!! As for evidence that gender roles are formed, in part, by our biology? This isn't even a contested claim - the mainstream debate surrounds the degree of influence, not the existence of influence. http://www.apa.org/monitor/oct00/maccoby.aspx http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_determination_and_differentiation_(human) http://www.cerebromente.org.br/n11/mente/eisntein/cerebro-homens.html - list of references: Frederikse, M.E., Lu, A., Aylward, E., Barta, P., Pearlson, G. Sex differences in the inferior parietal lobule. Cerebral Cortex vol 9 ( p896 - 901, 1999 [MEDLINE]. Geary, D.C. Chapter 8: Sex differences in brain and cognition. In "Male, Female: the Evolution of Human Sex Differences". American Psychological Association Books. ISBN: 1-55798-527-8 [AMAZON]. Harasty J., Double K.L., Halliday, G.M., Kril, J.J., and McRitchie, D.A. Language-associated cortical regions are proportionally larger in the female brain. Archives in Neurology vol 54 (2) 171-6, 1997 [MEDLINE]. Collaer, M.L. and Hines, M. Human behavioural sex differences: a role for gonadal hormones during early development? Psychological Bulletin vol 118 (1): 55-77, 1995 [MEDLINE]. Bishop K.M. and Wahlsten, D. Sex differences in the human corpus callosum: myth or reality? Neuroscience and Biobehavioural Reviews vol 21 (5) 581 - 601, 1997. LeVay S. A difference in hypothalamic structure between heterosexual and homosexual men Science. 253(5023):1034-7, 1991 [MEDLINE]. Shaywitz, B.A., et al. Sex differences in the functional organisation of the brain for language. Nature vol 373 (6515) 607 - 9, 1995 [MEDLINE]. Rabinowicz T., Dean D.E., Petetot J.M., de Courten-Myers G.M. Gender differences in the human cerebral cortex: more neurons in males; more processes in females. J Child Neurol. 1999 Feb;14(2):98-107. [MEDLINE] Schlaepfer T.E., Harris G.J., Tien A.Y., Peng L., Lee S., Pearlson G.D. Structural differences in the cerebral cortex of healthy female and male subjects: a magnetic resonance imaging study. Psychiatry Res. 1995 Sep 29;61(3):129-35 [MEDLINE]. Wilson, E.O. - "Sociobiology". Harvard University Press, 1992 [AMAZON]. Moir A. and Jessel D. - "Brain Sex". 1993 [AMAZON] See also: Excerpts from the book Blum, D. - "Sex on the Brain: The Biological Differences Between Men and Women". Penguin, 1998 [AMAZON] Kimura, D. - "Sex and Cognition". MIT Press, 1999 [AMAZON] On a MUCH simpler level, allow for the following layman reasoning: Do testosterone levels influence behavior? Yes. Do men naturally have higher testosterone levels? Yes. Is this likely to manifest itself in ways that would cause common, observable differences in behavior? ... Peer-review and criticism are indeed highly valuable - they are the exact mechanism by which you might PROVE a statement like "it's descriptions and findings would be radically different depending on the composition of it's scientists"- which you seem to take as a given, without any evidence, peer review, or even due consideration!! I'm sensing a huge double standard, personally... With apologies to zircon, I'm going to use BIG FONT again: There is a piece from YESTERDAY by Steven Pinker that I hope EVERYONE reads: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/114127/science-not-enemy-humanities Beautiful, beautiful stuff... Sums up a lot of what I've been trying to articulate, perhaps more clearly...

First off, I love posts like these, because being open-minded means asking questions that some people find inherently offensive. As long as those questions are legitimate lines of scientific inquiry, I've always had problems with the idea that anything was sacrosanct or off-limits, so long as whatever information science discovers is tempered with reason and ethics. As for the answer... well, some people like to operate under the very comfortable notion that homo sapiens is a snowflake, immune to selective pressures and developmental processes that have governed all OTHER life on Earth. But we need only look to the higher apes, then primates, then mammals, to see that so-called "gender roles" ARE indeed a viable genetic construct, and our understanding of natural selection should at least make us suspect that this separation of duties, however subtle, is an adaptation that often enhances survival... Now, does that mean it makes sense for us? 10,000 years ago, my answer would have been... probably. In the modern age? I think it's somewhat less clear, but then so are our goals as a species. We no longer seek to simply survive, or even to explore and settle the Earth. Our eyes are now on other, more abstract and/or loftier prizes. What is the OPTIMAL configuration for a species that simultaneously desires peace, increased quality of life, and technological innovation? I don't know, but I don't think those goals are playing by the same set of rules that nature optimizes for. Anyways, great post, I love thinking about this stuff! Wow... where to begin. First off, you're absolutely right, I found your earlier claims that the DiD trope was subconsciously causing pervasive inferiority complexes to be unsupported. I don't believe I ever stated that tropes can never be proven as harmful, simply that we haven't, and that it would be difficult to do so. Secondly, your confidence here seems woefully misplaced, and is basically hinging on a textbook anecdotal fallacy. If you don't think male machismo, pissing contests, bravado, insecurity, etc. have ever affected you or anyone you know, and you don't see ample evidence of their harm in the real world, I'll tactfully inquire: which planet are you living on?? The idea that the man has to rescue the woman to prove himself, or that many men compete to see who can rescue her first, and that any man failing to work towards such a goal is effeminate is to me just as real a reflection of male stereotypes surrounding boasting, competition, insecurity, etc. I guess all I can say here is... be more observant?? So the volume of the complaint is directly correlated to its validity, in your mind? Okay, interesting... not sure I agree, but I'll just quickly point out that in this case, because the trope/stereotype specifically has to do with insecurity & machismo & "being a man" (like the Mulan song playfully says), the effect it has is to make any questioning of its nature seem effeminate. In other words, by questioning the trope that makes men seem effeminate if they don't rescue the lady, the questioner himself appears effeminate. Perhaps men are simply more worried about appearing "effeminate" than women are about appearing "masculine"... just a thought. I don't know why anyone would feel compelled to say that X gender has had it worse, historically. Are you counting up the "terrible" points? Is there a 4X multiplier for torture? Does lack of suffrage AND land ownership count as a combo? How do you do it? More importantly... why? To even make the statement requires the notion of putting quantitative measurements on human pain & suffering; are you proposing a new unit of measurement? The "zircon"? This is the type of statement Anita would make... it falls apart upon investigation. At any rate, I agree with you about the developed world and the developing world... but most video games are coming from the developed world, and being played primarily by the developed world. Our open, pluralistic approach to media & art is part of what makes us developed!! Yeah, we're on the same page more or less, I'm just very concerned with the WHY - I don't think the justification for this desire/goal should be coming from the wrong place. In fact, I think it's paramount that it comes from the right place. In my mind, the wrong place is one filled with specious, hypocritical sociological arguments. The right place is one filled with a desire to see the art form fulfill its true potential. It only matters insofar as any claims being made that one way of doing things is more natural, and therefore preferable. Some folks have actually come close to making the argument that all sexism is cultural, and that biology is a complete scapegoat in the equation - in essence saying that, if we were only to behave more naturally, we would be peaceful, and free of sexism, and it'd be like that pastoral scene in Fantasia, and everyone would be happy. If you buy all that, I can't help you... Hobbes has been validated repeatedly, and modern science has disproved the blank slate and the noble savage, thoroughly. And so, as you almost say, the point isn't that we should behave "naturally," but rather that we should play to the strengths of our nature, attempt to minimize our weaknesses, and act in a fashion that moves our entire species forward. Some folks seem to think that the second you articulate a biological catalyst for sexism or gender roles, you are excusing or even legitimizing sexism, bias, or even violence. This is closed-minded; investigation and (partial) explanation aren't even in the same ballpark as justification and recommendation. Not when you're talking about the entirety of recorded history, which we were for awhile. Also, must the discontent of one group trump the discontent of another for it to be valid, and/or actionable? Who quantifies this stuff? I think some straight white males make this argument because they feel like the topic is actually being approached this way - "MY grievance is bigger than YOUR grievance!!" Reminds me of "MY god is better than YOUR god!!" - and sounds about as mature. So of course it will elicit that reaction. Also, you forgot some demographics... A "straight white male" can still be: poor mentally disabled physically disabled atheist etc. ... any of which could marginalize him quite a bit. Just sayin' You're conflating "supports" with "suggests" - and also archaeology with anthropology, and "sexism" with "gender roles" for that matter. Nothing is "intelligent" about your assumption that we have a "complete lack of reliable information" - that's just downright wrong, and extraordinarily lazy on your part. We're not talking about "sexist ideals," we're talking about gender roles, and there is ample evidence that gender roles have played a factor in every known human culture to date. So yeah... you're apparently uninformed, and what makes matters worse, you're characterizing your lack of information as being intelligent... ouch. Now, what those gender roles ARE certainly varies from culture to culture, and we have taken strides to blur the lines and make things more equitable in recent centuries. As for sexism - sexism isn't the existence of gender roles per se, it's the attitude that they can/should never change or that we are powerless to change/overcome them. Bullshit. I mean seriously, where did you pull THAT gem from? Wow... have you done the research? Science's response to that question is much more than a dismissive shrug. There is plentiful evidence that gender roles are rooted in biology AND deeply affected by culture. The consensus response is that "nature vs. nurture" is moot, and the answer is that gender roles are attributable to both environmental AND genetic characteristics. Again, homo sapiens is not a snowflake - we are affected by the same evolutionary process & constraints that other species are. At least we were, up to a certain point in our history. Your willingness to speak authoritatively about the current body of scientific knowledge surrounding this topic (or lack thereof) makes me think that you're either an expert, or talking out of your ass. I would hope that you've at least done a LITTLE reading on the topic before making these assertions? Enumerate? Please keep in mind, by saying that there's ample evidence - historical and biological - to support the existence of gender roles that favor more prominent/active roles for men and more nurturing/nesting roles for women, I am not at all saying that this is the way things SHOULD be. As I keep repeating, we should endeavor to overcome our biology, because it was adapted to an environment & a set of challenges that no longer satisfy us. What we are should never be allowed to dictate who we are, and who we can become... First of all, I've been repeatedly bringing up this idea, or something vaguely resembling it, but with a key exception - it doesn't make it "okay". Plenty of instincts we possess have biological roots and are not "okay". Classic examples would be phobias - irrational fears that are essentially exaggerated versions of instincts that at one point in time would have served us quite well. All of this matters because the truth of things matters; that should be a sufficient answer to that question, which was also a rather lazy inquiry. Once again, for the 234,872,923rd time: investigation & explanation of human behavior should not be misconstrued as justification of or recommendation for that behavior. I can't see why this is so difficult to grok...

Yeah, I think that one's a given. However, I think you're missing the flip-side of the "agency" coin: for thousands of years, men have been considered more expendable. The trade-off for all of our beloved & coveted "agency" has been death, en masse, at the whim of whatever shaman, warlord, or government demanded it. Do women suffer in war as well? Absolutely. But, almost universally, men have been the ones drafted, cajoled, threatened, & enslaved into fighting. Mario's "agency," if you're going to insist on framing these obviously reductionist fairy tales in real-world terms as Anita does, grants him a single decision: to risk his life, and probably die (repeatedly, even!), for something the trope is telling him is vital. What an empowered, modern, free male is he!! (sarcasm) And yet true matriarchy is anthropologically elusive. I agree with the point, in general, but be wary of overstating the reach & influence of social construction & culture... there's a lot of similarity out there, and I believe that most of it is biologically rooted. Thank you, culture police I'd like to point out that whether a man is portrayed as capable OR incapable of saving a woman doesn't actually speak to whether he too is being treated as an object. This art form of ours often involves a good deal of very utilitarian objectification and reductionism to begin with, and you ARE cherry-picking, by my reckoning. I think you're missing a component, here... the idea is that a man incapable of saving a woman is depicted as being impotent; it's supposed to be embarrassing, diminishing, etc. Of course, in a perfect world, it wouldn't be, but it can still VERY MUCH play to a harmful trope, being that any male incapable of saving any female is in some way deficient. It's the other side of the DiD coin, it's legit, and I'm surprised to hear you so decisively concluding that it's not problematic or sexist in any way. I think this betrays a systematic lopsidedness in your thinking, personally. When did the history begin? Just curious... But I agree, women HAVE had to deal with sexism for centuries. It's just this: so have men. There are upsides and downsides, but a cursory review of the storied past of our species should give you a pretty good idea of how hundreds of thousands of men were persuaded/forced to fight and die for any given cause. For most of human history, if you were given the chance to choose your sex at birth, you'd be choosing between equally unsavory options... to frame it any other way is pure bile, in my opinion, and trivializes the tragedy wrought upon both man AND woman throughout the relatively brief slice of time we refer to as "recorded history"... we are our own worst enemies, and we have NOT spared our males. Apparently, you can. This ship has sailed. When one group is systematically enslaved and discriminated against, and then want to re-purpose a racial slur as a term of in-group affection and/or recognition, I think that's something you just kinda accept. At least I do... It's not about logic, in a vacuum, at that point. It's about coping. Unless you're zircon. Nah I kid; absolutely agreed. The corollary to "Damsel in Distress" is something like "Foregone Conclusion Testosterone Hero"... he's here, he's heterosexual as FUCK, and he's gonna save the lady or DIE trying!! If he doesn't, he's probably queer, and that's NO GOOD!! Gay!! And you know what? That actually speaks to a lot of dudes!! As I've articulated previously, the male-female protective instinct isn't the worst thing in the world, and fiction that caters to it isn't likely to go out of style. It's a question of calibration, not invalidation. I have faith that Andy & Alex and many others will eventually come around to this realization. It is subtle and needs to be reasoned out at length, but I believe it is the correct endpoint. You go. As for anything here being "academic," there's a core problem in that Anita is not framing an academic argument. I think some of us thought she would be, and have been disappointed. I'm unclear on whether Andy is still under the impression that her argument is academic in any way, shape, or form.

What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.

I disagree, if not strongly; it's certainly very STAPLE and resembling certain genre characteristics, but there's a difference between being... archetypal... and being one-dimensional, and I think this has some good stuff going on. In particular, the complementary original part writing that glues it together gels very nicely with the source, and is memorable in and of itself, plus the glue reads a bit more on the source than random unrelated soloing would, imo. Well, not sure it would tip things over 50% for you, but after 3:15, I could see calling that portion source usage as well, in a looser sense... it's in the ballpark, at least. To clarify, I do think the breakdowns and percentages are useful data, but I prefer to make a more qualitative final decision after considering the quantitative input. I ask myself, "At the end of listening to this entire track, do I feel like I've been listening to an arrangement of 'Green Hill Zone'? Would categorizing it as such mentally cause my brain any OCD grief? Would I feel absolutely compelled to add a cognitive footnote in the form of caveat or qualifier?" When I think of it this way, which is an admittedly subjective framework that is still informed by the hard data, I end up basically saying yeah... this feels like a ReMix, first and foremost. So yeah: YES

What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.

What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.

It's not that that's not possible - it clearly is - it's just that it severely castrates the art form. Oops, was that the wrong word to use? Probably. Okay, diminishes. Right - fire a lot of polarized, irrational, and in some cases factually incorrect attacks, then make them seem completely reasonable by punctuating the barrage with a few measured, qualified statements. A perfectly fine rhetorical tool if you're talking down to your audience, and don't think they'll notice or care. FOX NEWS, anyone? Televangelists are much more entertaining, and simultaneously much more tragic, since they tend to be taking money from those least able to meet fiscal ends. It's less about whether I think it matters (I do), but more about whether I think such objections, from ANY group, for ANY perceived offense, matter ENOUGH to justify framing weak sociological theories from the 1970's as hard, scientific facts that should be acted upon. I do not. That's certainly your prerogative; my personal view with regard to highly complicated social interactions that cannot be easily measured is that what I might find intuitive could indeed be dead wrong, or that unknown and dependent variables could be involved that frame the dynamic differently. I sorta thought this is what being "open-minded" kinda meant. Well, firstly, Anita's definition of this trope extends well beyond flagrant, one-dimensional, exaggerated stereotypes that you've probably got in mind; I'd encourage you to watch her videos to see just HOW far she extends her interpretation of the trope, I think you'll be... alarmed. Secondly, I'm going to continue my apparently freakish obsession with specific language - it is highly unreasonable to conclude what you have described. It is, on the other hand, completely reasonable to propose it. The difference is sublimely significant. Damn, I must be using the wrong logic again!! Which logic are you using? I was using the logic where questions don't surround whether we can deny hypotheses, but whether we can prove them, and then reach an actual understanding of what we are attempting to address, and consider all of the implications. Your logic does sound enticingly streamlined, but I think some other people who've been employing it have been having mixed results for the last few centuries, so I'm going to stick with mine. Tongue-in-cheek here, but hopefully you see the underlying point... Amen - to both sentences. Nah, just pointing out that DiD tropes of the most flagrant nature tend to appear in games where EVERYONE'S agency is limited, and everyone is one-dimensional, so it's all one big happy family, etc.

First off, deliberately obtuse? No, I think I'm being surreptitiously acute, apparently... And yes, I do have a problem with that dialogue/exchange, because it presupposes that the artist/creator thought that they needed the DiD trope, as opposed to simply wanting it. It's operating on the assumption that the only avenue by which one could arrive at a story that employs the trope is by way of being uncreative or unimaginative, and hence by way of perceived necessity. I completely agree that that is often the case, but not always, and hence my objection. Suggesting alternatives, however, is neither offensive to me personally, nor would I consider it censorship. In fact, it's almost identical to what I've been saying this ENTIRE time - that improving the variety and depth of female characters (and really ALL characters) in video games is a fine goal that doesn't require outdated, partisan ideology to justify! But see, it's not the suggestion we've been talking about, is it? It's the justification for the suggestion... As for using large fonts and what not, I really try to do that for legitimate emphasis. I don't know why you'd think it's any better, or worse, than calling someone "deliberately obtuse"... seems like splitting hairs. I can rock 12pt if you prefer, I just think some people stare at a giant wall of text and find it off-putting... 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. 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?

Right, I agree with the statement that women have historically been and are still marginalized in media and society, 1000%. In no way should that infer that I believe that the damsel-in-distress trope has been conclusively linked to that phenomenon. It seems superficially like a relatively reasonable hypothesis, but then I might tend to ask, what else does this trope accomplish? Why is it used? How many cultures does it appear in? Does it remain popular even after being removed for long durations? Does its removal cause any noticeable change in men's attitudes, for better or worse? Or especially, is the best and most effective solution a combination of the trope alongside other works that clearly poke fun at the trope, as opposed to "no trope at all"? Furthermore, I wouldn't be in a position to test most of these things conclusively. 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. It doesn't help here that YOUR definition - the most limited version, where the damsel is completely and utterly incapable of even a helpful or proactive thought - is far more limited and specific than Anita's version, which appears to encompass, well, almost any woman in a game who's having a bad day. It's more difficult to defend one-dimensional characters in general, though... and they tend to co-habitate in worlds FULL of other one-dimensional characters, where NO ONE really has all THAT much agency, or personality, or intelligence, or free will, or ego, or id... etc.

Agreed, 1000%. The debate would seem to be surrounding what level of irritation prescribes abandoning reason, however... Explain how this is inevitable, in detail. I am skeptical of most inevitabilities, actually - it's this disease I have... and ignored everything else I said, 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 do completely agree with, but did any of those things actually change the meaning of that statement, with which I do not? Did I misinterpret that specific statement in my response? I didn't think so, personally. You made a statement of fact - "does in fact" - without providing any facts. And I'm not allowed to focus primarily on that? Please understand, I'm not even saying that it does or does not do damage; I'm saying that we can't state either possibility as a fact. Proceeding as if we can, and have proven such a fact, is irresponsible. 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. In 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 specificity. I again agree 1000% with the above statement, as written. However, look what you CHANGED!!! What was JUST a second ago "in fact" "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 blink of an eye. I strongly agree with the reasonable, second Jesse; the first one still seems a bit off. 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. So yeah... the "personal touch" was lost, and I thought it was basically transparent that was intentional (or at least understood), but if you wanna chalk it up to my reading comprehension, I'm an adult, I can take the hit

Her point is arguing against something that was never even put forth - no one said you HAVE to have a damsel in distress trope in order to evoke nostalgia. No one said it was requisite. People merely claimed that it was serving that function. To pick a game like Fez and point out that the trope is not needed, in that game, to evoke retro-nostalgia, is an almost meaningless argument. Plenty of things aren't needed in art, because art is (again) not solely about necessity. Of course it's not a controversial idea, because it's a straw man argument that frames the employment of tropes in terms of need & necessity, and as I said, that's not how they work... As a side note, you ignored most of what I wrote and instead chose to simply state that I was over-thinking everything. I personally find that to be a rather effortless response... and I don't mean graceful. Especially when the primary theme of my posts has been that you are oversimplifying everything... Given your relationship history, I would have thought you'd have a perspective a little more informed by evolutionary psychology I don't know how many times I have to point this out, but people keep framing damsel-in-distress as a cultural stereotype that reinforces the perception that females are weak and incapable. That sounds so terrible! I don't want ANY of that! Keep it out of my video games, thank you kindly! Go away with your WRONG IDEAS!! I'm tired of this motherfuckin' patriarchy in these motherfuckin' GAMES!! It's all lovely and earnest and heartfelt, but it's thoroughly lazy and should be a mentally unsatisfying explanation for the prevalence of this trope. That many of you seem so comfortable in accepting it really troubles me. 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. I think it appeals to a natural male instinct to protect women, and provides contexts - some more plausible than others - that allow this instinct to be fulfilled on some level. Now, does this particular instinct ever misfire - does it lead to irrational decision-making about what women can and can't do? Absolutely, all the time. 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!!" This means getting rid of examples of BOTH rational/plausible protection of women by men AND irrational/implausible protection of women by men, because audiences are TOO DAFT to know the difference, and widespread depictions of helpless females could easily lead to increased over-protectiveness and sexism! (not that we can measure those...) Great job, everybody, we've cured the human race - we can all go home, high-fives all around, etc. Yeah, fantastic job. Except that you've: Cut out the good aspects of protective sentiments along with the bad... Completely ignored any aspects of human psychology; these tropes COME from us, and SPEAK to us on some level, otherwise they would never have appeared in the first place, and/or would not persist... Diminished the assumed intelligence and agency of the audience... Based your entire argument around a (currently) unmeasurable phenomenon, namely that this trope has real-world effects of an almost subliminal nature that are not outweighed or corrected by real-world experiences... Overestimated the ability of culture & overplayed the role of culture on a very fundamental level... Mazel tov! 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. I believe that any instinct we possess to protect the weak is actually a strength!! Silly me, right?? Beyond that, I believe that the male instinct to protect females - in contexts that make rational sense - is actually a strength. I think you probably do as well. I think most people do. Beyond seeming somehow natural, sentiments like "women and children first" during evacuations also have a very pragmatic aspect to them - men are simply more expendable resources, in the eyes of nature AND in the eyes of civilizations. Sorry fellas! Going back VERY FAR in our evolution, the genes that tended to favor this dynamic are the genes that tended to be passed on. The man who refuses to risk his own life to protect his progeny, and by indirect means his wife, is simply less likely to do well in the gene pool. Note that there ARE alternative strategies that certain males take - fathering prolific amounts of offspring and "playing the odds" by caring for NONE of them, and also rape, which is a terrible permutation of that. Given the alternatives, I think the caring, protective male instinct is actually rather preferable... call me crazy. But then, how CAN we reel it in a bit? It can get out of whack if it goes unchecked... How do we point out that being protective towards women is not always rational, or appropriate, or optimal, or fair? I believe that art is actually a FANTASTIC medium for expressing this! Games like Fez, by the way, do NOT particularly express this. Absence of protecting a woman is not really strengthening the good part of the protective instinct OR diminishing the bad. Great game, strange creator; I'm not dissing it, I'm just pointing out that not every game READS on this particular dynamic. I don't think it's wise or effective to obliterate or de facto deem as harmful - without a shred of evidence - those games that speak more to female characters who, within the game world, appear to genuinely require physical protection or rescuing. I think games that play with this trope and turn it on its head are a great thing, but they are actually FAR MORE EFFECTIVE in a world where the trope is still employed!! In other words, the ideal state of things is not a world where games have been "freed" from some of these tropes, but where numerous counterexamples exist. We need to see both versions. We need our instincts validated in some sense, but we ALSO need them calibrated... Consider that ample contrast is the most effective tutor, in this instance and many others. If this trope were excised entirely, not only would we lose the potentially helpful reinforcement of the positive aspects of the protective instinct AND an outlet for it, but all of the exceptions that specifically point out how it can go awry, or be reversed, or not apply, would be less powerful! Men don't need to be told NOT to protect women or that women NEVER need protecting, they need to be told to not ASSUME that it is the best, most reasonable, or only valid position to take on any given relevant issue! There's a CHASM OF DIFFERENCE between these two concepts! Please chew on the big sentence above for at least a few minutes; I put it in the large fonts and the big bolds for a reason. You don't improve human nature by denying it.

That's not how tropes work. They aren't agents of necessity. Art does not require them, or not require them. They are merely patterns that emerge, recede, and then sometimes re-emerge, surrounding the creation of fictional universes. That's also not (thank goodness) how art works... you can't pick a single pattern or component and conclusively say that it is no longer "necessary" to the art form. I mean, you CAN... if you want to, but we've got a smiley for that: :banghead::banghead: I think Anita would actually agree, strongly, that the trope was NEVER "necessary", or potentially even considered necessary by those employing it. She'd say it was a "manifestation of patriarchal male blah-blah-blah". Replace "blah-blah-blah" with the devout, unquestioning ideology of your choice. I personally think that men being overprotective towards women is a consequence of our evolutionary psychology, and the downsides are often balanced by upsides - legitimate physical protection of someone you love. As a society and a civilization, the more we realize and accept that you CAN take the good without the bad - that is, the more we learn to overcome any inherent feelings of protectiveness in contexts where they do not make sense - the better. I believe that art is not universally such a context, because part of its purpose is to express what we feel inside, independent of what we might strive for: unfiltered. Part of its purpose is to show us what can be wrong, or at least less ideal, about how we feel and who we are. I believe that art plays a lot of other roles as well, and can also serve - as you would seem to have it serve EXCLUSIVELY - as a role model. But I reject your apparent position, and Anita's apparent position, that art needs to be confined to this role, I disagree about some of the root causes of sexist attitudes, and I certainly disagree that tropes are a matter of necessity. This is yet another false Boolean. Pretty much. You do know that many stereotypes are based on direct observation, and that something being a stereotype doesn't preclude it from trending to be accurate, right? Adult men are more likely to have a stronger, biologically-rooted desire to protect women than vice versa. That's my perception - do you concur? It's not a stereotype of women being weak, per se, it's more an understanding that the male of the species has a strong protection instinct, which makes complete evolutionary sense and would be selected for. Women have a similarly strong desire to protect their offspring, and it's important - I can't stress this enough - to fully comprehend that these are just probabilities and not absolutes. When you characterize men being overprotective towards women as being a purely cultural stereotype, i.e. arbitrary, I think you miss half the equation - if not more. The role of culture should ideally be not to show men that women should NOT be protected from threats, or rescued from peril, but rather that they do not always NEED to be, and furthermore, that extending this sense of protection into realms where it no longer applies - like science, math, military, government, etc. - is irrational AND plain old inefficient, on TOP of being bigoted and sexist! Understanding the nature of the issue and appreciating its complexity helps form a stronger argument and response. Assuming that culture just dictates everything and that all stereotypes are irrational is a perspective that has been increasingly invalidated in the 20th and 21st centuries. This isn't using biology or evolution as an EXCUSE, it's using it as a starting point for true comprehension, rather than lazily empowering the vague cloud of "culture" as being responsible for everything. I vastly prefer a liberal ideology that embraces science and reality rather than running & hiding from it; that's usually the other guys' shtick...

What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.

Cool, thanks for clarification. Sounds like we just basically... agree!

I'd like to agree with this... I'd genuinely like to persuade myself of it. But here's where I keep getting stuck: To me, the problem is how she's defining... the problem. I think defining the problem as: "A shortage of creativity and inspiration in more than a couple different areas of game design and game narratives" ...is a fantastic starting point to productive discussions about more variety and authenticity for female characters, among many other topics like getting away from generic male protagonists who seem like cookie-cutter clones and all have the same values. If you want to focus on JUST female characters, I think that's fantastic too, but it should be focused on within the framework of myriad other aspects of tired & outdated cliches, not quarantined as evidence of men's worldwide and age-old conspiracy to subjugate women, etc., etc. Thus, I alternatively think defining the problem as: "A corrupting, pernicious effect of patriarchal attitudes of protectiveness towards and oversexualization of females in video games" ... makes no sense whatsoever. If you're defining the problem incorrectly or inaccurately, I think it becomes possible to do more harm than good at worst, and at best it will be a less-informed, more-polarizing, and ineffective approach to solving the same problem that can be argued passionately, persuasively, and with ample, near-incontrovertible evidence, in a broader sense, as it applies to improving the art form.

Both interesting points. As far as trivia goes, I didn't realize she got that many things wrong - I certainly didn't catch it myself, and I just kind of assumed that more people would be focusing on this and be making a bigger deal about it if it was so... dire. I was under the impression everyone just accepted these trivial items were SO trivial that even if she got them wrong, it didn't really weaken her argument, as most people would get them wrong. But I take it the items in question are more basic, or could have been VERY easily researched? As for not admitting to it, that's interesting too... I hadn't thought of that; are the videos presented in such a way as to explicitly suggest she was the one playing the games, though? I don't think so, not particularly... IIRC she doesn't use first person language or talk about HER experience playing the games, right? Has anyone checked? However, you're saying the onus was on her to be forthcoming about this information, even in the absence of reason to think it would be necessary? Am I getting that right, or no? It's a peculiar point, if so... I guess it mostly hinges on the "context" - whether it's academic/formal in nature and should play by those rules, in which case she should have mentioned it, or if it's intended more as "color commentary" or rhetoric... perhaps part of the overall confusion here is that it doesn't fall squarely into either category - that might be what's causing a lot of the misunderstanding.