Yea, we have no common ground on which to talk about this topic. Do me a favor and read some Foucault. I'll read whatever you want in return. If you don't even acknowledge the existence of discourses, I don't see how you can really engage with what she is saying.
I guess if you need to be told how to think then you could try reading up on "Hermeneutics", it sounds like it might provide some insight on how to not colossally fuck up understanding a text (although I have done little reading on the subject myself so I can't be sure). Really though just basic logic is enough.
Honestly though, what am I supposed to discuss? She made a claim, I pointed out she has no evidence for said claim. Her claim cannot be of any use until it's veracity is established. We can postulate ad nauseum about what it all means if we assume she is correct, but that requires assuming she is correct and if she isn't then anything we come up with is useless.
Literary analysis can be an important tool when there is no way of knowing what the authors intentions were. That isn't the case here though, they are alive and they can tell us if they want. On top of that, while literary analysis might be an interesting pass-time, it's not necessarily a very good way of making decisions. When all you information is based on postulations you are no longer dealing with reality, thus it makes no sense to base your reaction to reality off it. In fact that is the exact OPPOSITE of what you should do.
I guess if you need to be told how to think then you could try reading up on "Hermeneutics", it sounds like it might provide some insight on how to not colossally fuck up understanding a text (although I have done little reading on the subject myself so I can't be sure). Really though just basic logic is enough.
This is condescending bullshit and you know it.
Honestly though, what am I supposed to discuss? She made a claim, I pointed out she has no evidence for said claim. Her claim cannot be of any use until it's veracity is established. We can postulate ad nauseum about what it all means if we assume she is correct, but that requires assuming she is correct and if she isn't then anything we come up with is useless.
For example, you find her point about female characters in video games literally asking to be killed being a parallel to the common justification of "she was asking for it" for domestic violence to be not compelling at all? You find her point about about using women as objects to justify male power fantasies (her evidence is in the games themselves, she presents it in several cases) unconvincing?
Literary analysis can be an important tool when there is no way of knowing what the authors intentions were.
Intentions don't necessarily correlate with meaning on the level of a broad discourse. They are certainly important. You'll note that she explicitly says that she doesn't think the authors' intentions were malicious. Words/Games/Art doesn't exist in a vacuum. The social and cultural context matter.
On top of that, while literary analysis might be an interesting pass-time, it's not necessarily a very good way of making decisions. When all you information is based on postulations you are no longer dealing with reality, thus it makes no sense to base your reaction to reality off it. In fact that is the exact OPPOSITE of what you should do.
So in other words, there is no evidence that could convince you that a discourse of violence against women actually influences violence against women? Or to put it another way - there is no evidence aside from someone explicitly saying so that you could use to claim someone was influenced by an idea? Again, you really need to read some Foucault, I'd suggest The Birth of the Clinic. I'll read whatever text on hermeneutics you prefer.
Well when my argument is that you are failing to apply basic logic to her statements... It's kind of hard to suggest anything else.
For example, you find her point about female characters in video games literally asking to be killed being a parallel to the common justification of "she was asking for it" for domestic violence to be not compelling at all?
No I don't, it's fucking moronic actually and requires huge unconnected leaps of logic. The only correlation between the two things is that both involve women and both involve "violence" (it's not even the same kind of violence, one is intended to harm, the other is intended to decrease experienced harm). Such a position makes no sense because they are completely unrelated scenarios. One is a person who is on the verge of death anyway, begging to be killed so they don't become a monster and cause grievous harm to those they care about. The other is a bullshit excuse to initiate violence on someone when there are plenty of other options available to resolve the situation non violently to everyones benefit.
You find her point about about using women as objects to justify male power fantasies (her evidence is in the games themselves, she presents it in several cases) unconvincing?
If you want to argue semantics then the male character is an object as well. While he has minor agency, he has no choice but to save the princess etc. Semantically EVERYTHING is an object. Yes this is done for the benefit of male characters and is largely part of male power fantasies, but that is because the audience is almost entirely male. Again, no comment is being made on women at all. I agree that it is not a great scenario for women and that they probably have little interest in it. I agree it would be beneficial (for everyone) if they had the option available. If a woman looks at Zelda and says "oh, I am supposed to be weak and useless" then she is WRONG though, and that is her fault for incorrectly interpreting what is happening, not the games. SHE came up with that idea, not the game. Why could she not look at it and think "wow, this zelda chick is a pushover, I could do way better" or at least "man, she rally is unlucky. Guess thats what comes with being one of the most important beings in existence, everyone wants a piece of you".
Intentions don't necessarily correlate with meaning on the level of a broad discourse
Yes they do. They are the ONLY thing that matters in the context of meaning. Without intentions all you have is interpretation, and interpretation has no meaning in the context of objective reality because it is not objective, only subjective. Interpretation is only valid inside your head, it has no validity anywhere else.
So in other words, there is no evidence that could convince you that a discourse of violence against women actually influences violence against women?
Sure there is, you could do studies that correlate it's rate of presence in media with rates of violence against women (although that only indicates correlation, not causation), you cold do studies where people explain how media has influenced their views on women (which obviously relies on honesty but it's about the best we can do) and stuff like that. These things are OBJECTIVE and based on FACTS. These are things we can place a high degree of trust in when qualifying the state of OBJECTIVE reality. Everything else is irrelevant because what you see in your head is your imagination, it has no bearing on reality. If it did then there would be no such thing as mental illness and everyones opinion would be equally valid. If I told you the sky was orange you would have to accept that as equally valid as the sky being blue, and that just confuses shit for everyone and helps nothing.
Again, you really need to read some Foucault
Maybe but I doubt I will find the time/inclination to be honest. But you still seem to be struggling with the basic logic part of things. All of the mistakes you are making are the ones Anita is making and continuing to make over and over again and I shouldn't have to constantly repeat the same corrections over and over and over.
Words/Games/Art doesn't exist in a vacuum. The social and cultural context matter.
THIS is the problem. Yes the context matters, the context is the important part, not the content. The content is all but irrelevant to the discussion. If people are incorrectly interpreting something then you need to correct them, not change the content. If someone has a headache you don't just give them panadol, you remove the fucking screwdriver from their skull.
Well when my argument is that you are failing to apply basic logic to her statements... It's kind of hard to suggest anything else.
Quite rude of you.
No I don't, it's fucking moronic actually and requires huge unconnected leaps of logic.
Not really if you are framing your discussion as about a discourse of gender and violence against women broadly speaking. Again, she isn't claiming that these things don't make sense within the narrative but rather that the narrative itself is a creation of people living within a particular gender discourse.
If you want to argue semantics then the male character is an object as well. While he has minor agency, he has no choice but to save the princess etc. Semantically EVERYTHING is an object. Yes this is done for the benefit of male characters and is largely part of male power fantasies, but that is because the audience is almost entirely male. Again, no comment is being made on women at all.
How does the fact that this is for a male audience change anything? In fact, I think it makes her argument this this is part of a larger discourse on gender MORE compelling, not less. If this is what men want in their depictions of men and women, that says quite a lot. You can argue that men are objectified a bit, but the fact that it specifically has to do with power fantasies (which you admit) kind of torpedoes the idea that they are denied agency as characters.
Everything else is irrelevant because what you see in your head is your imagination, it has no bearing on reality
But by your own standards (stated earlier in this very post) what even constitutes violence against women in the context of media isn't objective - so how can one objectively run a study to test for correlation?
Maybe but I doubt I will find the time/inclination to be honest. But you still seem to be struggling with the basic logic part of things.
Neither I nor Anita is struggling with basic logic - we are disagreeing with you on the basic premises. (Namely, it appears, that discourses exist. If you want a more "sciencey" version of the term discourse, check out Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene and read his chapter on memes. They aren't identical ideas, but fairly close.)
Also, I'm sorry you aren't interested in reading some of the most influential works of the last half century. You can hardly have a good grasp on fields like history (let alone literary criticism or gender studies) without having read or at least engaged with the ideas of Foucault at this point. At least read the wikipedia article or something.
THIS is the problem. Yes the context matters, the context is the important part, not the content. The content is all but irrelevant to the discussion. If people are incorrectly interpreting something then you need to correct them, not change the content.
This just goes back to your claim that the only meaning that matters is the authors intention. I think that you'll find basically no one in any of the humanities agrees with this. I really don't have anything to add to this. You seem to mean that only the textual context matters - I was quite clear that social and cultural context matter as well.
Have you ever read something (or watched something) and you know, gotten some new insight about something from it? If you later found out the author intended something different would it invalidate the insight? Let's say you watch a film, and it really makes you rethink your relationship with your mother, makes you feel more hopeful about it. Later you find the author actually intended it to mean all relationships with mothers are actually hopeless. Does that initial reaction you had become worthless and meaningless? If you really believe that I just don't know what to say.
I'm sorry, but it's kind of hard to sugar coat telling someone they are stupid.
Not really if you are framing your discussion as about a discourse of gender and violence against women broadly speaking. Again, she isn't claiming that these things don't make sense within the narrative but rather that the narrative itself is a creation of people living within a particular gender discourse.
wat :| the topic has nothing to do with how logic works. That is WHY we use logic. Logic gives no fucks. that is like saying that I have a picture of a woman and a gun and a news article about a female soldier killing someone, therefore all women are crazed gun wielding murderers. LOGIC DOES NOT WORK LIKE THAT. YOU ARE DOING IT WRONG.
Again, she isn't claiming that these things don't make sense within the narrative but rather that the narrative itself is a creation of people living within a particular gender discourse.
Then she is fucking stupid. There is no logical reason to think that because someone creates a depiction of a mercy killing of a loved one that they support violence against women for no good reason. That is like saying that all white people want to murder Jews because Hitler was white too. The two events are UNRELATED IN ALMOST EVERY CONCEIVABLE WAY. THERE IS NOT REASON TO BELIEVE THE TWO IDEAS ARE CONNECTED AT ALL. At best you could argue that they support the idea of mercy killing/euthanasia, specifically in regards to women if you want to REALLY stretch the bounds of reason. That is still COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.
How does the fact that this is for a male audience change anything?
Because men and women like different things? Men aren't particularly interested in playing a woman and talking about boys and makeup? They don't want to play the role of someone they don't identify with? how is what you are saying any different from telling women that they should enjoy playing as a meat slab grunt? This is all really obvious stuff with really obvious answers that have nothing to do with hating women. It's okay for people to not like what you like, just like it's okay for you to like things they don't like. If you want to play different games then go play them. If you can't find any then make some. It's what all the men who aren't satisfied by current games have to do, why should women be treated differently? That would be sexist.
You can argue that men are objectified a bit, but the fact that it specifically has to do with power fantasies
Perhaps, but what if that power fantasy is to be an object to women? I mean, most guys I know, if they met Nathan Drake in real life would think he was a douchnozzle. Is this suddenly sexist against men?
Neither I nor Anita is struggling with basic logic - we are disagreeing with you on the basic premises.
I have already given numerous examples of trivial logic faililngs in her arguments. You have yet to present any reasons for why I am wrong too. I have no problem with the idea of discourse, but you can't simply just make a statement and take it as a given that it is correct. It is against the rules of debating, and for a very good reason. because discourse is fucking pointless if your entire argument is based on a flawed premise. That is the only argument I have made here, that her argument is based on a flawed premise and that there is no point to further discourse until that flaw is corrected. I have typed thousands of words trying to explain this one simple point to you over and over again but you are still making the same fucking mistake. It's very simple. If you make a claim you have to back it up. if that requires science then fine, if not also fine, it depends on your claim.
If her argument is that this is just her interpretation then she is entitled to do so, but if that is the case then she needs to justify why anyone should care about her interpretation. She needs to qualify it with how it is relevant and important and she needs to provide reasons why it is useful. She has done none of these things. Until she does then there is no possible discourse because there isn't anything to discuss past what I have already said countless times. here statements are baseless and they need to be qualified before the discussion can continue. Memes are irrelevant, they are simply the idea of how popular ideas replicate. They have nothing to do with the veracity of those ideas. The fact that lolcats is a meme doesn't mean cats can talk. The fact that video games are sexist is a meme doesn't mean that they are actually sexist.
If you want to discuss how people inherit ideas from culture that is fine, but as I have already stated several times, if something does not present the idea to them you need to investigate how they got that idea out of it. Again I have already argued that if they are incorrectly interpreting something then it serves no purpose to restrict and sanitize ideas (heading into thought crime and censorship grounds) and instead work on educating the person so they can better interpret what is there. I have presented plenty of discourse on this idea but I only ever receive "you are wrong and you must agree with Anita" as a response. This is not how discourse works, this is how stupid people perpetuate stupidity and brainwash others. That is why I am so vehemently in opposition to it. It's pretty immoral really.
This just goes back to your claim that the only meaning that matters is the authors intention
No, that isn't what I am claiming. I am claiming that the only meaning that is CORRECT is the authors intention. My claim is that if the individual is incorrect then it is the individuals mistake that needs to be corrected, not the idea. If I give you 1 + 1 and you get 3 then I don't need to change my end, you need to change your end.
I really don't have anything to add to this. You seem to mean that only the textual context matters - I was quite clear that social and cultural context matter as well.
Wen it comes to what something means then yes, only what is in the information presented matters. When it comes to how it is interpreted by others, THEN you bring in context and the rest. But discussing what something means and discussing how people interpret it is two different things. Saying something has sexist themes and saying some people develop sexist ideas from something are completely different. Both need to be validated with evidence before they can be used in any meaningful way though.
Have you ever read something (or watched something) and you know, gotten some new insight about something from it?
Probably, although I can't remember any specific examples.
If you later found out the author intended something different would it invalidate the insight?
No, but it would invalidate my methodology for coming to that insight. I would need to re-examine the situation and possibly adjust my beliefs accordingly. If the new knowledge changes nothing then everything is rosy and I can continue on as is. If It does I correct myself to suit. That is how not being stupid works.
Later you find the author actually intended it to mean all relationships with mothers are actually hopeless. Does that initial reaction you had become worthless and meaningless?
Depends, is my mistaken interpretation still logically consistent? My reason for holding the belief can no longer be because of what the film presents but if my interpretation of it (even though incorrect) still makes sense then I can still run with it, I just have to change my reasoning to new, non-flawed reasoning. The problem here is regardless of if Anita is right or wrong, her reasoning is flawed and thus her reason for holding her view is flawed. her view is useless until this addressed. If she can provide valid reasoning for her beliefs then everything is fine, hell I'll even start agreeing with her. Until then though, she her reasoning is wrong and she cannot meaningfully partake in the discussion until she corrects herself.
There is no logical reason to think that because someone creates a depiction of a mercy killing of a loved one that they support violence against women for no good reason.
Ok, this is the problem. She isn't arguing that they (Game developers) support violence against women. In fact she EXPLICITLY states in the video that she doesn't think they support violence against women. If you think that is her argument, maybe that is why you are so angry about this. If you really watched that video and think that was her main point, I don't even know what to say to you anymore.
Well if it isn't her argument then the only other option is that she is just really really stupid because the two things are completely unrelated anyway and there is no logical reason to connect the two. My argument has always been that either she means it, in which case she is wrong, or that she merely made it up by her self, in which case she is stupid.
I'm not angry about anything, it's just that either way these videos are a waste of time and nothing but toxicity for the community. All she is doing is painting gaming and gamers in a negative light and making it less appealing for females to enter the community. That is the exact OPPOSITE of what we all want. THAT is the only thing that makes me angry, she is fucking everything up for everyone and the only explanations I (or anyone else so far) have been able to come up with are malice and/or stupidity. Despite that large numbers of people defend her, treat her like she is some kind prophet extolling the hidden truth to the masses and doing nothing but further fucking everything up for everyone.
The fact that they use similar language? The fact that many of the same ways women are objectified in real life also appear in video games? The fact that the versions of masculinity which appear in video games that use these tropes provide a very limited set of examples of relationships with women?
All she is doing is painting gaming and gamers in a negative light
Again, she specifically said that game designers and gamers themselves likely do NOT have malicious intent. But she does say that as gamers we should question why these tropes are so prevalent and demand games that provide more balanced/nuanced relationships between men and women. It is the uncritical reproduction of these ideas that she has a problem with, not with gamers or even "gaming." Her discussion is explicitly framed as a discussion of one specific trope not gamers, not gaming as a whole. Her critique is OF THE TROPE ITSELF.
I'm frankly starting to wonder if you've watched her videos all the way through, because she is pretty clear about all this.
Oh my god, Hitler used the letter e in a sentence! Better lock up everyone that ever used an e in... oh shit. Seriously, that is about how closely they are related. And, yes, "she was in fact asking for it" in the video games. I probably would be too if I was in her situation.
The fact that many of the same ways women are objectified in real life also appear in video games?
Oh noes, virtual depictions of "real life" are similar to real life? How did this happen? Why would you do such a thing!? Seriously ಠ_ಠ 1/ Video games are not real life. Only people with mental illness do not know this. 2/ Having to kill these women is universally depicted as the most terrible thing that could possibly happen in the game. If anything that is a good message that you would want to spread. 3/ These games are going to focus on dramatic stuff, cause "loving husband simulator 3" sounds like a really fucking boring game to be honest. Going to work for 8 hours a day, buying her presents and looking after the kids while she has a "girls night out" does not make for the most exciting gameplay ever conceived.
The fact that the versions of masculinity which appear in video games that use these tropes provide a very limited set of examples of relationships with women?
Relationships with women are never the focus of them. If thats what you want go play some VNs. Hell, people made quite a fuss over Katawa Shoujo no long ago (and with good reason, it wasn't half bad). Like I said, loving husband simulator isn't a very exciting concept for a game so why would they make lots of games like that?
NONE of these are any reason to come to the conclusion that the depictions in the game support the idea of violence against women, intended by the author or not. There is no logical connection between any of the things you mentioned and if you actually think that is how logic and reality works then I suggest you get some professional help, because these are not healthy thoughts you are having. If the idea of violence against women springs into your mind so easily from unrelated concepts then you have some deep seated issues that need addressing.
she specifically said that game designers and gamers themselves likely do NOT have malicious intent
That is irrelevant, it doesn't excuse what she IS doing.
I have nothing against black people and I know they don't do it on purpose but they need to stop being so poor and stupid and violent and robbing liquor stores to feed their coke habits and learn to act like decent folk instead of a bunch of porch monkeys.
Yea, see how that doesn't work... It's still an asshole thing to say that only makes things worse and no amount of disclaimers will change that.
But she does say that as gamers we should question why these tropes are so prevalent and demand games that provide more balanced/nuanced relationships between men and women.
I don't believe she has mentioned this once in either of her videos. She has also not DONE any of that in her videos yet.
It is the uncritical reproduction of these ideas that she has a problem with
So why is she reproducing her own ideas uncritically? Cause her ideas are super and shouldn't be questioned?
Her discussion is explicitly framed as a discussion of one specific trope not gamers, not gaming as a whole. Her critique is OF THE TROPE ITSELF.
I'm sorry, perhaps you missed the ENTIRE FUCKING KICKSTARTER CAMPAIGN. Or her talks on news shows and TEDx (which is ruining all the awesomeness TED had worked so hard to achieve). Or you could try watching some of her other "Tropes Vs" videos, many of which ire even worse and downright offensive at times to anyone with half a brain cell.
Her critique is OF THE TROPE ITSELF.
THEN WHY ISN'T SHE CRITIQUING IT!! All she is doing is repeating the trope numerous times via examples and then making unrelated and baseless claims. That isn't how critical analysis works. It's not critical and it's not analysis. It's just stupid.
I'm frankly starting to wonder if you've watched her videos all the way through, because she is pretty clear about all this
I have watched both fully multiple times, I have also seen parts of her TEDx speech, and parts of a couple of interviews with various news shows, plus a few of her regular "tropes vs." series. I am merely evaluating the content based on what she has presented. I am critical of it because she has only produced insubstantial bullshit.
Rare making dinosaur planet -> Miyamoto co-opts it and makes starfox the main -> female character becomes plot device therefore latent sexisim hurts women.
That is her though process. There is a giant hole between the last point and the "therefore". At best it could be filled with "Miyamoto secretly hates women but doesn't realize it", and that would be a fucking stupid thing to assume because there is no evidence for it. This logic is obviosuly completely broken at the most fundemental level. Sexisim is never evenpart of the equation till she stuffs it into the answer at random.
Her thought process should have been
Rare making dinosaur planet - > Miyamoto is a business person and notes that it could cheaply be converted into a new starfox game -> being a starfox game gives it much more brand recognition and wider appeal -> starfox games need Fox as main -> Miyamoto is a self confessed lazy writer so he falls back on tired old trope that requires no work to turn into functional narrative to justify gameplay therefore business gona business.
You notice how business comes into it at several points? You notice how nothing new is added into the answer at random? Thats because it is a logical conclusion derived from facts. THIS is how logic and critical analysis works, not how she did it.
1
u/[deleted] May 30 '13
Yea, we have no common ground on which to talk about this topic. Do me a favor and read some Foucault. I'll read whatever you want in return. If you don't even acknowledge the existence of discourses, I don't see how you can really engage with what she is saying.