Came across
this excellent criticism of the second video in the series and Anita's argumentative tactics and videomaking as a whole.
I thought some of his points were well made. I wouldn't call it excellent - his logical fallacies, willful or honest misinterpretation of what was said in the original video and misunderstanding of misogyny were problematic if trying to view it as actual rebuttal. But as a rant video, some pretty interesting points.
I wish I could have appreciated this video. I feel that he has some valid criticisms on her methodology, but most of that is lost in his defensive ranting and misogynistic undertones. I don't think he wanted for it to be that way, but it came across like so many of the arguments I've heard against feminist analysis. I actually cringed over some of what he said.
Just watched all three DiD videos. Have to say, really appreciate the amount of work that went into gathering so many examples. I thought it was very interesting that had I played any of the games where the girl begs to be killed by the hero on their own, I probably wouldn't have thought much of it. But seeing that line used over and over (followed with the breathless "thank you" afterwards) was really creepy.
I think those are her strongest points. Individually, the games don't seem all that problematic. I love many of the games that were included in the video. But when you look at them as a whole, that is where it gets creepy. You can context is everything, but when you have THAT many? That's a problem.
Another thing I wholeheartedly agree with -- New Super Mario Bros. using two Toads instead of a female character to join the team. Seriously? Daisy's not available to help save Peach? Or Rosalina? Or even Toadette?
Whenever I played Mario Bros 2, I was Peach. When I played Mario Kart, I was Peach. How cool would it be to play as Peach in some of these multiplayer games? Or any of the other female characters?
Sad but true story: One of the girls in my class of preschoolers wanted to play Super Mario with a group of boys. She asked, "Who can I play?" and they looked at each other and had no idea. They were trying to include her but couldn't think of a girl character that actually did anything. Finally one of them suggested she be the yellow Toad. Arg! >.< She was pretty well convinced that to play Mario (or a super hero game), she had to take a boy's role, whether she wanted it or not.
Aw that is sad, but really speaks to how problematic this is.
One thing the video could have done better: I thought the theoretical game in which a heroine is captured and spends the game saving herself didn't add much. Especially when that's the entire plot of Portal. (Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see more games like Portal, but the fact that she spent time making up a nonexistent game rather than commending one that does exactly what they're looking for made it feel like it wasn't as well researched as the rest of the video.)
That's a good point and Portal is a great example. Might have been helpul for her to do a separate video on games like that.
Yeah. I have some problems with both the content and presentation of the videos, but that was the most frustrating part for me. While I *think* what she was trying to get across was how easy creating games that would level out the gender representation would be for game designers, that didn't really read well. At all. And went on way too long. (though I, too, would love more games like that)
I agree. The best points that can be made for this kind of argument is to look at the sheer numbers used in this trope. More games would have helped. Or maybe a breakdown by type of game. RPG vs. FPS etc.
Overall, I found her videos informative and credible. Do I have some problems with her analysis or some of her methods? Sure. But does that invalidate her argument? No. The tropes are alive and well, and they are everywhere.
