Video Tropes vs Women in Video Games

[GhostAnime]

The guy put work in, of course he felt he deserved it.

And again, this is the central problem.

Why does friendship need a reward anymore than returned friendship? If you feel like you waste your time being friends with someone, that's not friendship... that's fakeness.

 

[Kreis]

As an attempt to get back on topic, I shall post this video which is a counterargument to Anita's claims.

Good job on not reading, mate. That horrific video has already been discussed, and shouldn't be labeled as a "counterargument." It's more of a madmans' ramblings.

Edit:
Here:
http://www.serebiiforums.com/showth...-Women-in-Video-Games&p=15815609#post15815609

 

[Pesky Persian]

Okay, I'll bite. I won't respond to the friend zone discussion anymore in this thread, although I don't think it's that off-topic as it does relate to feminism in a lot of ways.

 

[EmphaticPikachu]

And again, this is the central problem.

Why does friendship need a reward anymore than returned friendship? If you feel like you waste your time being friends with someone, that's not friendship... that's fakeness.

I just explained that. It's more then just simple companionship, It is constantly trying to make the other person feel better and make them like you more. Almost to the point of being creepy to some girls. It makes it obvious that they like them.

They could just tell them how they feel right from the start, but if you're passive and not aggressive, you don't do that. It takes a shzt ton of pushing to get a passive type of person to do that, more then they usually do. Are you to tell me that because you don't like being aggressive, that you can't have a relationship because it seems like friendship? I'll be honest and say its not the best way to do it, but people sometimes just aren't that blunt.


And to keep SOMEWHAT on topic.
SOmeone already posted that video, and Psyhic supposaidly refuted the points of it. I did not read them myself though so...

...oh look someone already said that.

If you want to continue this discussion, do it on my profile please. ^^;;;

 

[Deku_Link]

Dude, honestly, friends are great. Did you know that 90% of SPPFers don't even have friends? People who complain about getting "friendzoned" should stop complaining about friendship and start appreciating their friends.

 

[Sadib]

Look at all these posts! This will soon surpass my other thread from a while back. I don't know how we got derailed into talking about whether woman are equal or not, and then we got derailed into talking about friend zones (which really doesn't have anything to do with feminism at all).

CNN side with and pity rapists just this past week.

I'd like to give some context for this.

" I didn't get the job, grade, respect I wanted, so it must be SEXISM!!!!"

"The hot girl I just said "Nice tits" to doesn't want to have sex to me, so she's definitely a bitch. I'm such a nice guy she can't take a compliment!"

I have no idea what you two are talking about, so I'm assuming you're both straw manning the other side.

 

[Pesky Persian]

Look at all these posts! This will soon surpass my other thread from a while back. I don't know how we got derailed into talking about whether woman are equal or not, and then we got derailed into talking about friend zones (which really doesn't have anything to do with feminism at all).

Considering so many men use the "friend zone" as an excuse to treat women like shit and play the victim when women don't want to have sex with them, I'd say it has a lot to do with feminism...

I have no idea what you two are talking about, so I'm assuming you're both straw manning the other side.

I was purposely being ridiculous.

 

[Sadib]

Considering so many men use the "friend zone" as an excuse to treat women like shit and play the victim when women don't want to have sex with them, I'd say it has a lot to do with feminism...

Are you serious? That's like saying, "Considering that so many men do [insert something that's not exclusive to only males] that's why it's related to feminism."

 

[Pesky Persian]

Are you serious? That's like saying, "Considering that so many men do [insert something that's not exclusive to only males] that's why it's related to feminism."

It doesn't have to be exclusive to men, although you have to admit that the "friend zone" complaint is most often used by males. It's an excuse to beat someone down and dehumanize them for not getting what you want. Yeah, I'd say that relates to feminism no matter who is doing it.

 

[Deku_Link]

Are you serious? That's like saying, "Considering that so many men do [insert something that's not exclusive to only males] that's why it's related to feminism."

No, you're right, this whole cultural narrative of dudes thinking they're entitled to sex from women has nothing to do with feminism at all

 

[GhostAnime]

men feeling entitled by calling girls who don't date them friendzoners while calling the ones who have sex with someone who isn't them ****s...

i would say it's pretty seriously related to feminism ever so slightly

 

[Sadib]

It doesn't have to be exclusive to men, although you have to admit that the "friend zone" complaint is most often used by males. It's an excuse to beat someone down and dehumanize them for not getting what you want. Yeah, I'd say that relates to feminism no matter who is doing it.

I cannot admit that because I never saw anyone blame someone else for rejecting them. I tend to blame myself.

men feeling entitled by calling girls who don't date them friendzoners while calling the ones who have sex with someone who isn't them ****s...

i would say it's pretty seriously related to feminism ever so slightly

Those guy are just hypocrites then. Are there so many of them that it's a problem?

 

[はるひ]

If I even remember this forum exists tomorrow, I'll bite. I'm sure I don't need to issue a warning that this is not a topic I handle with kid-gloves, though.

Yeah everyone's passionate about this topic. (except for me, but I have my reasons)

My main question is (and anyone is free to answer this) does feminsim do service for *all* women? The reason why I ask is because for a long time, I've always came to the conclusion that feminists don't care about conservative woman. I've seen them bash them etc any woman who was conservative. Okay yeah, even I (someone who's conservative) had to bat an eye with these women but still. When I see a liberal women speak her mind and get attacked for it, we must protect her. But a conservative, it's a whole different story. As as someone on the right, I have to wonder if they are really fighting for my rights. (Oh and they sometimes look down on those who prefer a traditional life style as opposed to a more career minded one. I personally think it's a matter of preference)

It's just a burning question I had.

 

[Deku_Link]

Yeah everyone's passionate about this topic. (except for me, but I have my reasons)

My main question is (and anyone is free to answer this) does feminism do service for *all* women?

Whoa, you almost asked a really good question here. Truth is, feminism is, and always has been, an overwhelmingly "white woman" movement. Women of colour are underrepresented and subject to white women talking over them with self-importance.

The reason why I ask is because for a long time, I've always came to the conclusion that feminists don't care about conservative woman. I've seen them bash them etc any woman who was conservative. Okay yeah, even I (someone who's conservative) had to bat an eye with these women but still. When I see a liberal women speak her mind and get attacked for it, we must protect her. But a conservative, it's a whole different story. As as someone on the right, I have to wonder if they are really fighting for my rights. (Oh and they sometimes look down on those who prefer a traditional life style as opposed to a more career minded one. I personally think it's a matter of preference)

It's just a burning question I had.

Yes, feminism is fighting for your right to be respected as a person and not a vag-with-a-body-attached-to-it. Feminism doesn't like social conservativism because social conservativism would prefer to keep the oppressive status quo (with respect to women's rights, minority rights, and classism). Women who support social conservativism pretty much always come off as special snowflakes that don't get that the conservative men they're trying so hard to impress still see them as an object.

You might as well ask if pro-choice women are fighting for the rights of pro-life women. Of course they are.

 

[iFi Salamander]

First of all, feminism helps both men and women. As has been stated numerous times in this thread, the same parts of our patriarchal society that are harmful to women are also harmful for men. It's a double-edged sword that hurts both genders, but effects women the most. White, straight men are the most privileged group in our society.

Can you please explain to me how women getting raped in college and women getting paid less than men are not societal problems? I'd really like to hear it. And video games are not above sexism. In fact, the video game industry is one of the most sexist forms of media out there.

Do you know how many times I've rolled my eyes at a female character in a game? How many times I've chosen the male protagonist over the female one when given a choice because I get sick and tired of seeing a half-naked, skinny woman running across my screen? How many times I've been pissed that I just want to make my lady badass and give her plate armor, only to find that that's skimpy as well? How many times I've been harassed in MMOs (which I've been playing for well over a decade so there are numerous incidences) and called a "fat ugly dyke" or a "middle-aged man" for declining an invitation to cyber with some creep?

Coming from a guy who is borderline sexist, I have to concur with most of this. You never see a girl in any RPG or really any game of any genre who isn't designed just to be eye-candy. Hell even the games where female characters can get armor they are made out as these model body types that aren't even realistic for the situation. Seeing a 140 perfectly skinny girl in full platemail that looks about four times her weight slaughtering enemies is obnoxious. These women should be so built its hideous, not attractive.

 

[GhostAnime]

When Ifi Salamender knows more about feminism than you, you know you done ****ed up.

 

[bel9]

This thread devolved into all kinds of lolwhat, and then iFi Salamander of all people gave a post that gives me hope for this thread and humankind.

 

[Snorunt conservationist]

Snorunt conservationist is the kind of guy who would look at american society under Jim Crow and say "how does that favour whites? black people were being PAID for their labour!"

Are you really comparing the status of 21st Century Western women to non-whites under Jim Crow laws? Oh, you are. You are while simultaneously making an irrelevant "assumption" (I know it's probably not what you believe, but still) about the poster you're talking about.

not really considering teachers answer to principals (who are usually male) who answer to superintendents (who are usually male) who answer to the board of directors at a school board (who are usually male)

Right, let's begin. This is an erroneous point for two reasons. Firstly, it essentially disregards the idea that a teacher has autonomy over their students. As in, it implies they have little to none. I don't know what kind of schools you were all taught at, but suffice to say, I would be very very surprised if your teacher had little to no autonomy over how or what exactly he or she taught you.

Second, the notion that female principals are rare, in the minority, don't have a voice beyond basic teaching level. It's not really true. Let's look at just a few examples.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ale-headteachers-rising--getting-younger.html

Women made up 70 per cent of the teaching workforce and filled 67 per cent of head and deputy head posts, the TDA said.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-527400/Sharp-slump-number-male-headteachers-abuse-fears.html

The number of male headteachers has fallen sharply in a decade.
They made up 50 per cent of school heads in 1997 but now represent just 39 per cent.

So it's not the case in the U.K.

Let's move on and look at the rest of Europe.

ISCED 1-3 ISCED 1 ISCED 2 ISCED 3

Bulgaria 67.1 76.2 80 65.2
Ireland 43.0 50.8 : 37.6
Greece 73.0 : 76.7 70.9
France 64.6 80.0 41.7 40.6
Italy 39.2 : : 39.2
Cyprus 57.3 67.4 60.0 41.9
Lithuania 72.8 : : :
Netherlands 29.3 32.6 : :
Austria 37.7 66.4 21.0 27.4
Poland 70.9 78.7 69.3 57.2
Romania 52.7 62.5 52.7 52.7
Slovenia 61.8 65.0 65.1 54.0
Slovakia 65.4 86.7 50.0 49.3
Sweden 59.3 75.0 54.5 43.1
United Kingdom 61.5 72.0 : :
FYR Macedonia 32.9 : : 28.9
Iceland 58.0 82.4 50.0 33.6
Norway 47.7 50.6 50.6 43.2

This is a table displaying the percentage of female headteachers around many of the E.U countries. The link is here

http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-policy/doc/report08/school_en.pdf

As the data shows us, in many countries female headteachers are the norm, particularly in the primary education sector. So the notion of there being a lack of female heads in an erroneous one, at least in Europe.

What's it like "across the pond"? Canada first.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/060626/dq060626a-eng.htm

Admittedly I didn't dig too deep here, I just took the first source that looked good. Anyway, this is from the 2004/5 academic year, at which point the website suggests that in total,

Canada had about 8,000 male principals and 7,000 female principals at elementary and secondary schools in 2004/2005.

Women accounted for 47% of all principals. At the elementary level, they represented 53%, but only 42% at the secondary level. The territories had the highest proportion of male principals (81%).

Now, this obviously shows that the majority of principals in 2004/5 were indeed male. However, the gap is not particularly significant, and given that these are statistics from almost a decade ago, it seems safe to assume that trends have shifted even further towards women since then, at both elementary and secondary level.

Finally, America. These were generally a bit harder to find solid data for, but anyway, I have this.

http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k74756&pageid=icb.page414550

This suggests that women make up 50% of principal positions in America. I also have this quote, admittedly though it's a statistic from a few years prior.

Between 1993–94 and 2003–04, the percentage of public school principals who were female increased from 41 to 56 percent in elementary schools and from 14 to 26 percent in secondary schools.

Particularly in elementary schools, females are in administrative positions.

The Superintendent statistics are obviously less equal (and it's more a North American thing than a European one (or a British one at least). We have inspectors but the position of Superintendent is I think non-existent). However, this link suggests that even these demographics are changing at a remarkable rate.

http://www.aasa.org/content.aspx?id=17280

The percentage of female superintendents has increased substantially since 1992. In this study, nearly one in four respondents (24.1%) was a woman. (In 2000, the percentage was 13.2.

An eleven percent increase in ten years. Couple this with the suggestion that...

Only about half (51%) of the respondents said that they planned to still be a superintendent in 2015

which suggests that the percentage gap will continue to close. If 50% plan to leave, and women percentages are rising fast, it seems logical (but of course no definitive) that women will be in an increasing number of admin positions of authority.

also worth pointing out that society practically expects primary teachers to have no lives of their own and play surrogate to about 20+ children

Irrelevant.

Yeah man, with their low salaries, high turnover rates, and being mostly ruled by male principals and board of education members.

Again, irrelevant and morally manipulative notion that salary is relevant to the point (it's also an incredibly localised point, making it even more disingenuous and less relevant), male principal point has been debunked.

Look at the percentages of most people in political power.

That's not a point.

Look at most managerial, CEO, and leader positions. Look at unequal pay for the same positions.

What about them? Please don't peddle this myth that women get paid less for the same jobs. You must be serious though, you used italics. Also, if they were, that does not by itself prove patriarchy.

Look at who society's media constantly markets to.

Men and women.

Look at who society constantly tries to control the sex lives of.

Forgot about that abortion ban. That contraception ban. Nobody can (as yet, though they're trying) control your sex life but you. Anyone doing so after you are of legal age is breaking the law.

Look at who possesses the most wealth and land.

Yet women can own both so that's an irrelevant point. If women had over 50% of the land it wouldn't make a matriarchy. It doesn't work the other way round. What you are trying to argue here essentially is that we are controlled by an oligarchy.

There is hardly any subjectivity to address if you know the exact numbers of these.

That's that then.

Being legally allowed basic human rights =/= having power.

Being allowed to choose chip and dip at the store isn't a basic human right. Having access to contraception isn't a human right. Having easy access to booze isn't a human right. Being able to choose from a wide selection of clothing isn't a human right. They are social privileges.

However, being able to act upon these privileges is precisely about having power. You have the power to do these things. Until the government and others control every aspect of your life, you have a degree of power you would not have under a "patriarchy", because any freedoms you would have would be dictated to you by your father or other male relatives.

The fact you have "basic human rights" that aren't directly dictated to you by a male relative shows you are not in a patriarchy.

Men still hold most of the highest positions of power, as I've said.

Great. Doesn't make a patriarchy.

Men still earn more than women doing the same job.

No they don't.

Hell, I work in a female-dominated field and men are still more sought after and paid higher wages.

A statement that by itself that by itself does not prove a patriarchy.

And let us not forget that it was not so long ago that women in America didn't even have the right to vote which men were in power. Even 30 years or so after that right came about, they were still controlled and treated like the property of their husbands.

Thanks for the history lesson.

Being underpaid, underfunded, and underappreciated? I wouldn't consider that power.

Again, a localised point which is irrelevant and still doesn't equate to not having power while at work.

Enough of society that she isn't even afforded a fighting chance.

So that's a no then?

Men still hold most positions of power. Women are still marginalized and treated lesser than men by the wider society. Legally, we may pretend that men and women are equal. Socially? Not the case by a long shot.

How does this apply to you being intellectually dishonest with your use of the dictionary definition of patriarchy.

 

[Jb]

Seems like some people here think that women being half naked in video games is the problem. It's not. Having female being there for the sake of being naked is the problem.

 

[Deku_Link]

Are you really comparing the status of 21st Century Western women to non-whites under Jim Crow laws? Oh, you are. You are while simultaneously making an irrelevant "assumption" (I know it's probably not what you believe, but still) about the poster you're talking about.

Are you missing the point on purpose? Oh, you are!

Am I surprised? lol irl