A Nintendo community
by the fans!
           
  Forum main
 + 
OT: Hey, let's discuss this video series about the Sarkeesian backlash! [roundtable]
 
Yep, I'm makin' it a roundtable.

Not to get too "political" on you, but I watched this six-part video series recently, and I thought it was really well-done. It may seem like a typical anti-GamerGate video at the start, but it isn't. It isn't even truly about Anita Sarkeesian. The analysis is very logical and even-handed, and I appreciated the way that it recast the whole feminism issue (or any social progress issue, really) by framing it from the perspective of the people whom it irritates. Honestly, it almost single-handedly repaired the damage done to my judgement by thousands upon thousands of strident internet-liberals.

Try to go in without any pre-conceived expectations and watch it with an open mind.








I'll give you the Cliffs Notes, in case you don't want to watch right now. Essentially, the video series analyzes WHY people like Anita Sarkeesian produce such a strong negative reaction, and it goes beyond the usual simplistic "They're taking our games!!" rhetoric. This guy posits that the REAL, underlying reason why Anita makes many gamers uncomfortable is that she causes them to question their way they've lived their life to this point. Ignorance is bliss, and the aim of people like Anita is to remove that ignorance. Like the term "privilege". A lot of people hate that term, and it's always rubbed me the wrong way, as well. But it doesn't mean that your life is peaches and cream or that every person from a minority has it tough. It just means that a minority person in the same position as you would have it harder, solely due to the way they were born.

That's an uncomfortable thought, as most people think of themselves as fundamentally good people, and acknowledging that you've never questioned your advantages or thought to help the less fortunate would call your own morality into question. And we're ALL guilty of that, to be honest. It's almost unnatural behavior to revolt against a system that personally benefits you. I mean, I don't like the thought of killing living creatures. I find the thought of hunting utterly revolting. I don't even swat mosquitoes or gnats. If I really considered the fact that animals had to die just so I could enjoy a hamburger, I'd probably be a vegetarian. So I don't WANT to consider it. Because meat is delicious!

Similarly, look at freaking FoxConn. All of our consumer electronics products are basically made of Chinese children. Who the fuck wants to think about that?! What's the alternative?

I'm not saying that I'm necessarily going to change my behavior based on this video series. I still believe that ignorance is bliss, and if you spend all of your time thinking about the evils of the world, your life's probably not going to be very enjoyable. But I still think it was worth watching. It kind of brought stuff that has always been floating at the back of my consciousness to the forefront. And what I most appreciate is that it did so in a non-judgmental way. It might make you a bit uncomfortable, but it definitely won't single you out.

URL to share (right click and copy)
07/23/15, 21:45    Edited: 07/30/15, 05:09
 
Why not sign up for a (free) account?
   
 
@Zero

The one about "gender indicators" and how "why does Ms. Pac-Man need a bow in her hair?!," and then she's sitting there wearing gigantic hoop earrings and a bright pink shirt. --Oh, wait, she's female? NOW, I get it.... She could've worn a green shirt, especially for the gender indicator as a negative episode.

Going through Kickstarter; there isn't any way around it. Its simply holding out your hands and asking for money. The only other thing I can think of that does this is...charities? Oh goodness, you're not looking to take down CHARITIES, are you? Please tell me I'm mistaken.

Now, something TANGIBLE like a game that you simply don't have money for, that is different, to me. I still don't like it entirely, but thoughts don't cost money. I have a few podcasty deals out there, and none of them have cost me anything. The wrestling one I do is edited by a guy who doesn't get paid for it. I'm expressing my thoughts, doing HOURS of "research" every week by watching the product (when I could be doing something else, like beating a videogame), and nobody pays me for that. The whole thing is irksome.

Not my part, I never expected not to get money. Her "pay me to talk" thing is trash. She claims she needs to do research on the games and needs money for those..but as T-Bun pointed out before, she offered some stinky positions on a few games, and didn't nearly explore (Ocarina of Time) Zelda to his liking. And its not like thats some hole in the wall 3DS game -- it's "The Greatest Game of All Time."

The Austin Aries of Games.
07/31/15, 21:59   
@Mr_Mustache

The point of the gender identifiers episode was that by giving Ms. Pacman all these gender indicators you establish that the male version is the default and that the female version is different. On its own that's not so bad but it is a troubling message. The point isn't that bows or other gender identifiers are bad. In the transcript for the video:

Anita said:
Now just to be clear, there’s no inherent problem with the color pink, makeup, bows or high heels as design elements on their own. And of course people of all genders may choose to wear any of them from time to time in the real world and there is nothing necessarily wrong with that either.

However, when designers choose to use the Ms. Male Character trope and its associated visual stereotypes to specifically distinguish female characters from the rest of the cast in a fictional context, it has a few negative consequences.

One repercussion of constantly relying on feminizing signifiers for character design is that it tends to reinforce a strict binary form of gender expression. The gender binary is an entirely artificial and socially constructed division of male and female into two distinctly separate and opposing classes of human being. The gender binary also erases the continuum of gender presentations and identities that fall outside of the rigid masculine/feminine false dichotomy.

And within that strict binary women are “marked” while men get to remain largely “unmarked”.

In the Mario franchise, the Koopalings were originally described as Bowser’s seven children, all of them are male except for one named Wendy O Koopa. We know she is female because her designers used practically every hyper-feminine frill and accessory available to separate her from her male siblings.

Wendy’s six brothers, by contrast, are “unmarked” by gendered identifiers which means they get to be presented in a variety of creative ways. Ludwig’s design communicates intelligence and arrogance, while Lemmy’s reveals his playfulness and Iggy’s makes him seem maniacal and a little unbalanced. Sadly, Wendy’s identity is limited by the fact that she is covered in superficial gendered signifiers. One look at her and you know she’s female, but not much else.

As with many Ms Male Characters, her defining characteristic is her gender.

Do you understand now why it isn't about bows being 'bad' and why it isn't hypocritical for her to wear gender indicators?
07/31/15, 22:42   
@Zero

Yay, we're back to the original topic!

Anyway, I know I linked this before, but I'd like your opinion on it--it's a female gamer's response to Anita's Damsel in Distress video. I think she makes a lot of really good points, personally, and presents them in a very positive, polite way. I'll try linking it here ONE more time since no one's replied to it yet!



I'd support her Kickstarter. Although for the record, I agree that there's nothing wrong with Anita accepting pledges for her video series--that's the freedom of Kickstarter.

I watched the positive video she linked to about the Scythian (I think?). It was fine, I guess. Which other ones has she done? I'd prefer seeing some for more mainstream titles rather than just indie-type ones. And they're absolutely out there!

Looking forward to your game's Kickstarter too.

@Mr_Mustache

Well, there's something you and Anita might agree on--at the end of the Damsel in Distress vid, she says she'd like Zelda to be a playable character in a REAL game: "And not just mobile DS games," she remarks, dismissively, "I'm talking full-on console adventures."

Cue Grant in 3...2...

@Stephen

I'd say Wendy O has a stronger/clearer personality from design than most of her brothers. She's bedazzled in pearls and hoops and high heels, which practically screams that she's Daddy's Little Princess, the kind of spoiled brat that'd be put in Child Beauty Pageants. It's pretty funny!
07/31/15, 23:18   
Edited: 07/31/15, 23:23
@Mr_Mustache I feel like we have had this exact same conversation in the past about the bows. Actually I KNOW we have. Stephen kind of covered that though so I’ll leave it at Stephen is right. To just harp on how she is dressed in relationship to her point shows a severe misunderstanding of her point.

No, Kickstarter isn’t asking for charity, it is offering a product and asking for financing for that product. And games don’t inherently cost anything to make. Unity is a free game making tool I am using. The only things I have spent actual money on regarding this game I am making so far are $100 for a plugin for my music production software (which wasn’t necessary it’s just a damn cool sounding plugin) and about $75 buying code on Unity’s shop that I may or may not have been able to write myself but saw as a decent time-saving investment at the time. But yeah, you CAN make a game for free for sure.

IF… you consider your time to be worthless, I guess. I consider my time to be worth something. Sure I enjoy making things, but I’d prefer getting paid if people are enjoying the things I am spending a lot of my time and energy and blood and sweat and tears to make.

I totally remember telling you this same exact thing before though.

Anyway, Anita isn’t just giving opinions, she is making well produced videos that required a lot of research to make. It was more than “a few games”, she has included like hundreds of games in her videos. You can say she should just give this away, but why? Because you like being on podcasts for free? Ok. What about your favorite sports shows, where people get paid to talk about sports, why aren’t they just doing it for free? Or the McLaughlin Group, I know you like them, they literally just sit there and get paid to talk politics, why is that not a scam?! This getting paid to talk is evil position doesn’t hold up very well.

Here is the thing though… unlike say, my game, which I will be charging EVERYONE for… she has given this away! It’s 100% free to anyone who doesn’t want to pay for it. So I wouldn’t call it charity, nor would I call it raw Capitalism per se… I’d say it is more equivalent to asking for donations. SOMETHING I DO ON NEGATIVE WORLD! I’M A SCAM ARTIST!!!!?!!?!?!

Actually, I know we have had THAT same conversation before as well. We’re just spinning in circles here.
08/01/15, 00:38   
@TriforceBun

Her counter arguments are generally fine (if not particularly persuasive), but the overarching idea that she's being objective and Anita isn't is ridiculous. She just has a different opinion, nothing else. The idea that her opinion is inherently better because it's positive has no logical basis. I would say that calling a spade a spade is a necessary part of any cultural critique.

And she tries to discredit Anita by saying that the study is just based on personal opinion, but what quantitative metrics could there possibly be to show that the Damsel in Distress trope is damaging to women? There are plenty of metrics showing how women have been unfairly treated in society for the last 40 years during which video games existed. Is she supposed to give a run down on that when the focus is supposed to be on video games?
08/01/15, 02:53   
Edited: 08/01/15, 03:28
Mr_Mustache said:

Ok, but isn't it the DUTY of someone in said group to make sure that they are doing what they can to buck stereotypes if they are indeed false? (ie: female gamers are doing it every day.) I can tell you that if people thought that I (or my "group") was cheap, or a bad tipper, I'd be spending extra money everywhere. Seriously.

It's not. Putting the onus on the person being limited by stereotypes borders on victim blaming at best. The responsibility should be placed upon those who create stereotypes and base their actions upon them. This wouldn't be a problem if people didn't stereotype in the first place. It's not the responsibility of the victims of stereotype threat to free themselves from that boundary.

I mean, you're suggesting that black people spend more money at restaurants because other people create harmful stereotypes about them. Wouldn't a better solution be to treat all people fairly, without assuming certain customers will pay less based on the color of their skin?
08/01/15, 03:16   
Edited: 08/01/15, 03:29
@TriforceBun

I watched the video and here are my thoughts:

-I agree with the part about being in a position of vulnerability or being a victim doesn't make a character weak. Unfortunately though that is usually the extent of their involvement in to the story. Since we play from the Hero's viewpoint we are going to see them through a certain lens. They may well have compelling moments but they are totally hidden from us. This goes back to us assuming that Sheik was really awesome in Ocarina. That's really all we have to work with.

-Far too much credit is being given to things the player isn't shown. She mentions that the princesses represent peace and that when they are captured the kingdom turns chaotic. This has never been shown aside from maybe Twilight Princess. Even then you have to consider that these kingdoms fall apart under their rule. If perhaps we were shown sequences where Peach or Zelda deliver orders that make their kingdom a better place that would be one thing but all we ever really see is things go bad, Peach/Zelda get captured, random hero shows up to save the day. I don't think it can be argued at all that they are running a kingdom capably when all we ever see is the times of turmoil which must then always be solved by some guy who isn't even a guard or in a position of security. I'm not sure where this idea of them being effective rulers is coming from. They get in to situations they realistically should have been protecting their people/themselves from and an outside entity has to correct it.

-The bit about them not being rewards for the hero to chase I can kind of agree with. Kind of. Most of the time I agree Link or Mario are just rescuing them because its the right thing to do. After all, in many of the games there is no implication that Zelda and Link know each other beforehand and they usually only meet for a few minutes over the course of the whole game so Link saving her because he cares about her doesn't really make sense. The problem with this point though is that it doesn't necessarily need to be a significant other for it to still fall in to this trope. A Daughter could be kidnapped, a mother, a random princess, etc. Male characters can be damsel'd too as Anita mentioned in her video.

Ask yourself this:

Why do Peach and Zelda need to be kidnapped?

The story doesn't demand it. If Ganondorf is seizing the power of the Triforce and corrupting the land why does he need to take Zelda hostage? We've established that Link isn't in it (in this case anyway) because he loves Zelda he is just doing the right thing. Why must Zelda be disempowered in order for the villain to accomplish his goal? She doesn't need to be. Majora's Mask was a great game and that was essentially just Link trying to save the world. So why does it happen in nearly every game she features in? If we can't come up with a good reason for it to keep happening well then maybe it's not something worth continuing just for the sake of tradition.

-The point about Peach being playable in other games misses the point a bit. Yes she is playable and the games themselves are just as important as the Mario platformers but her importance within those games is greatly diminished. Most of the time there is no story for her to have any narrative agency in and she is equal in importance to any other playable character. It's like if I was to say Koopa is just a stock villain henchman with no defining characteristics and you would be like 'nuh-uh he was playble in Mario Kart'. That's true I guess but it doesn't make him a worthwhile character who's suddenly not a henchman which he was created for.

-Ugh, the cop out argument at the end of how games are still a business. I was actually enjoying a lot of this video until this point.

Generally some fine points of view but here is my overall issue with the video. Nothing she said refutes what Anita was really talking about which is the trope itself. So by all means if you want to strike Peach and Zelda off the list of damsels this is a good video to back that up. The damsel in distress trope repeats itself often in games (media in general) though and I think that Anita is right and that can be harmful even if we don't realize the effects right away. People are complicated and sometimes the smallest thing strikes a chord with them. The other point too is that we don't know what the future holds so it is entirely possible that the creator of the next big game franchise is being influenced by the discussion that has been prompted.
08/01/15, 04:40   
@Stephen

And inside that lies a second, less important, argument: Why keep doing it if it's been done a zillion times before? As smart media watchers, shouldn't we ask for something a little different from time to time. Aren't we supposed to call a cliche a cliche and ask for more compelling storytelling?

(Confession, though. I actually don't care in the case of Peach. Her role in Mario platformers is basically defined as the Damsel in Distress and I don't really think Mario platformers need a story more complicated than that. She's also kind of the ur-Damsel in Distress for video games - especially if you fold Pauline and Peach together, as most people accidentally do - so I see her as sort of an... no, I'm not going to say exception to the rule. I'll say an allowable example of the trope. Damsels in Distress are not inherently bad, taken individually. The problem is the frequency of the trope and, especially early in the life of video games, lack of alternative characterizations of women.)
08/01/15, 16:00   
@Stephen

Donkey Kong wears a tie. No "problem" there?

@TriforceBun

Has Anita said anything about Hyrule Warriors? I'm sure she has a waterfall of stuff to say about Cia, but she can't really dog Zelda in that game, can she? She seemed pretty conservatively dressed.

@Zero

The things you're mentioning are talk shows. I don't put a podcast / YouTube video on the same level as a television show, and I 100% never will. No way around that.

And she's "giving away" her opinion. She basically had people help / pay her to build a giant 4-story soapbox that should could get on top of. There is nothing tangible (aside from maybe some perks?). Your game is something we can play. It is a product. "But you can listen to songs, and you pay money for those!" Songs are different than Anita's videos. Have I gone to speaking engagements before? Surely, but that was for wrestlers telling wrestler stories. And I met the Ultimate Warrior! (Maybe if Anita had facepaint and arm tassles I'd feel more open to it.)

@Hero_Of_Hyrule

Ok, but what about reinforcing a stereotype? Isn't that something? And yes, it would make more sense to put everyone on a level playing field, but then something negatively happens (waitress doesn't get tipped properly, X driver cuts Y off, etc.), and we get into that "confirmation bias" territory that Zero likes to talk about so much when I bring this stuff up. I don't know what to say about that.

@Stephen

I don't know about that; the instruction manual (or something official) states that Bowser (you know, The King of Magic) turned all of the mushroom kingdom people into bricks, and then the areas are overrun with baddies. I can't imagine that there are Koopa Troopas just hanging out constantly. Some of them have official Bowser equipment on, like the Hammer Bros. They don't work for Princess Peach, surely.

@kriswright

I think the same can be said for movies, and especially wrestling nowadays. I was talking to a guy at Best Buy Friday morning (waiting for Dark Pit), and we were discussing how a lot of time in TV/movies we know whats going to happen next before it happens. I can call wrestling commentary now seconds before it comes out of their mouths. I guess thats what happens when you're exposed to something so much. And at the end of the day, sometimes its just hard to think of something new, I guess. If you've watched a director tell a story a certain way, you're probably going to (subconsciously?) mimic it in your own production. I wonder if my writing style is patterned after someone I've read before. Who knows at this point?
08/02/15, 12:36   
@Mr_Mustache

...That's what you got out of the 5 paragraphs I posted?

And to answer the question: Is there a problem with DK wearing a tie? And the answer is no. Just like on its own its not a problem for Ms. Pacman to wear a bow. Now if the situation was that the majority of characters were assumed female and in order to differentiate the male characters some devs just stuck a tie on them then yes, yes it would be the same problem.

Again, the series is Tropes vs. Women in gaming. A trope means something that is repeated to the point it is cliche, or normal. Pointing to individual examples and disputing them or saying 'see this one example doesn't do it' is fundamentally missing the issue being talked about.

You've hit on something very important with your statement towards kris. Yes, you don't know how much the media you have seen or read has influenced you. That's why looking critically at the media like Anita does is so important. There have been so many times where I start watching a video of hers and I won't fully understand the trope she is talking about or why it is necessarily harmful. And it's one of those things that once you see it and understand why some people have a problem with it you start to see it all the time.

One that always stuck with me for movies was something called the Bechdel (I might have that name wrong) test where a movie passes if it has 2 named and developed female characters talk about something that isn't a man for 30 seconds. And it sounds like something that most movies would pass. After all, a movie is generally very dialog heavy and there are a lot of actresses in movies. But it is shocking how many films don't meet that criteria. And once you know about it you start to be more concious of every movie you watch not passing it. I feel like I should mention though this is similar to the tropes thing where just because a movie fails the test doesn't necessarily mean it is sexist or a bad movie. But when you look at how few movies pass it it makes you wonder about the larger picture.
08/02/15, 14:01   
Edited: 08/02/15, 14:01
@Stephen

Yea, I definitely think that the recent explosion of critical theory online can gone too far at times, but there's no question that it's helped me think more clearly about some of the things in movies and other media that I may have overlooked or just felt uncomfortable about but not really been able to pinpoint. The treatment of Mexicans in the second season of True Detective for example, how they are just interchangeable over the top villains as compared to the multi-faceted white villains. Or I saw Taken for the first time the other day and while it certainly had some guilty pleasure enjoyment, its treatment of women was just laughable. It was painfully obvious that the daughter's friend would die as soon as she declared she was going to have sex and of course she did in ridiculously over the top fashion from a heroin overdose. I'm hopeful that as more and more creative people grow up in this atmosphere and consume the same type of criticism online, there might actually be some movement towards reversing some of these trends.

The Bechdel test is definitely an eye opener. Another one I read about and is crazy is the dearth of sex scenes involving black men in mainstream movies. I've scratched my head trying to think of examples and basically come up blank, despite seeing plenty of movies with the likes of Will Smith and Denzel Washington that you would expect to have some.
08/02/15, 15:11   
@Jargon

Where I think modern online critical theory goes too far is its obsession with media representation. Yeah, media representation is important, but it's not as important as other things - abuse, working conditions, sex slavery, pay, etc. I don't hold any one media critic accountable for this, but I sometimes wonder if a lot of media criticism is driven less by a desire for social justice and more by a desire to make a living watching TV. Which is the actual American Dream, and has been for several decades: Middle-class people getting paid to give their opinions on the media they already consume.

That doesn't invalidate the actual criticism, of course. But I do wonder if it reveals a poor set of priorities, generally. (And I mean it when I say generally. Not taking aim at Anita specifically.)
08/02/15, 16:28   
Edited: 08/02/15, 16:28
@Jargon
Mississippi Masala.
08/02/15, 16:41   
@Stephen

We've gone over this before though; Pac-Man came first. They were dealing with PIXELS. Like, what, 16, 25, 36 square pixels? That isn't a large area. What can you really do to differentiate? Should Ms. Pac-Man have looked EXACTLY the same as (Mr.) Pac-Man? If the answer is "yes," then whats the point?

--Uh oh! Has anyone caught wind of Baby Pac-Man or Pac-Man Jr.!? GENDER SIGNIFIERS CAVALCADE:


OR, thats simply the way that the Pac-Man people design their characters...like when Tengen licensed the game:


Wait, whaaaat?! Why is (Mr.) Pac-Man wearing a fedora here?! Why are all the ghosts wearing hats?!? dot dot dot (it's almost as if this is how they intended to illustrate Pac-Man initially, but they were limited by ridiculous early arcade graphics.)

As for whether or not Tropes are "dangerous" as you put it, have you considered that you personally might be more susceptible to believing her? I feel that you and Zero are predisposed to buying what she's selling for any number of reasons. Has she said anything that you vehemently disagreed with? I'm sorry, but I don't recall. If you have, please remind me. I'm not being a snot to you, I just don't remember.


So, the Bechdel test. I don't even know what to say about that. I'm well aware of it, but why do movies HAVE to "pass" that? Its creating a problem when there wasn't one. For example, Zero said earlier "I'm making a game about a married man;" the game is about him it should FOCUS on him. He shouldn't shoehorn in a story for his wife. The wife is there BECAUSE the husband is there. To call foul on that is so goofy to me. Was there a huge uproar about Sex and the City? The movie / show focuses on 4 women, and I can't imagine two guys coming face to face in that, and would they dare talk about anyone other than the girls we've grown to love? DOUBTFUL. Sex & The City fails: THE STACHE TEST. Also failing: HOCUS POCUS. (BOTH starring Sarah Jessica Parker. Coincidence?! I THINK NOT.)

Now lets make a huge deal about it because I'm a guy and I need everything to be about me.


(And apparently "Reverse Bechdel" is a thing. Not surprisingly, a lot of movies featuring women as the main character or characters fail with flying colors. Not a story.)


Jargon said:


Another one I read about and is crazy is the dearth of sex scenes involving black men in mainstream movies.

Ho ho, man, that is MORE than made up for in the non-mainstream movie world. Again, maybe my personal exposure to certain types of media has changed my opinion on "how it really is" as some of you view it. In my world (sports, wrestling, smut, etc.), black men are rarely in a position other than one of power, authority, or celebrity.
08/02/15, 16:55   
@Mr_Mustache

I think the point, though, is that if you took the percentages of movies that fail the Bechdel Test and the percentages of movies that fail the reverse test, you'd find a huge disparity. Yeah, you can cherry pick a few Sex and the Citys out there, but I think overwhelmingly you'd find differences in numbers, because the movie industry still by and large caters to white men like us.

See the problem isn't with any individual movie that fails the test. There are tons of good reasons a movie could fail the Bechdel test, as the creator of the test has pointed out directly. The problem is the sheer number that fail it. That's pretty much inarguable.

I've made this point before, but I see a different issue in that than just media representation of women. What it shows to me is that white men have a hard time relating to non-white and non-men. Or, at least, that's the assumption in Hollywood: We gotta have a white dude starring in the movie or we just won't watch it. I do think this is changing, of course, but it has generally been true.

It goes back to my point about boys at tea parties. We won't have gender equality until boys are allowed to relate to girls. That doesn't mean dressing your boy in a blouse, but it does mean allowing them to show their feminine side and have some classically feminine interests. Until that happens, we're going to see male interests prioritized. And that means masculinity stays on top. lol
08/02/15, 17:05   
Edited: 08/02/15, 17:07
@kriswright

But the Bechdel Test was brought about because the Bechdel lady (author of "Dykes to Watch Out For;" I didn't make that up.) had a vendetta of sorts (if her comic strip title wasn't suggestive enough. I guess "Ladies to Look Out For" was taken.), and set out to do it. I don't have time to watch 2-3 hour movies end to end until I'm satisfied, but is anyone, or has anyone, even tried looking for RBT movies, or comprising a masterlist? I'm sure there are staggering numbers as well. And then you're like "oh, How Stella Got Her Groove Back? I guess I shouldn't be surprised." And thats FINE. That movie isn't for me, its geared towards another group of people. And a lot of those movies that fail the Bechdel Test are geared towards men. Obvs. I was reading around, and you know what movie just BARELY passed the Reverse Bechdel Test? THE TERMINATOR. Yes; Kyle Reese has a brief conversation with a named psych doctor at the Police Station, and even though Sarah Connor is mentioned, the conversation is "technically" about the Terminator / future / whatever. Loophole.

I mean, thats pretty unexpected in that its essentially a dude movie, but no one would ever complain about that.


EDIT-
What would a male version of the Bechdel Test look like? In our book, Man (Dis)connected, social psychologist Philip Zimbardo and I describe a possible option we call the “MacGyver Test” (named after the popular 90s television adventure series) that a film or television show passes if it meets any of these criteria about its male characters:

-The absence of the mother is not required for the father to be portrayed as a competent dad.
-An honest, hard-working man is in a successful or leadership position and is not portrayed as a hapless loser.
-The female protagonist shows interest in male protagonist before he is the hero.
-The male protagonist solves problems in creative ways, and only uses violence as a last resort to carry out his goals or mission.


Why there needs to be a Reverse Bechdel Test


I can't even think of one single competent dad on any sitcoms right now. They all come off as fat pigs who are err on the side of dumb. Al Bundy, Homer Simpson, Ray Barone, and so on.
08/02/15, 17:23   
Edited: 08/02/15, 17:36
@Mr_Mustache

I refer back to the point that any individual movie isn't the problem. A movie isn't sexist because it fails the Bechdel test and, vice versa, a movie isn't a man-hating film if it fails the reverse test. The point is the volume.

And I don't know anything about the creator of the Bechdel Test. This is one situation where her identity/career doesn't matter. The test is the thing. And, anyway, what's wrong with a book called "Dykes To Watch Out For"? It sounds like a phrase that would be in your search history.

As for whether anyone has done a RBT study, I don't know. Maybe you should start your own series on Kickstarter.
08/02/15, 17:28   
Edited: 08/02/15, 17:32
@kriswright

I think "dykes" is a horrible word (almost "C-Word" level bad). I put it right up there with the male equivalent "F" word. No, I won't type it. Sure, I've said all three (I don't recall ever saying the N word though..like ever), but definitely not in a taped phone conversation for exposure 8 years later.

--And I SHOULD start my own RBT series on Kickstarter! (But if I can be discredited instantly with a simple "you missed the point," whats the point?) I should try to get my medical bill taken care of first on there, and then when people don't pay for it, I'll cry "sexism!" I don't think I'll be moving into a new house or traveling any time soon
08/02/15, 17:41   
@Mr_Mustache

Well, dyke is one of those words that lesbians use, sometimes, as a sign of political lesbianism. Personally, I don't have a problem with the word so long as it isn't being used pejoratively. Which is true for any identity word. I think the word "Jew" kind of has the same usage. It's not wrong to say "Richard Lewis is a comedian and a Jew". It is wrong (strictly for example) to say "Richard Lewis is a comedian and a JEW!!!?!". I think it's similar with the word dyke.
08/02/15, 18:00   
@kriswright

Yeah, that makes sense. I don't like when groups as such use words like that that are supposed to be "hands off!" though. On the same episode of Dish Nation that I mentioned a few pages ago, one of the girls on there remarked that Nicki Minaj has a song called...well, its the N word, and she drops it like 68 times. According to that girl. I didn't research it at all because that word makes my skin crawl, but yeah. I get it, but I don't get it. If the word shouldn't be used (and can DESTROY a career when utilized passively), it shouldn't be used by anybody.

Its like the most powerful word in the universe currently, more so than "please."
08/02/15, 18:14   
  Forum main
 +