[ SECRET POST #2591 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2591 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.


__________________________________________________



14.


__________________________________________________



15.


__________________________________________________



16.


__________________________________________________



17.


__________________________________________________



18.


__________________________________________________



19.











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 046 secrets from Secret Submission Post #370.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[herpymcderp]

I'm not actually sure why this is much of a secret. She does make some pretty good points for games in general ...she just fails where most feminist critics fail in that she doesn't have much of an emphasis on examples of games with really strong female characterization, and she fails to consider that in some ways gaming is way more feminist than other media.

For my part in the games I tend to like I can think of more examples where female characters kick ass and pass the Bechdel test than any other form of medi. I can also absolutely think of games and entire genres where that tends not to be true, and that's a fair criticism.

And yeah, she could stand to do more research since some of her points really don't stand up to fact-checking.

And she could also stand to point out that the cultural double standard of the Expendable Man comes heavily into play in videogames, and that could really stand to change as well.

tl;dr you're not wrong, there are just a lot of arguments that go into why she's not really one hundred percent correct. ...Unfortunately overshadowed by the reaction of the worst minority of gamers with the whole death threats... thing.

[(Anonymous)]

I disagree with nearly all your Anita bashing, but wasn't going to challenge you on any of it until you got to the expendable men bit.
Expendable men is just not a feminist issue like damsels in distress is. It's just not a feminist issue, and while I'm sure you think of her videos as being titled "Anita is a bitch cunt who should be raped to death" they are actually called FEMINIST frequency. She has no obligation to talk about expendable men.

[(Anonymous)]

Right, because feminism is only about women, not about equality. Feminism 101: You failed it.

[(Anonymous)]

Feminism is about equality for women. The clue is kinda in the name.
It's about correcting the imbalance against women to make women socially equal to men.

Think of it like a giant scale. This scale has been massively tipped in favour of men. Feminism is a giant hand pressing down on the women side of the scale. If it also presses down on the men side nothing is accomplished.

[(Anonymous)]

Sorry, wrong, try again. Feminism (when done right) also works to correct problems and issues men face because most of those are a backlash caused by the patriarchy.

The "expendable male characters" trope is a feminist issue because if you only have male characters being used as cannon fodder, that automatically means that in the game universe in question, women are not considered strong/capable/independent enough to join an army/the bad guys. You only see male guards, male soldiers, male anatgonists? Sure, because women, pff, they are not strong enough to be a threat. Women are no fighters. Women are weak.
See the problem?

[(Anonymous)]

When done right? Are you trying to tell me I'm no true scottsman?
And Yes, mens problems are all caused by the patriarchy. Which means bring down the purpose of the patriarchy (abusing WOMEN) and men will find themselves better off, but we should not start fixing every little problem for the men when they are simply not in as much danger as us. It's called triage, The patriarchy attacks women, with splash damage on men? We stop them attacking women.

And as for your second part: Yes I see the problem. I see you also ignoring the only sensible solution to that problem. Instead of you lobbying to have women be the victims of the hero, why not lobby to have the heroes BE women? this fixes your issue of women looking week while not actually writing women as victims of abuse and violence from a (Typically male) hero.

[(Anonymous)]

Scotsman. One t. And yes, when done right. Because, once again, feminism is not just about women. Men are in just as much danger as women, only in other areas. Maybe you and your little radfem friends don't get that. And what you also don't seem to get is that it's not about fixing every little problem for men, it's about fixing a broken system and in the course of that fixing the problems of everyone equally. And yes, if you think "women before all else" then you're doing it wrong.

Also, I'm not ignoring anything. You are willfully misinterpreting that I, for some reason, said "we should have more female cannon fodder but no female heroes". I never said anything about the main characters' gender. And I really see absolutely no reason why not both problem should be addressed: More female cannon fodder AND more female main characters. Because you can't just choose and pick the parts you like and discard the rest.