Tropes Vs. Women Talks Video Game Butts

The second season of Tropes vs. Women In Video Games has launched its first video today, focuses on video game butts. More specifically: how video games go about emphasising the video game butts of female characters.

Interestingly, this episode is a little shorter than season one's videos, but that's all part of the plan, explains Anita Sarkeesian on the Tropes vs. Video Games Kickstarter page.

We plan on completing Tropes vs Women in Video Games within the year but it’s going to look a little bit different. Instead of incredibly long videos that focus on one trope and deconstruct hundreds of examples, we are going to break it down into smaller bite-size pieces. We’re going to publish shorter, more focused episodes, by taking the theories and concepts from the remaining tropes and presenting them in 5-10 minute long videos around a very focused topic.

I actually love the change. It allows Anita and the team to go a little more in-depth on specific issues. Seems like a great evolution of the show.

You can read a full transcript of the video here.


Comments

    Nice video. She does cherry-pick to make a point though. Credit should be given to Ubisoft in particular for how it did Assassin's Creed Liberation, Chronicles China and Syndicate. The female protagonists in those games are great examples of non-sexualised female characters as well as good cover art. I also take issue with her using Mass Effect as 'hiding the male butt' when the protagonist can be either male or female and is treated the same either way.

    Last edited 20/01/16 9:17 am

      Well it is tropes in games and by the very definition you need to cherry pick the games that use the trope you are discussing.
      It's like discussing the 'Kick the dog' trope in TV and being expected to mention all the shows where the bad guy doesn't kick a dog

        I get what you're saying. I meant that she's obviously not there to present a balanced view on the use of the trope, which is what I think a lot of people find annoying. She's there to show how the trope is played straight rather than where it is averted, leading to a somewhat distorted view of the topic. I don't disagree with much that she says, but I wanted to point out some things that I think she ignored or glossed over.

          You mean like when she talks about beyond good and evil avoiding it?

            That's quite an old game though. As I said, I think she's cherry-picking and glossing over stuff. It's her decision about how to craft a narrative, but equally we can see where there are gaps.

              That's quite an old game though.and?

                ...and not representative of current advances in female representation in games.

        The way these videos are presented imply that these tropes are ubiquitous, it's a bit disingenuous.

          I'll agree with that. The industry has made strides in the last five years to seperate itself from its past. Though there's many games still which fall into the oldschool way of thinking (DOA Volleyball for instance) there's many which eschew the old ways and picked up a more equal representation.

    Too much emphasis is about sexualising women in video games and the negative body image it can have on females but how many male video game protagonists are like a "condom full of walnuts"

    People need to stop caring about make believe worlds more and start turning their attention to the real world. (This is just my opinion, please feel free to object at no offence to me)

      The series is tropes vs women, not "let's draw comparisons to see if things are equal". While men might be sexualised in games just as much as women (this is highly debateable), that is not the point of Anita's project.

        Men are in no way shape or form sexualised as much as women but to remove them completely from the discussion is a cop out and severely limits the validity of her position. If you're saying there's too much of something to the point it becomes "typical" like sexualised female representation - then you're acknowledging that there's a criteria for all examples. Otherwise, how else would we know it became typical or has been used too often? She's comparing it to something but we can't comment on that? As a media education professional, i can say she's also blatantly misrepresented a number of theories and conventions of representation, many people can and have. This is also removed from discussion, making the baseline assumption when watching the video that all theory is entirely sound. I don't always disagree with her videos, generally speaking she seems to get the basics down (even if she seems to, at times, arbitrarily pick her examples) but the caveats and restrictions that come with discussing any of her videos is highly unusual for a legitimate project.

          The reasons you've listed are why I generally disagree with, dislike and don't watch her videos.

          I'm just saying it's not her goal or responsibility to present all sides of the argument, so the fact she doesn't give equal time to the exploitative sexualisation of men in games isn't really a valid argument against her project as a while. She's making a statement and opening the dialogue with a specific topic in mind. If people want to discuss how these issues pertain to men, they're free to respond.

            She's certainly got a target audience in mind with her videos (preaching to the choir). It's also basically confirmation bias. As you say, she's not setting out to do an even-handed treatment of the topic. To her credit she does present some examples of where tropes are averted, but these are sometimes glossed over or downplayed. I think the easiest way to look at it is that she is walking a line between pandering to her target audience (who pays the bills) and trying to look at things critically and impartially. I think if she was totally impartial she'd quickly lose her target audience.

              I think if she was totally impartial she'd quickly lose her target audience. Yep she's just cashing in on the outrage. She's said her self that she doesn't like video games which means she's lied about her upbringing and puts serious questions into her motives (not out to make games better, rather just on a crusade pushing her own agenda).

              Same as everything minority rules the majority :( i'd argue most females prolly don't give two fucks about a chicks ass in a game - no more than any bloke complaining about a males ass.

                i keep seeing this whole thing about her not liking video games and nobody has ever actually presented the evidence for this. Everything I've seen has shown her to be at least passingly interested in games and even if she isn't, she's talking about games as a medium.

                It's no different to her making the same points about movies, TV, music, literature, etc. You don't have to be an aficionado on a medium to research, observe, and critique.

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afgtd8ZsXzI

                  Pretty hard to argue when she said in 2010 that she never played computer games.

                Too many replies so I can't reply to that message.

                Thank you for being the first person out of literally hundreds who has ever actually looked for the thing they claim is real.

                What I got from that is that she likes games as a general rule, but feels that the majority are violent in a way that she has no interest in. Most games are violent. That's a fair call. She never said she hated them, just that she didn't know as much as she should have and had to do her research. That's also fine. Nobody is an expert on anything at the beginning. they have to go and research. Then they can talk about the topic. Besides, like I said above, she's critiquing a medium in relation to the social structure that contains it. A film critic could do some research and be passably good as a literary critic. I don't think it invalidates her point, even if it does hurt the claim to her having expertise.

                That said, I don't like her stuff very much. I think she's too lazy in her research to be an academic and not well versed enough to be a game critic. As a general media critic and as a communication studies researcher, she's fine. she just needs to make an effort that she clearly isn't willing to put in. None of that invalidates her argument. it just means that someone else should be making it.

                Edit: Yes, @mypetmonkey, I am serious. I've been hearing about this damning piece of evidence since the beginning and not one person before now has been able to produce it for me. Even now that I've seen it, I'm not convinced that it's a smoking gun. It's definitely not helping her, it's just not that big a deal. Take note that I don't and never have liked Sarkeesian's videos. I'm defending her not because I like her, but because she cops a lot of negativity that isn't deserved.

                Last edited 20/01/16 6:38 pm

                  I'm not a fan of video games... I would love to play video games, but I don't want to go around shooting people and ripping off their heads, and, it's just gross.

                  That to me states pretty damn clearly that she doesn't like video games - its an immediate bias that she failed to recognize.

                  Anita Sarkeesian has played video games her whole life quote from time magazine, literally the first sentence. http://time.com/3822727/anita-sarkeesian-2015-time-100/

                  I love playing video games but I’m regularly disappointed in the limited and limiting ways women are represented.

                  Quote from her kickerstarter
                  https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/566429325/tropes-vs-women-in-video-games/description

                  She lies to create her own narrative guiding it based on her own ideals. Heck I reckon most of her supporters don't even play video games but are just jumping on a bandwagon.

                  I mean look at http://www.kotaku.com.au/2013/11/new-anita-sarkeesian-video-looks-at-gamings-ms-male-trope/ ... she critiques stuff like red lipstick earrings etc all the while she has plucked eyebrows massive earrings, eye makeup and... red lipstick in every single video she's done.

                  To me she's nothing but a hypocrite cashing in on the outrage.

                I'm not really sure where to start in reply without turning it into an essay. I'll try to be brief.

                That quote from her doesn't actually say that. That's you taking her exact quote and making an inference. That's fine. That's how language works. But whether she is being dishonest or not, she didn't lie.
                Your example of the magazine was not written by her. Regardless, both statements can be true. Let's assume she doesn't like most games because they are violent. There have always been some games that aren't violent and she may have spent a lot of her life playing them. But even if she has played non-violent games her whole life, she's going to miss out on the vast majority of available content. Again, your feelings on it are inferred. She hasn't lied. She might be acting dishonestly and letting people say incorrect things that benefit her, but she isn't actually lying. We don't know for sure if she is being dishonest or not.

                As far as the last part goes, I disagree that she's being a hypocrite and there are seriously hundreds of books and tens of thousands of academic writings as to why. There's no way to explain this without a hell of a lot of typing on my part and a hell of a lot of reading on yours. I don't think either of us wants that. It's basically a year of university level study in Communication theory and probably a big cross over into Sociology. Basically, a person is allowed to be upset that a thing is expected of them, but still perform that action. I'm expected to not scream obscenities at obnoxious people on the train, so act accordingly, no matter how much I would like to do the opposite. It would cause me too many life problems. In the same way, women are expected to dress a particular way, to do their hair, to wear make-up. They could buck the trend, but it would cause too many life problems, so they just do it. There's also a whole lot of stuff about soft power, socialisation, performative gender, television (or youtube) standards of presentation, and probably some other things that don't spring to mind right now.

                You can say that it's all bullshit. That's cool. Nobody has a gun to her head. But we all do this stuff every day. Why wear clothes? Why those ones and not others? Why go to work? Why do we assume that monogamy is the default relationship? Because there is an incredibly complex network of influences that affect us all in ways we only kind of understand and even then, only when we really think about it.

                Edit: I failed shockingly at being brief. Sorry.

                Last edited 20/01/16 5:21 pm

                  You can say that it's all bullshit. That's cool.

                  Yer i'll call you on that it's bullshit (no disrespect meant i just think its crap). At the end of the day if you want to make change you have to start with yourself. It's hypocritical to ask everyone around you to change but be unwilling to do so yourself (which is exactly what Anita has done on some occasions). Regardless of the conventions or social normality of it - if you yourself are unwilling to buck the trend it gives very little backing to your cause. Not saying it's easy but who said bringing about change is.

                  Look i just feel she's dishonest. She appeared on the colbert show, yet also supported #cancelcolbert (http://realgamernewz.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/anita2.jpg if thats not hypocritical i don't know what is). She stole peoples work for which she got paid to create http://victorsopinion.blogspot.com.au/2013/07/anitas-sources.html) in combination with what i've mentioned above and it just makes everything she says sit uneasy.

                  You can say that it's all bullshit. That's cool. Nobody has a gun to her head. But we all do this stuff every day. Why wear clothes? Why those ones and not others? Why go to work? Why do we assume that monogamy is the default relationship? Because there is an incredibly complex network of influences that affect us all in ways we only kind of understand and even then, only when we really think about it.

                  Didn't you try call me out below for making this exact same argument as to why we can't just read these things (like female objectification in video games) on face value?

          She also didn't talk about the conflict in Syria, which completely undermines her point.

          Sometimes it's okay to talk about one topic at a time. You're welcome to start a video series on how men are poorly represented. That would also be valuable.

          But given our culture as a whole focuses on straight white males so exhaustively, maybe let's give someone else a chance to talk about themselves.

            Spot on point. She is drawing attention to an issue which does affect people in the real. Since the majority of players that see these overtly sexualised images of women are young men, this reenforces sexism.

            As we can see this is a serious problem
            In Australia with many women dying each year for no other reason that they are women.

            The world is dominate by white middle aged middle class men. They don't need a voice they are the establishment. If you're white and male then suck it up the cards are already massively stacked in your favour

              Soo... what about male BUT NOT White?

              Oh that's right being a male patriarchal society we also have a leg up already anyway right?

              You know the problem of placing everyone in nice little boxes of haves and have nots? and placing nice little labels? They seldom actually look beyond any of the deeper nuances of an issue or problem. At best it becomes confirmation bias at worst it becomes an excuse for exclusionism for a perceived moral high ground.

              There are always 2 sides to a story and even then a lot of nuances in between. Stop living in your sheltered black and white world and try living in a real one and maybe you might learn something and actually try and actually be able to contribute/help against what you perceive as societal issues instead of beating your chest on your own soap box

            You can't separate this. Gender issues are arguably created through a misunderstanding between both genders (and or all points in between). You can't say "sorry guys, we're strictly talking about women here" when these representations of women don't just appear out of nowhere, they are born out of a complex discursive construct that involves how all genders are encouraged to act and their belief systems within western society.

            You can't look at video games in isolation without looking at society in general. You can't tell me when you see a woman wearing yoga pants in public that that doesn't affect the way women are perceived and represented in media. You can't tell me these differences in clothing and emphasis are not enforced by both genders in the real world. Women typically wear less clothing, men typically more.

            You can tell me that that's "part of the problem" with the way society views men and women but you certainly can't make that sort of argument and then also say "sorry, we're just talking about women here." It's part of an interconnected web that is futile to try and view in isolation.

              That's insane. You can definitely look at one problem in a 6 minute video without having to look at the full complexity of gender in modern Western civilisation.

              That's like saying you can't discuss pricing your lemonade stand without factoring in the full complexity of global economics.

              It's a 6 minute video about one issue that is part of a bigger one. That's both allowed and useful.

                You make a valid point. However you can't talk about this 6 minute video without considering every other 6 minute video and all the vice articles and the overwhelming majority of discussion about perceived sexism in media from a feminist perspective. And the vast majority of this discourse says "we're just talking about women here guys".

                My argument is more about this whole movement in general rather than Anita's specific video. Everyone is saying "this is our space, make your own space to discuss gender politics" when in reality there needs to be one space, where everyone talks to each other, both sides of the fence, and tries to get to the root of this issue as objectively as possible.

                Nothing will change with people agreeing in echo chambers, we can't preach to the choir, we need to challenge positions that aren't the same as ours, and you don't do that by saying "stand aside, we're talking here". People just stop listening at that point.

                  If every article and video that broaches the topic weren't instantly inundated with loud jerks screaming about kitchens, or rape (or whatever it is that the bizarrely hate-filled corners of the internet are angry about this week), the the people talking about it might be able to get past the starting line and actually make some real progress. Until the conversation moves forward, every new voice is going to have to start at the same place.

                  Last edited 20/01/16 4:43 pm

                  @pokedad: I'll be a slight devils advocate here and say the same argument can also be said for "the other side" for lack of a better word.. if every argument didn't start w/ "men's patriarchy" and "privilege" then we also wouldn't be in this kind of rut either...

                  .. fact of the matter is there's always going to be the "loud few" that will drown out the majority of folks who are open to debate

                  Last edited 22/01/16 7:06 pm

              In order to bake a cake, one must first create the universe.

                I know you're joking but it's not wrong. Maybe there's some internal misunderstanding about how far along in the cake baking process the modern feminist movement is at.

                There are still a lot of ideas (privilege, patriarchy, etc) that aren't universally accepted concepts but instead tools for arguments that become circular logic until these concepts are convincingly proven to be true (if they even can be). There are still people who roll their eyes when the word "Feminism" is mentioned or that flat out reject the movement and its current aims.

                I think the biggest problem we have here is that a lot of people feel like they want to actually check the recipe for themselves but feminism is already pouring the icing on.

                  If you don't think that systemic privilege is a thing then I don't know what to tell you. It's about as well proven as evolutionary theory at this point.

                  It's about as well proven as evolutionary theory at this point.

                  @pokedad OH. haha. Ok, phew. You got me. I thought you were serious this whole time and now i realise you've just been taking the piss. Good job, you really had me fooled that you were trying to argue a seriously held position!

                  You're alright pokedad, you're alllllllllllllright.

                  I'm deadly serious and you're kidding yourself if you think being flippant about it counts as a reasonable reply. This is self evident. Let's try some examples not related to gender:

                  Rich people get things that poor people don't. They have access to better schools, better job opportunities, better ways to avoid paying tax.
                  Politicians often come from dynastic families because their position within the political structure allows them a lot more opportunity to work in politics. Even those from non-political families can get an easy foot in the door if they are from a wealthy family because they can afford to volunteer in political parties in order to make connections.
                  Celebrities rarely go to prison for things that any normal person would be locked up for.

                  These are all results of systemic privilege. It doesn't have to be race or gender related. there are countless examples both large and small. Systemic privilege is an integral function of the social order.

      "A condom full of walnuts"
      Hmmmm, I know what I'm having for lunch

        Stand out comment for this article
        it's not going to get any better than this

      I always wonder why they go after Games when there are all these advertisements, even roadside ones, that you don't even choose to see that are scientifically designed to be arousing for men.

      There is this Bikini advert from some company right in front of a close by public school I know. It's huge and focuses on the best parts as it rolls to a new super model.

      Most of them are from women's products manufacturers. But trying to ban these will then turn us into the Taliban. We have no say in the matter.

      So, we just have to drive carefully.

      Last edited 20/01/16 3:44 pm

        People do talk about those topics. It's just that when someone says it in regard to video games, a portion of the internet shits the bed and screams until it passes out for the third time today.

        Sexism in advertising has been on the list of topics for conversation since probably the 80s.

          Sure. All I'm saying is men have no say in the matter. Either opinion men have can be taken the wrong way.

          Video Games and Advertising has another difference, you choose to buy one while you are put through the other ( I didn't see a PG rating on that banner and It wasn't behind the counter for me to choose to purchase).

          Choice is the key word here. Men in general will always go out and support their sexual desires as do women. The desires may be different but there exists markets for both of those sexes and more. The reason is demand.

          To either persecute or promote any of those desires will have those respective groups agitated to say the least. But I agree with you that this whole thing is a rouse and serves no other purpose than segregation.

          I don't think you can adjust/transform a sex and their desires, because no matter what you do or say, beauty will always be in the eye of the beholder. If you just bring legislation into these topics of emotional desire, it will only serve to suppress them, it won't remove the emotion.

      Or the "All men are stupid" trope that exists in advertising. I guess that doesn't rate a mention.

        No, it rates a mention. It falls under the "Patriarchy hurts men, too" category. If women are forced to act in a particular way regardless of how they feel about it, it stands to reason that men are, too. Men are not mentally handicapped when it comes to cooking, doing housework, or rearing children, no matter how many times advertising says otherwise. That's bullshit and it's a direct result of the same bullshit that feminism is talking about.

        Last edited 20/01/16 4:44 pm

          I see this "The Patriarchy™ hurts men too" argument a lot. But let me ask this 100% non-rhetorical question: What role do you believe men should play in regards to feminism and deconstructing these concepts like The Patriarchy?

          It seems like this argument wants men to be some sort of silent investor in the modern, internet driven feminism, one that uses their, in the movement's words, innate "privilege" to leverage opportunities for feminist goals to be achieved without getting involved in what those goals are and their consequences. Correct me if i'm wrong.

          Last edited 20/01/16 8:26 pm

            What role do I believe, personally? That's complicated and highly situational.

            Essentially, slavery is no longer accepted because people with nothing to gain from its eradication fought it simply because it was the ethical thing to do. They in fact lost a lot from trying to stop slavery. This is similar to some extent. If your goal is equality for all people, then you basically have to fight for the people who are less equal. Even if it means you lose a little. I want all people to be on an equal footing and judged by their convictions and conduct. That is not the world of today. So, "feminist" goals are really just humanist goals, but you don't solve societal problems by balling them all together. Someone who realises that their life is shit and decides "I need to fix my life" is going to fail. It's just too much. This is the same. Right now, 100% of the world's population is treated unfairly based on gender. How that manifests (and to what degree) varies greatly. The best way to tackle it is to look at the biggest related problem you can find that isn't a huge messy ball of other problems and work on fixing it. If everyone does that with one problem they think they can help fix, things get a lot better in a lot of little ways.

            So when you talk specifically about the often used "Patriarchy Hurts Men, Too" line, you can see it manifest in many ways. Men are denigrated for not being prone to violence, or jealousy, or for not being workaholics, or for displaying emotion in anything other than specially prescribed ways. Men are simply expected to pay for women in dating situations. Many men die of perfectly curable ailments because they are socially forced not to appear weak (like a woman) by asking for help. The family court system is more or less built on the idea that men can't be single parents, but women can. All of this and more is a product of a society built on a history of men in power. Our society is built upon European ideals that were built upon a male-dominated religion and a social system that treated a select few men like livestock owners. We did this and it hurts us. So being feminist isn't always counter to male quality of life in the grander sense, but it does mean that we have to meet half way. It means giving up some of the advantages we get simply by being born with the right genitals.

            On a side note, "feminism" isn't a monolith. It's not a singular movement with a newsletter. It's like saying that "religion" or "politics" did this or that. It's millions of people from millions of different circumstances trying the best they can to fix problems they can see in the world. Some of them are too zealous. Some are missing the point. Some are forgetting about one important thing or another. It's not perfect and nobody should ever claim that it is. But even though I certainly disagree with a great many people who call themselves feminists, I still call myself one, too. Because I see problems and I want to fix them and one of the biggest problems around is that women's contributions to the world are systematically devalued in countless ways every day. That's fucked up.

              (Ok so ignoring the fact that you're clearly taking a satirical position with your comments as evidenced by your comment about privilege and evolution above.)

              So honestly, you believe that slavery and first world inequality are able to be compared in any sort of way? I don't think anyone would ever try to argue that feminism isn't crucial in several third world countries around the world, even its most staunch detractors, for the record. But to say that the kind of societal shake up that the end of slavery required is needed in a first world situation is absurd, I would even say offensive, but I don't think being offended is a valid position to hold about anything.

              If you want to to live in a society that treats you as equally as the next person for non arbitrary reasons you're going to be waiting a very long time. We're told that life is a meritocracy but that's 100% not the case, someone might get a job over you because they know someone who referred them, or because they are male and the boss is a sexist, or they might have had a shit day and that made them look unfriendly and uninterested in the interview. But none of these thing are institutionalised constructs of oppression.

              Will you be viewed a certain way because of you gender, male or female? Definitely. Will you be judged based on factors that you can't control? Always. The problem with this mindset is that modern feminism seems to extrapolate everyday experiences to be representative of the whole society. You probably met a dickhead that day, you'll probably meet many more, there are a lot of people in the world who are too stupid, too stubborn, too reliant on their parents or grandparents' outdated worldviews to form their own.

              There was, recently a time when women were treated in horribly sexist ways, and there are still vestiges of that because these people went on to teach their stupid kids those same values. But those people won't change, it's literally a waiting game, their generation is almost out of here, and once the new generation is in charge things will push forward significantly.

              I think the biggest problem men have with this "the patriarchy hurts men too" is that sure, you can list off a whole lot of things that men suffer through on a daily basis, but it always has to relate back to how it affects women. As a result, men might feel that their position is being misrepresented or misused to further the agenda of another group of people, and this is only exacerbated by the fact that we're so often told to keep quiet on these issues. We're told that we are "blind to our privilege by its very nature" by people who are almost certainly blind to their own. We're told to sacrifice our privilege by people who believe that they have none to sacrifice themselves.

              Institutionalised power has never been a singularly gendered phenomenon. Women have been rulers throughout history, and women hold power today. Don't make the assumption that "the people who hold power are men, therefore, one must be a man to hold power", because that's flat out wrong.

              Last edited 21/01/16 5:58 pm

                Missing the point on purpose? Yup.
                Saying that we can't fix everything, so we should just not bother? Yup.
                Taking a topic that is inherently about women and turning it into "BUT WUT ABOUT TEH MENZ?!" Yup.
                Taking the few exceptions that support your point and calling them equal to the overwhelming examples to the contrary? Yup.

                Fuck it. I'm done. If you actually give a fuck about the topic, feel free to do some academic research. You'll be challenged very quickly on a lot of your assumptions. I was. I took it with a grain of salt until I lived in a social structure that treated me as a second class citizen in the mildest of ways. After that I realised that my entire life of thinking more or less exactly as you do was me being blind to the nose on my face. People you know and care about live their whole lives dealing with ten times what I did for a few years. Shit sucks for everyone except the people who think it is great for everyone.

                  See how far you get filling out your bingo cards and throwing out catchphrases that antagonise the very people you want to hand over their power and privilege. I'm actually trying to help you gain allies instead of ostracising them. You cannot expect to challenge the notions of female gender roles without men asking about their own gender roles. Instead of rolling your eyes at this have the common sense to realise they are two sides of the same coin and engage in these discussions as well, sometimes at the same time.

                  I've heard every argument that can be made about this topic, you can't log on these days without seeing some internet feminist agenda. I firmly believe in equality, treating people the way they deserve / I would want to be treated, and ignoring traditional gender roles (AKA not being a horrible person). What i don't believe in is this scapegoating, strawmanning war on straight white men whilst simultaneously demanding they get on side and being genuinely shocked that they would dare display the "misogyny" of disagreeing with the argument. They are not the source of all the world's social problems.

    I have a standout memory about something like this!

    I was playing Final Fantasy VII and just getting to the ending and my mum, who never really showed an interest in games, happened to be in the room and was watching the ending cinematic. She witnesses Tifa's tig ol bitties waving around as she's hailing Cloud in the crater, and in that moment I was embarrassed for video games.

      I always had a thing for Tifa. Was always wondering why the hell Cloud didn't just go for it lol.
      Yes I'm a sad man, but what of it?

        You are not sad. I also shipped Tifa and Cloud.

        (But I also shipped Kadaj and Cloud in Advent Children...)

          You cannot say that you shipped a pair of characters that were very clearly meant for each other. It's like saying that you believe in the truth. Cloud didn't really love Aeris, that was just his jumbled brain appropriating Zack's memories, who did love her.

          Wait what? Shipped? Please tell me what thus term means !

            Basically head canon romantic relationship between two characters that do not have an obvious romantic attachment.

        I often theorise that it's done on purpose, the whole thing about Japanese main characters ending up with the most boring girl in the game/anime.

        There's probably some kind of psychology behind it.

          To make the less boring ones seem like they're still available? For the hug pillows.

      Yeah, I felt like that when I was playing through the Dead or Alive 5 campaign while my young daughters watched.

        I was playing DoA 4 with a friend, my mother walks in, has a look, and says "Sean, just to make sure, you don't think that women actually look like that, do you?"

    I'm not going to watch the video because frankly I can't stand Anita and feel she has done the entire discussion of tropes vs. women in games a disservice by being the worst possible person to lead it (when she finds time to lead it), but here's my personal real talk about video game butts: I like girls, and I like girl butts. When I have the option of playing as a girl when it's a third person game, I probably will, because then I get to look at girlbutt instead of manass. Men have very little to offer me from a visual appeal standpoint, and I feel like that goes for the majority of players - even players who typically like dudes. Which is weird because male protagonists still tend to dominate.

    Anyway, is this shamelessly exploitative of women, a deliberate appeal to the male gaze? Yeah. Sorry.

    Is this inherently a "bad thing"? I guess that's going to vary from person to person, so no, it's not "inherently" bad. I don't think it's ok to objectify women but I don't think games design should be stripped back to the point they become completely sexless, either. Is the response to take the butts away, or to strive for butt equality? I have no issue whatsoever playing a mix of gendered protagonists with a range of designs. Butts are not the reason I play, but present me with a butt and I will look at it. Hopefully I can do so while enjoying a game with good controls, interesting gameplay, and a mature narrative with complex and nuanced characters who happen to have butts and also boobs and penises. Maybe not all at once, but if they do that's ok too, because what I want at the end of the day is variety. All butts all the time achieves nothing, it doesn't elevate the art.

    My answer to people who have a problem with excess of girlbutt in their games is to seek out games that do not excessively feature girlbutt - trust me, you are not left wanting. Perhaps make your own games that feature other things, many people do. Is it a shame that sometimes an otherwise positive game experience is tainted by the appearance of something you find morally objectionable? Yes, but we also get perfectly good games ruined by escort missions. It's ok to complain, but complaining alone is not the solution.

      This. I always play as girls. I'm a bloke. I find the interactions with characters less annoying, I enjoy their perspective... and I like da chicks. No need to dress it up as anything else. Or make excuses.

        Why won't you just feel ashamed of your heterosexuality already dammit!

        im the same most of the time, as to me it all comes down to the animations such in fallout 4 my characters are always female, because they just look better and really it makes more sense for the mother the looking for her son than a father looking for his son, but in Skyrim my cxharacters male because they look better in the armour and have better animations than the females ( i hate that the females walk like catwalk models swinging their bums from side to side)

        Then theres New vegas where the story just becomes 100% more awesome when your female courier goes against the legion, its also a blast to literaly screw Benny over

          Yeah, I kinda liked the Skyrim hip away... But given I only ever really play a game once (often to 100%) I can't honestly say I experienced much from the "man" side of things. Was a Mage/thief, so it was all bows and robes anyway :P

        I play girls, wherever possible. I'm a guy and I like girls. I have 2 daughters, they like girls. They like watching me play seeing girls do all the same things that guys do in action movies and what-have-you. Has been plenty of times where Ive not bothered finishing a game because I don't like the guy I'm forced to play as.

        Was not the case with Edward Kenway. So dreamy. Probably the beard.

          Good point, actually, as I've found myself also playing girls because having my Mrs "make" the character results in some nice bonding... And characters that look more traditionally beautiful than the weird "soft core porn fodder" I generally churn out :-/

      and I feel like that goes for the majority of players - even players who typically like dudes. Which is weird because male protagonists still tend to dominate.

      It depends on the character design. Like straight guys, gay guys also have certain tastes. I personally prefer a muscular/bear-type male (for example, my character from FFXIV: http://i.imgur.com/uxkb0sl.png he's no bear, because SE is scared of body hair, but he's at least muscular) and detest the effeminate-looking male. If a game gave me a choice in choosing a character and I could only pick between a female and an androgynous male, I'd play as a female. If there was an option to play as a muscular/bear (or both) male, then of course I'd choose him.

        So what we really need is a broader variety of everything. I think too many male protagonists (that according to some critics only feed "male power fantasy") are the square-jawed, well toned, clean-cut type (which in my opinion feeds into the tendency towards male characters to be generic and disposable). Women on the other hand are typically slim, toned, and busty (which are also just as generic and disposable but because they at least look nice, we automatically like them more).

        There was a "Hey Ash Whatcha Playing?" episode a few years back where they put forward the argument that Saint's Row III (or maybe IV) was a triumph for gender quality/feminism in gaming because you make your own protagonist - from a weedy little pale guy to a badass 400lb black woman - and the game treats them the same no matter what.

          Funnily enough, I was going to include a sentence of praise towards Saints Row III and IV (thinking of that video as well), but decided against it (since it would have been spontaneous praise and not at all a part of what I was saying).

          Here's that video for you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egNGa41tRac

      You should try to give the video a watch, it's pretty interesting and she makes some good points. I don't think I've ever made a video game purchase on the bases of seeing a sexy female protagonist, i'm not against it, but I just don't see what value it brings to a video game.

        I actually read the transcript after writing my post and found it actually a lot more reasonable than some of her previous efforts. Much less strawman-y and nitpicky.

        You're right. Take away the sex appeal and the majority of games won't really be affected. But I'm not going to lie, put a pretty girl in a game and I'm going to enjoy looking at her. That said, rampant oversexualisation can be downright embarrassing, which is a disservice to everyone.

      It's interesting. Her arguments aren't really that games shouldn't be sexy, but that they shouldn't be designed to have female characters pandering to a straight male audience.

      Her arguments are getting more difficult to maintain with the proliferation of games designed for straight female or gay male audience, such as Hatoful Boyfriend (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatoful_Boyfriend), Hurt Me Plenty (http://radiatoryang.itch.io/hurt-me-plenty) or Tusks The Orc Dating Sim (http://orcdatingsim.tumblr.com/). These games are certainly not designed for straight male audiences and the straight male consumer might be utterly turned off these products.

      What I think Anita and other feminist commentators in the gaming industry need to realise is that if there is a target market for a product, that product will likely be created (Economics 101).

      Anita's complaint about female objectification, by extension, means that females can never be objectified, whether in gaming, movies, TV, comics, art, fashion or day-to-day life. She fails to realise that objectification is the primary method that humans use to make an initial selection of a mate, before getting to know them and becoming intimate. Suppressing objectification, whilst laudable in the sterile world of intellectual debate, is unfeasible in the consumer world.

      I personally enjoy watching her videos, but I always remember who she is and who her target is (it isn't me). That way I don't feel too offended by them :-)

        Her arguments are getting more difficult to maintain with the proliferation of games designed for straight female or gay male audience, such as Hatoful Boyfriend (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatoful_Boyfriend), Hurt Me Plenty (http://radiatoryang.itch.io/hurt-me-plenty) or Tusks The Orc Dating Sim (http://orcdatingsim.tumblr.com/). These games are certainly not designed for straight male audiences and the straight male consumer might be utterly turned off these products.
        And your point here is? The games you listed are small, intentionally niche games. Anita usually talks about mainstream games, you're comparing apples and oranges.

          No, like Zambayoshi said, if there's a market for it, it will be made, it will become successful. These games are niche games because the market does not currently exist yet. That's not to say it never will, but gaming, "hardcore" gaming, is still a boy's club, despite whatever misleading statistics you might find on clickbaity articles will tell you.

          This will be resolved when more girls and women vote with their wallets to tell the market what it needs, and also, most importantly, when more women start creating games. It's really as simple as that. Asking other people to indulge your interests is not only going to result in disappointment, but also, in this current internet culture, probably missteps and perceived offensiveness.

            @greenwarpy small, intentionally niche games can still sell very well. Games like Her Story have sold well over 100,000 copies. Life is Strange has sold over 1 million copies. This is where the big publishers sit up and pay attention. Why do you think Ubisoft has included female protagonists in some of the Assassin's Creed games? It isn't because a multinational corporation grew a conscience and decided to 'do the right thing'. Publishers will follow the money. They are still playing catch-up to a degree, because (1) there is still a huge market for games featuring sexy female characters and (2) AAA games are an expensive and risky investment. Anita could have delved a bit further into the issue and it is disappointing (although understandable) that she instead chose to address it superficially in a way that was skewed towards her own confirmation bias and which pandered to her target audience.

        She actually says in her video that the answer isn't equal opportunity objectification. Which, as you said, is an intellectual and theoretical solution to a compulsion that is innately human. That's the problem here, you cannot just overwrite the species programming to procreate, men and women will always view each other in a sexualised way, because it's necessary for the continuation of the species!

          Except women have traditionally been expected to be more coy about it. The moment a woman stands up and proclaims a desire to look at hunky man bods, butts and biceps, she's seen as being promiscuous. However, pornographers have found that women do share some of the same sensory stimuli that men have, it's just that women tend to want a more holistic, contextual approach. This may be why Anita is saying that you can't just insert more male objectification to even the deal. The whole game really needs to be designed and marketed differently to be gender inclusive. I think we're seeing some AAA movement this way with Ubisoft, and probably EA (Battlefront, and let's see Mirror's Edge) recently, but I think the industry will continue to be fragmented with smaller-budget games targeting different markets rather than bigger games succeeding in capturing a universal market.

    I've always felt a bit weird when playing a game which has a lude female character on screen. Some of the games people buy are just for babes in bikinis, but games like tomb raider, mirrors edge, golden axe, DOA etc etc I'm there for the gameplay. The mrs, parents, friends might walk past the screen and just think "what a perve".... NOOOOOooooo. If I was being a perve I'd do something else rather than playing a video game to cop a look at a digital "babe".... it actually cheapens the experience for me because I'm like "Don't throw me in that basket, I'm not one of "those" guys".

    Ironically most of the games she's complaining about are 3-10+ years old and the ones which are fine are newer. I'm playing Assassins Creed Syndicate and have never felt weird about using Evie, so that's a credit to them (which I never thought about until seeing this).

    I agree with about 70-80% of what Tropes is saying, but the one thing that I was like "nup" was when she said Catwoman was emphasised to walk with a hip sway. That's how she walks..... yes they didnt need to make her butt in strech pants and perky as hell, but you can't argue that they hammed up her walk.

    Overall, good vid... even if you don't 100% agree it's a great eye opener.

      golden axe Great game! played it in the arcade so much as a kid but if i remember correctly the chick might have been wearing a bikini as "armor" but the dude was just wearing his budgie smugglers too - if anything that game from way back had some equality about it :D

        Sorry, meant the recent golden axe that they showed in the video... the old ones are king haha. Yeah, you can't really complain about those old games lol... pixel butt on all counts... except for the dwarf who was a boss.

      If you're looking over your shoulder in embarassment whenever a video game female is on screen, it makes it hard for me to like the game. The only other time i do it is during a bioware sex scene. There's a lot that's underdeveloped in sex and games.

        Sex scenes in video games are still so cringe, imo. It's like watching people mash two mannequins together.

        Yep, but mirrors edge !

        I never really sunk many hours into those games because of that reason, but even fighting games like DOA it'd just be every once in a while where you vs some boob tube opponent and cringe.

    She's obviously completely on point in regards to the female butts in the video, but I think it's a stretch to claim that shoulder level cameras in games with male protagonists were chosen with the intent of hiding the characters butt.
    Call me naive but I'd like to believe there is more taken into account when making decisions around something as pivotal as the in game camera.
    But I guess that goes both ways and you could easily claim that games with female protagonists do sometimes go with a camera that is going to emphasize the form of the protagonist, even at the expense of a camera angle that might be more suited to the game.

    I guess where we differ is she's claiming that the camera is emphasizing butts in female protagonist games and going to (sometimes absurd) lengths to actively hide it in male protagonist games, where I'd argue it's emphasizing female butts in female protagonist games but in the male games it's more likely just not a priority for the developers to show them, more so than active avoidance or fear of butts.

    Also with something like Watch Dogs I doubt that the decision to put the character in a long coat was made with the intent of hiding his rear.
    That said I'd like to think if Aiden was a female she would be dressed similarly and would likely have been disappointed on that front.

    P.S. I don't know what Batman she was playing, but I certainly caught my fair share of Batbutt while playing through the Arkham series. The dude could open a bottle with that thing. And I'm not talking twist-top.

      Haha, yes, someone else who "glimpsed" the glorious Batbutt ;) I had the feeling she really didn't try hard, I honestly don't mind a bit of butt (of both genders) but I'd wish there was more variety.

      But what I did notice when watching let's plays is that often the players were noticeable more uncomfortable and outraged at male nudity or seeing them in tight clothes.

      As for the camera angle, I also doubt that the intent is solely based on gender, but it think it does have something to do with what the gameplay and story is about in the game, as it does change the focus a bit.

      I don't think a bit of sexy but or abs/busts would be so much of a problem for some critics if the way the characters are shown would be more rounded and less monolithic and there be less story lines that put women in the constant position of being in need of rescue or aid - even when they are otherwise shown as competent.

    I just feel sorry for her, she's really grasping here.

    All media is just as guilty as videogames of sexualising women to some degree so I ain't gonna bother watching anyway. I agree it's something to be thought about sure. At least in videogames the men are more on par with the women, in that they're generally attractive and muscle bound.

    Designers are doing nothing but catering to their audience. Its simple supply and demand. I personally dont care if they stop the "objectification of women" in video games, but developers and publishers are not going to cater to the minority thats upset about how women are portrayed. They dont care about anything but money. Its the same reason you see tits in movies but very rarely see a exposed penis. Tits are in action and horror movies that are more geared towards men. If women become the primary consumer of video games, i can guarantee that the whole situation will be flipped but until that time, there are gonna be girl butts everywhere.

      So you are basically saying that women gamers don't matter, that there is no point developing games for women? Let's just keep making games with tits and butts and if women don't like it then too bad for them.

        Im not saying they shouldnt cater to women, im saying that the companies want to make money and they do that by catering to the customer base. Im all for equal rights and i personally think some of the designers have the mindsets of freshly pubescent teenages. Big business is greedy, consumers are nothing but numbers to them and no amount of youtube videos will change that.

    LADY SAID THING, RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE.

    So the money has finally been spent on more videos. Praise the sun....

    I think what annoys me the most about Anita's videos isn't just the cherry picking as such. it's that she cherry picks examples that aren't really that strongly supportive of her argument, while ignoring the hundreds of easily more blatant examples that totally do.

    E.g. Lara Croft: yes, she wears short shorts. But personality wise, she's also one of the strongest, most independent female characters in video games ('almost' rape scene in the reboot notwithstanding). Anita could instead use one of the million examples where female characters totally are designed/viewed for their butt, but she doesn't.

    I think she did something similar with The Last of Us in the damsels in distress video. Basically saying that the scene where Joel saves Ellie from being raped feeds into the 'strong man saves helpless damsel in distress' trope. Completely ignoring the fact that Ellie is by far the stronger character than Joel throughout the entire game, including ~3 months game time where she single handedly keeps him alive after he's injured. Hell, it's Joel who ends up making the emotional, rash decision to doom the world so he can save Ellie, the girl he loves like a daughter.

    (I know TLoU is a three year old game, but spoiler tags anyway)

    FWIW, I'm a total SJW and while I agree with the intent of Anita's videos, I can't stand the way she goes about it. I actively dislike her videos.

    Last edited 20/01/16 11:07 am

      You may dislike her videos - but they are getting a lot of publicity. Being controversial is basically the whole point, it gets people talking and discussing the topics. Which ads on TV do you remember the most (it's usually the stupid and annoying ones)?

      A character can be well written and still be depicted in ridiculous outfits (lara's wetsuit was pretty bad).

      edit: clarity

      Last edited 20/01/16 1:50 pm

        That wasn't my contention, merely that there are arguably much more blatant/worse examples which would better support her argument. Though I honestly wouldn't be surprised if Lara was chosen simply because she's well known.

        I suppose there's nothing wrong with that, I just feel like Anita's specific brand of cherry picking does "the cause" more harm than good. Which is bad, because it's a cause I feel is worth supporting.

          I don't think it was a bad example though, as I mentioned, that wet suit goes ridiculously far to show off her butt. I think post reboot tomb raider is better in regards to flaunting ass ( I think you could make arguments either way there though)

          Additionally, using characters from games that are well known, and that have other, positive qualities helps illustrate how commonly it occurs. If she used some obscure fanservicey game instead, not only would she need to spend time explaining the game, most peoples reaction would be "so what, that's the point".

          Last edited 21/01/16 12:41 am

      Pretty much this. I'm all for having this discussion. It's a good one to have. The issues are real and the examples are pretty easy to find.

      I'm SJW as fuck and I don't want her videos to be the standard set for this topic. The bar is too low. She's just not good enough at the job she is doing.

    Well, this is indeed the most reasonable comments section on a Sarkeesian video yet.

    I know there's still time, but good on you guys so far.

    Even the resident GamerGate SuperSaiyan HappyEnding #1 seems to be off his game today. Maybe 2016 is the year when misogyny becomes passe and people work out that we aren't living in a world where white males are afraid to go near their keyboards for fear of oppression?

    And that a lot of work needs to be done on both 'sides' to adapt to a rapidly changing marketplace.

    Also, although I cannot stand Anita, this is certainly a cut above her usual fare.

    Last edited 20/01/16 12:15 pm

      You almost made it without mentioning gamergate.....

      Still you kept to your never actually mentioning a game or posting about a game. Well done.

      http://new1.fjcdn.com/thumbnails/comments/Here+s+a+more+derpy+version+for+you+_02ffbf769fc330664eeddd5ae75fed5b.jpg

        I love it when you self-identify, it's fedorable <3

        Last edited 20/01/16 1:56 pm

          Self identify? Sorry I was just laughing at the predictability that you would show up and dribble some more z-grade Russell Brand wannabe bollocks.

          It's funny when you project your own self hatred on others.... Do you game yet? You only ever show up and ramble on with whatever buzzwords you found in the last student magazine you read to feel edgy.

          You're predjudices are so cute though.... Psychologists dream of people like you! Stay aggrieved whitey and blame Gamergate. <3

          http://new1.fjcdn.com/thumbnails/comments/Here+s+a+more+derpy+version+for+you+_02ffbf769fc330664eeddd5ae75fed5b.jpg

          Last edited 20/01/16 2:23 pm

            Ah, princess - I was writing computer game reviews when you were in short pants.

            Anyway, you keep fighting the good fight champ, those women and SJWs polluting your games will soon get what's coming to them when these terrible ethical issues are brought into the public eye ;)

            Sorry to hear about Tony :(

              Hehehe here comes the condescending name calling.... Struck a nerve did I.

              You don't game. You never talk on point..... and you're a poor imitation of Russell Brand.

              Gamergate, Fedora, Abbott..... Yawn... However, you cannot stand Anita so by your own logic you're a fedora wearing woman hater.

              Care to quote where I want women out of gaming? So many prejudices Burny... Keep trying but you're tangling yourself up.

              Fedorable <3

              Last edited 20/01/16 3:10 pm

                I hand you the biggest chance and you miss it :(

                You know that all your pro-Gamergate comments are still on those articles, right?

                Though it's nice to see you scared to admit to them, good to see a man with principles hey?

                Last edited 20/01/16 3:14 pm

                  You mean the ones where I never say I have a problem with women in gaming?

                  I'd refer to all your comments but they're pretty rinse repeat dribble. Remember that time about someones opinion on Destiny and yet you still somehow had a whinge about Gamergate? yeah fun times.... So utterly predictable....

                  Admit what? That you can't ever find a comment where I even mention "women are polluting my games"..... Because it doesn't exist, it's not true. It's just your nasty little narcissistic prejudices coming to the forefront again.

                  It's pretty sad you need to make things up Burnside. So hateful, so un-fedorable I did strike a nerve starting the downvotes.

                  Last edited 20/01/16 3:26 pm

                The condescending name calling comes with such regularity because you are basically a giant baby who can't stop being wrong and angry on the internet.

                Sorry for being condescending and calling you a baby. You big baby.

                  Love you too Pokedud... Never stop being a bigot who can't accept others.

                  Being wrong? About what? Saying "I don't hate women show me where?"

                  Keep shedding those tears..... You'll forever be wrong.

                  Look out a pixellated and polygon butt!

                  It's funny though, you're angry that I've held the position that its okay to not agree with Anita and not agreeing isn't sexist.... and 2 of your little cabal have admitted they don't like her, but that's okay. Natch... Keep it hypocritical guys! <3

                  Last edited 20/01/16 5:16 pm

                  To be fair, Burnside cannot help himself when it comes to mentioning GG or fedoras on pretty much every article he comments on.

                  Its amazing really.

                I had a whole bunch of snarky shit here and I decided not to post it. I'm done arguing with you and not just because I can't be bothered. I'm sick of everything being negative.

                I think that eventually something is going to change how you feel, or the world will move on and you'll be the weird, bigoted uncle at family gatherings. I honestly hope it's the first one. No lie. I'm not even trying to make fun of you. I actually feel bad for being a jerk in the last post.

                I could be wrong, but I honestly think that the world is changing and that society generally will continue to disagree more and more with your position on this whole thing. If I'm right, and that happens, I hope you find a away to see why it goes that way and that maybe it isn't so bad. If I'm wrong, well, you told me so.

                  So you keep saying. Kinda like saying:
                  I had a whole bunch of snarky shit here and I decided not to post it. I'm done arguing with you and not just because I can't be bothered. I'm sick of everything being negative.
                  But in the next paragraph you do anyway....

                  The world is changing, it's happened in this very article's comments:

                  From your hyperbolic chum Burnside:
                  Also, although I cannot stand Anita, this is certainly a cut above her usual fare.

                  From the other down voting cabal member of white knight justice Hotcakes:
                  I suppose there's nothing wrong with that, I just feel like Anita's specific brand of cherry picking does "the cause" more harm than good.

                  And from yourself:
                  I've been hearing about this damning piece of evidence since the beginning and not one person before now has been able to produce it for me.

                  Take note that I don't and never have liked Sarkeesian's videos. I'm defending her not because I like her, but because she cops a lot of negativity that isn't deserved.

                  If you objectively looked into what you hated instead of what is being fed to you then maybe you would ease that the negativity could possibly be deserved.

                  I've been FOLLOWING #gamergate for a while, not participating but observing both sides. No surprise but internet shit fights amuse me. I've never called for exclusion of women from gaming. However, I have always questioned the media's (and especially Kotaku US/AU) ability to immediately cast any criticism of such work as sexism and misogyny. When Jack Thompson called them murder simulators the gaming world, correctly, called the guy nuts. However, when Anita does the exact same to say that video games breeds misogyny they literally fall over themselves to say ABSOLUTELY and any criticism is shunned (and you and your compadres have done it) and immediately denounced as a women hating rapists.

                  Why the double standard? Why if someone says "I disagree because *insert well thought out reason*" are they ostracised as a woman hating arsehole?

                  From what it seems to me, you and your fellows, are only just catching up. I don't hate you Pokedad, I just disagree with you. That isn't a crime. However, I will call Burnside out on his deep seated hatred and bigotry. I will call out any hypersensitive hypercritical hyperbolic idiot like him. He brings nothing to any discussion entered and deserves the mockery.

                  The only thing I'm guilty of is thinking higher of my fellow gamers. Gamers aren't dead.

                  Honestly gamers have coped a big enough kicking as being basement dwelllers "Big Bang Theory" types.... Why would Kotaku join in the kicking of a group of GOOD people already on the ground?

                  Anyway believe what you want to believe about me. That's your choice. I'll be your boogeyman if you need one to feel just how well you fight for social justice.

                  EDIT: Crystal Ball working here because I know the dolt so well..... Burnside throws out the MRA attack again.

                  Last edited 20/01/16 11:06 pm

                I just read all of that and, well... You do you, man. I think you're wrong. I think you're hugely misogynist and don't realise it. I think you talk about bias without ever questioning your own. I think you don't understand that telling a person to stop being a bigot isn't bigotry. I think that you think you're some kind of bastion of logic in a world of pearl-clutching and rampant emotion. I think that your powers of self reflection are almost non-existent.

                Everything you write is so loaded with bias and emotional language that actually engaging with you on any given topic is an endless exercise in distraction. Unpacking everything you say, examining it and then refuting all of the unexamined emotion and bias is a full time job. I'm not doing it and I feel like a prick for purposely trying to wind you up into your usual rage fits in the past. Say what you want, mate. I'm done with it.

                Edit: That answer was pretty much expected, Monkey. It's all good. We can agree to disagree.

                Last edited 21/01/16 1:08 am

                  You do know what misogyny means right? I really think you don't and people like you water down such terms when you throw it around as a slur just to make yourself feel better about yourself or to add another little bit of height on your perceived moral soap box.

                  Everything you write is exactly the same, you just unloaded a truckload of bias on me. The fact is you are intolerant of any other opinion other than yours and you seek confirmation bias.

                  In your eyes it's okay for YOU to disagree with Anita, but anyone else is "hugely misogynistic".

                  Funnily enough your last post pretty much is your own autobiography.

                  It really is cute to think "you are winding me up". You're not a prick, you're just a bigot that can't accept it.

                  Last edited 21/01/16 9:56 am

                From the other down voting cabal member of white knight justice Hotcakes:
                I suppose there's nothing wrong with that, I just feel like Anita's specific brand of cherry picking does "the cause" more harm than good.

                I prefer the term 'SJW demisexual pineconekin', thank you very much. If you could use the pronouns 'xyr' and 'xir', that'd be great too.

    You know, I was thinking just last night that we hadn't heard from our old gamer shaming friend Anita in a while. i had gotten my hopes up that with all her appearances at Collage Campuses, Google Meetings and UN appearances that maybe she had moved on from using gamers as a stepping stone for her much larger plans... But here we are. She's back and spouting more cherry picked opinions-presented-as-facts to the masses.

    What I've taken from this video is that Anita wants women to dress like guys. She's complaining about how clothing for women emphasizes the butt, but clothing for men does not. Yes, that's how clothing works. Women wear clothing that makes them look more appealing. A character designer isn't going to make his modern heroine wear Victorian Era clothing just so the character is fully covered up.

      'Yes, that's how clothing works. Women wear clothing that makes them look more appealing.'

      THATSTHEPOINT.JPEG

        I mean, it's not something to complain about. It's how the modern fashion industry is. Modern women in real life wear clothes that accentuate their figure, so why wouldn't a female character in a modern setting wear the same stuff?

    waaaaa look how they sexualise women. look at every male character in every game except rufus in SSFIV, yeah, one guy who is tubby

      but xylo, that's a male power fantasy, not objectification of men!

        What you said, except not being sarcastic.

          Maybe it's time to graduate to a more correct definition of "power" now. It's not about being able to punch a hole through someone's chest, it's the ability to influence the world around you and the people in it and do what you want to do (within reason). That is power, and everyone has it over somebody, even strippers in Atlanta that are perpetually objectified.

          Next time someone says something that you have to say "what you said, but not being sarcastic", take time to think about why you might have had to say that in the first place, and why it was easy for them to say exactly what you're saying word for word but for it to be so easily interpreted as sarcasm.

            I'm not sure what you're getting at with this. He said something in jest, but when you break it down to brass tacks, this is exactly the situation. Saying a true thing in a silly voice doesn't make it less true.

            Of course everyone has power to one degree or another. Those strippers in Atlanta might love their jobs and good luck to them if they do. They might also hate it and feel like they fell into a temporary solution to a long term problem and now they are stuck there with no real way to get out. We don't know. What we do know is that every situation has problems and to say otherwise is demonstrably false.

            When it comes to the argument about male power fantasy as opposed to male objectification, the answer usually falls into the first category simply because most games are made by men, for men, as representations of the very type of power you describe. Escapism into a world where you can control the outcome of everything. Save the girl, save the world, be hero. The male hero. Because I am male and I made a fantasy I like and easily identify with. You are a male and you'll pay money for a fantasy that is similar to mine for the same reasons. Some games do objectify men. But not most.

    I agree with her. There's a lot of game booty.

    The question I wanna know is, are females into male badonkadonks? Because she sounded disappointed that most male buttocks were covered in capes or averted through shoulder-cams.

      In the case of my wife; yes. She certainly appreciates all that heavy squatting I've done at the gym.

      I'm happy for people to stare at my arse honestly. Spent enough time building muscle so there must be some pay off to it.

    My understanding from this video is that she was trying to look at Batman's butt. Thankfully, there is a movie out there for her that does that job superbly. It's not like it's good for much else...

      Batman, as in the cape-down-to-the-ankles-wearing superhero? Of course you're going to have trouble seeing his butt. Unless, you know, you use the Batman Beyond skin.

    Ummmm, Rust anyone? It's a sea of penis. 200 naked blokes on an island killing each other and comparing penis size. As a man I don't feel objectified. All that is cited in this video is AAA titles which are another representation of mainstream media ie hollywood, glossy magazines etc etc etc This is not a gaming specific issue, and to be honest all of female protagonist titles listed do not represent interesting or innovative gaming. Maybe have a look at indie games where gaming and gamers are not viewed as a cash cow and the titles aren't aimed at the lowest common denominater.

    So game developers put guys in long coats/robes/capes etc and set up strategic camera constraints specifically so you can't look at their butts? Alright then.

      It's more accurate to say in those instances that developers do not consider sexualising the male protagonist, ergo character design and/or camera placement are not influenced by sexualisation.

        Yep I agree with that whole sexualisation not considered thing. But also in a game like Tomb Raider it's more important to see your environment whereas a game like Gears Of Wars it's more important to see in front of you as it's a shooter, not a platformer.

        You know what would help Anita's case here? If she compared like to like. She'll show Tomb Raider- which requires vision for platforming then compare it to Gears of War which is a cover shooter. But she will completely omit that GoW has female characters who get the exact same camera angle. She shows Prince of Persia which is actually analogous to Tomb Raider but then deliberately manipulates the camera into a wall, forcing it to zoom in. and 'hide' the butt. But she doesn't perform the same action with TR. Either she didn't try it, which is sloppy research or she did try it and found TR zooms in too. In which case she again deliberately omitted it, which is dishonest.

Join the discussion!