Misogyny from IG to OOC

Friztic

Gonna have to agree with Ellodin on the reaching point. I think they're just looking for women in video games and trying to find some reason to claim that they are being mistreated because they are women.

To be fair, the Sonic the Hedgehog game is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_the_Hedgehog_(2006_video_game), and not http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_the_Hedgehog_(series). There's some clear misogyny there where the princess keeps getting kidnapped, but do note that she not only holds the prison for a godlike figure in her tears (strong girls don't cry), but also that she actually aids Sonic in some levels by casting a barrier of protection over him. Useless she is not, she's just royalty and Eggman (who will always be Dr. Robotnik to me) is powerful enough to keep pursuing her (though not powerful enough to keep her).

In Infamous, a woman is your boss, not your bitch. In Max Payne, God of War, and Infamous, entire families are murdered, and not for the sake of their being women, either, so no, that's not a 'damsel in distress'. In Resident Evil 5 you play the woman and you kick every bit as much ass as the person playing the man. In some of these cases, the gender of the person you're saving is really a non-issue, since it's not an issue of powerlessness but a situation bigger than anyone, the prime example being Dead Space. That's a 'person in distress', not a damsel.

Anita Sarkeesian makes a lot of money off of feminism, and money motivates people to do some funny things, especially in academia, where you can bet that people try to pull a fast one on old academics who don't keep up with contemporary culture all of the time (and, y'know, people that want to believe her anyways). To me, it looks like Ms. Sarkeesian didn't play most of the games she's using as material, and I think anyone who has played them would look at that list and say "whaaa?"

There's a clear disparity in just how many male main characters there are in relation to female characters. More main female characters would be great, strong or weak (Tidus in FFX was a punk bitch, but he was still the main character). Double-standard baiting? That's not great, and I wish it would stop.

Xith

Sorry, for nothing more than the fact that the past few post had an influx of male posters, I was just reminded of....

"Quiet, Lois. Men are talking."

Highly irrelevant, I know. Carry on.

Jovolo

Why the eff is it a problem. Serious feminism up in here. Do people really care that most leads in games are male?

"Damsel in distress" is just a plot device used for emotional content. Yes, males usually are the leads, so it stands to reason that their "loved ones" would be women. Even THAT isnt the case in every game, and in the games that it is relevant, it's not usually even a huge part of the plot. For example, in Fable series and God of War, it isn't just women that died, or are affected in games. Entire families die. That you neglect that and spin a damsel in distress outcry, or a poor woman being mistreated in a game is really you just trying to find reasons for feminism.

If you look at a game and see a harmless plot of male lead saving beloved mum/sister/partner and see it as a means to PUT WOMEN DOWN? Then that's really your problem. Just like violence, swearing, sexual depravity and so on in media. The -individual- takes from it what they will, and it is much more a reflection on them than on the content of the media.

(You can always walk away)

P.s of course some content is different. But a male lead being played in a game with only women and being able to rape and slaughter them all is quite a lot different to saving a family member, or a loved friend or partner and the difference is easily observable. Hell, there wouldnt even need to be a discussion over it.

Vansittart

Jovolo, I get where you're coming from but what you're really talking about is the whole of the culture.  It's not, so much, that games "put women down" but that games (typically) don't treat women as subjects, but rather as objects - as an NPC rather than a PC.  That must get pretty tiring, and annoying.  I would guess that you would play a female character once or twice, and it wouldn't bother you, but try and imagine (if you can) if 9 out of every ten games forced you into a female character.  Wouldn't that, over time, piss you off?  Now imagine it's not just games - imagine it's everything, everywhere.

There's an interesting thing called the Bechdel test - it's basically a "feminism" test for movies, and the test is: "Did, at any point in the movie, two women have a conversation that was about something other than men?"

That's a pretty fucking low bar right?  Most movies fail.  That's not something you can "walk away" from because it's everywhere, all the time.  You can choose not to play/watch the most egregious examples, but you can't walk away from the culture/society you live in.  As a straight, white male, I feel a lot of what I think you're feeling when you read this stuff - like it's a criticism *of you*, of the stuff you like.  I look for counter-examples (of which there are many) to try and refue the principle, but dude, that's all wrong.  It's totally awesome being a straight, while male - it really is.  You don't have to deal with any of this crap ever.  But don't let that mean you turn a blind eye to how your culture works - have an open mind, try and put yourselves in other people's shoes.

Chryenth

I make sure to play a female character in games as well as a male, because woo different dialogue. I actually preferred playing a (Darkside) female in KOTOR II, because interacting with Vistas and Keira was so much fun.

Also: in how many movies is such a conversation actually plot relevant? I'd pretty sure Iron Man 3 failed, because the only conversation that springs to mind is to girls gossiping over Tony. Oh, and I think they talk about botany or something so maybe it passed, IDK.

The point is, it's plot relevant. A conversation about men, but not (IMHO) a demeaning one. If the conversation hand no bearing on the movie, then yes, I'd agree that it's solely there to pad time and is demeaning. HOWEVER, it's important. It's fine.

Sena

Chryenth said:

Also: in how many movies is such a conversation actually plot relevant? I'd pretty sure Iron Man 3 failed, because the only conversation that springs to mind is to girls gossiping over Tony. Oh, and I think they talk about botany or something so maybe it passed, IDK.

The point is, it's plot relevant. A conversation about men, but not (IMHO) a demeaning one. If the conversation hand no bearing on the movie, then yes, I'd agree that it's solely there to pad time and is demeaning. HOWEVER, it's important. It's fine.

Failing the test isn't inherently problematic (and a movie can pass the test and still be horribly misogynistic), but it is an easily visible symptom of the larger problems (such as the general lack of female characters). Consider the reverse of the test, for example. How many movies are there where two men never speak to each other except about women? Very few would fail that test, you wouldn't have to intentionally add such a scene, because it almost universally exists by default. Yet failing the Bechdel test is normal (and often expected), sometimes even in movies where the main characters are mostly women.

Chryenth

My point was meant to be that the test was more or less pointless. That no-one would put in a scene that wasn't important in some way.

Okay, I worded it terribly. I'll let those with a better way with words keep this up and chime in when it gets back down to my level.

Adalie

I think one thing that seems like it's being forgotten here is that no, it's not a huge deal for women in a particular movie or even a handful of movies to not have many relevant conversations outside of ones about men, but the fact that MOST movies can't seem to find a reason for a woman to discuss anything else seems ridiculous. Those same movies likely have several scenes where men discuss their jobs, their hobbies, their families, whatever, but women characters often don't get to be layered or dynamic like that. They're just "the women interested in the men in the movie."

So you're right, @Chryenth, sometimes there's no reason for the women to discuss anything but men, but is that really the case in nearly every movie? And if it is, isn't that sort of a problem in itself?

Eld

Chryenth said:

My point was meant to be that the test was more or less pointless. That no-one would put in a scene that wasn't important in some way.

Okay, I worded it terribly. I'll let those with a better way with words keep this up and chime in when it gets back down to my level.

But that just amplifies the point: Why is it so uncommon for female characters to be important to the plot, rather than other than as cheerleaders for the male hero, eye-candy, or helpless victims?

Nakari

Friztic said:

Gonna have to agree with Ellodin on the reaching point. I think they're just looking for women in video games and trying to find some reason to claim that they are being mistreated because they are women.

To be fair, the Sonic the Hedgehog game is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_the_Hedgehog_(2006_video_game), and not http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_the_Hedgehog_(series). There's some clear misogyny there where the princess keeps getting kidnapped, but do note that she not only holds the prison for a godlike figure in her tears (strong girls don't cry), but also that she actually aids Sonic in some levels by casting a barrier of protection over him. Useless she is not, she's just royalty and Eggman (who will always be Dr. Robotnik to me) is powerful enough to keep pursuing her (though not powerful enough to keep her).

In Infamous, a woman is your boss, not your bitch. In Max Payne, God of War, and Infamous, entire families are murdered, and not for the sake of their being women, either, so no, that's not a 'damsel in distress'. In Resident Evil 5 you play the woman and you kick every bit as much ass as the person playing the man. In some of these cases, the gender of the person you're saving is really a non-issue, since it's not an issue of powerlessness but a situation bigger than anyone, the prime example being Dead Space. That's a 'person in distress', not a damsel.

Anita Sarkeesian makes a lot of money off of feminism, and money motivates people to do some funny things, especially in academia, where you can bet that people try to pull a fast one on old academics who don't keep up with contemporary culture all of the time (and, y'know, people that want to believe her anyways). To me, it looks like Ms. Sarkeesian didn't play most of the games she's using as material, and I think anyone who has played them would look at that list and say "whaaa?"

There's a clear disparity in just how many male main characters there are in relation to female characters. More main female characters would be great, strong or weak (Tidus in FFX was a punk bitch, but he was still the main character). Double-standard baiting? That's not great, and I wish it would stop.

I feel like the argument that Sarkeesian makes is often misconstrued as "these games are all misogynist and portray women terribly," which is not the point at all. The argument is that there is a clear trend in gaming where female characters are used as objects for the advancement of male characters' stories and development, and it's more nuanced of a claim then people seem to think.

The thing is that no one is contesting that most of these games don't overtly treat women poorly. Within the stories themselves, everything that happens makes sense, and is almost always done for perfectly logical and not sexist reasons. The distinction that needs to get made is between the characters as actors and the game creators as narrators. Like yeah, when a family gets killed, gender is a non-issue. The individuals aren't getting slain because of their gender, it's because of relations they have to the character or just because they happened to be there. THe problem is that game creators as narrators show a strong trend of putting females in those positions. So yeah, you're right that these games may well have strong female characters overall, and that small instances of problematic trope use don't make the story its self problematic. The issue is that so many stories utilize these small problematic tropes. Basically, it isn't that any one of these games is problematic on its own, it's that they constitute a problematic trend of using disempowered female characters to advance male leads.

Your sonic example illustrates this pretty well. You're right that the princess is a strong character who doesn't just give up, but instead tries to actively help the hero. As a character, she's not problematic at all. The story, when taken on it's own, probably isn't problematic either. The issue is that it is one example of an ongoing, problematic trend.

As for the claim that Sarkeesian makes funny things happen in academia, that just seems a little silly. None of these claims are new in the slightest, and most feminist theory goes a lot farther then the claims that she's making. I don't know why bringing her up immediately seems to cause so many attacks against her, either. People seem to want to portray her as some angry, greedy feminist, whereas most of what she says really isn't as accusatory as people seem to portray it as.

Teg

nm

Teg

Ellodin said:

yes, these are more common plot points, but i think it's more a function of male protagonists than anything else.  i actually do think it's more convincing to lose a spouse than a brother

Why?

I mean there's nothing fundamental that makes you more likely to lose a spouse than a brother irl if you have both.

Direv

I am excited to see this thread here, awesome discussion. Very sorry if this response is overly long or pedantic - but not really.

In response to Ellodin:

"seeing those plot points as "problematic" is more a result of trying to hunt for reasons to be outraged and call feminism than anything else"

Very much of the privilege that accompanies our masculinity (I am a white passing male) allows for us to go our entire lives without ever having to give it much consideration. Characters emulating your gender expression are portrayed as the default in video games, as they are in nearly all media. Those characters are depicted in more active roles, with female characters serving as plot devices at best, or "eye candy" (as someone else in this thread put it) at worst. This allows for us to consume all of this media without ever having to give it much thought: the protagonists are like us in their gender expression, and so there's not much for you and I to reconcile in order to play those characters. The same isn't true for a woman or a man with less masculine gender expression (or someone outside the normative binary). 

In short: you have no idea what it's like to not be a man and see the characters whose gender expression you relate most to be pretty much ubiquitously passive, objectified, and subjected to gratuitous violence in order to advance a plot. You haven't the faintest clue what that experience is (because you haven't lived it), so accusing people of "hunting for reasons to be outraged" is absurd - you have the privilege of having no reason to be outraged, ever (for reasons connected to your gender expression - perhaps except for those which are also racialized). 

The point that you make in saying that more passive depictions of female characters is more of a natural consequence of males in lead roles than misogyny and that feminists are just looking for something to complain about that: yes, and no. But mainly no. Sure, the popular media of a culture will reflect the stereotypes and attitudes of that culture, but the popular media is also an important driver of culture which imparts and reinforces those stereotypes and attitudes as well. Therefore in changing depictions of women and hetero-romantic relationships to allow for more possibilities and more narratives to be told, it allows for culture to change as well - or at the very, very least it does not reinforce misogyny and patriarchy and give it more space. 

Chryenth

Adalie said:

So you're right, Chryenth, sometimes there's no reason for the women to discuss anything but men, but is that really the case in nearly every movie? And if it is, isn't that sort of a problem in itself?

Perhaps I'm watching the wrong sort of movies. I don't recall a single female-female conversation solely about men in Star Wars. Or the Matrix. Or Pirates of the Caribbean. I don't watch a lot of movies.

I'm not sure I see the problem, though that's probably because I've just woken up and my tea isn't strong enough. You mean that it's a problem women have nothing else to talk about besides men? So the problem is them having nothing plot relevant to say/do - in which case, yes. That is a problem. (I'm overusing that word. Sorry.)

Eld said:

 That no-one would put in a scene that wasn't important in some way.

But that just amplifies the point: Why is it so uncommon for female characters to be important to the plot, rather than other than as cheerleaders for the male hero, eye-candy, or helpless victims?

Again, I have a very limited pool of movies to take data from, but I can't recall a single movie I have seen wherein the lead female didn't do something plot-critical. Leia, Trinity, Elizabeth...

tl;dr - Insufficient data leads to different conclusions.

Direv

Also, as far as Anita Sarkeesian and pop-academics go - they are generally problematic because as Friztic points out, they are selling books and ultimately a point of view, and also because much of their work tends to be inaccessible. They write for college students and the middle and upper classes who can afford their books and who have the free time to read - not single parents holding down two jobs who barely have time to think about making food for their kids. They're also problematic because they might not be active participants in the communities they critique - this is true throughout academia. So, for those reasons I don't see the usefulness in centering conversation around these people. That said, those people are not problematic for espousing feminism, and it's important to remember that misogyny and patriarchy are far more able to be sold and marketed than are critiques of male-dominance. 

Also, Jovolo, when you use the term "feminism" like that it comes off a tad jerky. Yeah, some people actually care how they are represented in the media and in games, and some of these depictions hurt. Being that we are both white males, it's easy to forget that because nobody can with just a single word instantly reduce us to some sort of flimsy caricature that has no credibility. And sure, they're games - if someone's feelings gets hurt, they can just not play or they can walk away, but patriarchy and misogyny (not to mention homophobia, transphobia, or even racism!) already occupy so much space in popular media that most people's options lie somewhere on the spectrum of not playing or just dealing with the fact that they can't really relate to the characters that they are playing. You have the privilege of having not experienced that. 

Tania

Chryenth said:

Adalie said:

So you're right, Chryenth, sometimes there's no reason for the women to discuss anything but men, but is that really the case in nearly every movie? And if it is, isn't that sort of a problem in itself?

Perhaps I'm watching the wrong sort of movies. I don't recall a single female-female conversation solely about men in Star Wars. Or the Matrix. Or Pirates of the Caribbean. I don't watch a lot of movies.

I'm not sure I see the problem, though that's probably because I've just woken up and my tea isn't strong enough. You mean that it's a problem women have nothing else to talk about besides men? So the problem is them having nothing plot relevant to say/do - in which case, yes. That is a problem. (I'm overusing that word. Sorry.)

Eld said:

 That no-one would put in a scene that wasn't important in some way.

But that just amplifies the point: Why is it so uncommon for female characters to be important to the plot, rather than other than as cheerleaders for the male hero, eye-candy, or helpless victims?

Again, I have a very limited pool of movies to take data from, but I can't recall a single movie I have seen wherein the lead female didn't do something plot-critical. Leia, Trinity, Elizabeth...

tl;dr - Insufficient data leads to different conclusions.

Okay. How about this, since you don't see a problem: go take your favourite movies and make 2 lists. One list of all the plot-critical women, and one list of all the plot-critical males.

Once you've made that list, remember that gender split is about 50/50. Try to decide whether you feel like that cast accurately reflects that.

Fitz

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJihi5rB_Ek

I don't really want to get into this debate, but I think this is a good response to anything Sarkeesian ever does. The young woman in this video examines Anita's stance and uses her examples to offer her own opinion.

Further, my major issue with the current state of feminism, is that it reduces women to victims, and continues the stereotype of a woman as a victim. As an individual who judges people on an individual basis, I find this problematic, because defining a person by a single trait is wrong, and is tantamount to the sexism and racism you claim to fight against. You cannot, in my opinion, judge a person by solely one aspect. Especialy when you, as many rad fems I have encountered do, come into the conversation with a starting bias and then seek evidence to prove your bias instead of standing outside the topic, and examining it objectively and then making your decision based on all available information.

Further I think that you have to recognize that individuals are ever changing and evolving, and therefore your judgement you make today in regards to someone may be invalid a year later.

But then, people don't change, and I'm sure someone will say my opinion isn't valid, being what is termed a 'white cis hetero male' and therefore being a part of the oppressive power structure, I can never understand your plight. Which as a statement I think complete disregards my intellectual ability and agency as an individual, and makes anyone who states it just as bad as they demon they attempt to make me out to be, no?

Xith

Overall, it's the fact that women are treated either as objects or as objectives. They're the prize at the end of the rainbow/bottom of the cereal box/end of the battle. And while that's a perfectly wonderful way to feel about your special lady, it's not something to expect, and most importantly, you don't expect it if she wasn't already yours (e.g. Arwen and Aragorn).

That whole train of thought is what helps create the modern "friendzone" effect. Boys feeling hurt because they thought they deserved a girl just because they wanted her.

But if you want a real fairytale, women are often attracted to success, so in a perverse way, achievements can win you the "prize". Being down on yourself will not, though. Also avoid any mentality that caters to your male ego. She is interested in more than your penis, and has her own objectives and her own needs.

This is why in our divorce culture, when you hear of a partner cheating on the other, you should first look to the "victim" to see what they could have done to cause it. If they appear faultless, then yes, you've got a villain/villainess who just cheated for lack of self-control or whatever. But if, for example, a woman didn't have certain needs met, she's more or less entitled to seek out those needs (but I fully believe talking about the problem is the first resort).

The reason I bring this up is because men don't catch as much flack in egoculture for cheating. It's quickly justified by a needy penis and "men will be men". Women are shamed for the exact same behavior. And I've heard men so childishly hurt that in their wounded ego they rattle off Bronze Age opinions about the woman being stoned to death because it's 'unforgivable'.

So it seems like women are either the prize or the problem. Always a piece on the board rather than a player themselves.

Chryenth

Tania said:

Okay. How about this, since you don't see a problem: go take your favourite movies and make 2 lists. One list of all the plot-critical women, and one list of all the plot-critical males.

Once you've made that list, remember that gender split is about 50/50. Try to decide whether you feel like that cast accurately reflects that.

Your point is that there are more men in the main cast then there are women. I just picked the main three, which means 2/3 of each cast is male.

To me, that does not mean women are being devalued or ignored. Underrepresented? Sure. But under-representation is a problem for everyone that isn't a straight white guy.

I'm not saying there isn't a problem. What I'm saying is that test (the two women talking exclusively about men) is laughably bad at detecting sexism.

Tania

Chryenth said:

Tania said:

Okay. How about this, since you don't see a problem: go take your favourite movies and make 2 lists. One list of all the plot-critical women, and one list of all the plot-critical males.

Once you've made that list, remember that gender split is about 50/50. Try to decide whether you feel like that cast accurately reflects that.

Your point is that there are more men in the main cast then there are women. I just picked the main three, which means 2/3 of each cast is male.

To me, that does not mean women are being devalued or ignored. Underrepresented? Sure. But under-representation is a problem for everyone that isn't a straight white guy.

I'm not saying there isn't a problem. What I'm saying is that test (the two women talking exclusively about men) is laughably bad at detecting sexism.

You said plot relevant, not main cast.

Fitz

@Tania are you implying that Princess Leia and Padme Amidala aren't plot relevant/aren't major characters, or that they're simply maidens to be rescued? Further, what about Mon Mothma in Return of the Jedi. Now I know she wasn't a major protagonist, but she was the Head of the Rebellion. But then...I guess her place in the plot isn't relevant because she's just a women, right?

Xith

Fitz

I just want to point out that Jabba is both male and female.

Tania

Fitz said:

@Tania are you implying that Princess Leia and Padme Amidala aren't plot relevant/aren't major characters, or that they're simply maidens to be rescued? Further, what about Mon Mothma in Return of the Jedi. Now I know she wasn't a major protagonist, but she was the Head of the Rebellion. But then...I guess her place in the plot isn't relevant because she's just a women, right?

Wat. No. What I am saying is that if you take plot relevant male characters, and not just main cast, the males way outnumber the females.

And yes, Mon Mothma is the leader of the rebellion, but how many people who never read the novels or who aren't huge fans of the original trilogy actually know who she is? She has what, one scene in Return of the Jedi? One whole line? Saying the leader of the rebellion is female is worth shit when she never actually does anything to further the plot herself.

Fitz

She received the information from her Bothan spies, MANY OF WHOM DIED, about the Emperor's new battle station. I'd say that that was fairly important to the plot, for without that information, the Rebellion would have just been petering about for the rest of RotJ. Are you next going to attack the series and say, "And they only had one token black guy in all the movies!"

Tania

That is another issue with it, yes, actually. Anyone could have said Mon Mothma's line. Literally anyone. Akbar, Luke, Han, Lando, Leia, Wedge, who-thehell-ever.

Edit: don't get me wrong, I love the Star Wars franchise. But to claim that problematic things in it aren't problematic is ignorant.

Nakari

Fitz said:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJihi5rB_Ek

I don't really want to get into this debate, but I think this is a good response to anything Sarkeesian ever does. The young woman in this video examines Anita's stance and uses her examples to offer her own opinion.

Further, my major issue with the current state of feminism, is that it reduces women to victims, and continues the stereotype of a woman as a victim. As an individual who judges people on an individual basis, I find this problematic, because defining a person by a single trait is wrong, and is tantamount to the sexism and racism you claim to fight against. You cannot, in my opinion, judge a person by solely one aspect. Especialy when you, as many rad fems I have encountered do, come into the conversation with a starting bias and then seek evidence to prove your bias instead of standing outside the topic, and examining it objectively and then making your decision based on all available information.

Further I think that you have to recognize that individuals are ever changing and evolving, and therefore your judgement you make today in regards to someone may be invalid a year later.

But then, people don't change, and I'm sure someone will say my opinion isn't valid, being what is termed a 'white cis hetero male' and therefore being a part of the oppressive power structure, I can never understand your plight. Which as a statement I think complete disregards my intellectual ability and agency as an individual, and makes anyone who states it just as bad as they demon they attempt to make me out to be, no?

that response video to Sarkeesian falls back into the misconstruction of her points. The creator of that video spends a lot of her time defending the actions of the characters or the personality of the characters themselves, which is fine. No one is debating that many of the characters that are brought up are strong female characters in their own right with good personalities. The problem is a meta one-that game creators as narratives repeatedly choose to use these female characters in problematic ways. Sarkeesian isn't critiquing, for instance, the characters of Princess Peach or Zelda as sure, off camera they are probably fantastic, strong leaders with engaging personalities, but that doesn't excuse the narratives for repeatedly constructing them as objects.

As for your views on feminism, if you seriously believe that feminism is about defining individuals, then you're kinda sorta completely missing the point. Feminism is about (as far as criticism goes) critiquing a patriarchal system and the values that result from it. And if you want to make a case for bias (which is silly, because everyone has a bias and it's pretty obvious in how you judge feminism among other things), go ahead and argue against the existence of a patriarchy if you like, that really isn't a hard one to show.

But yeah, you, like the author of your video, are perceiving all of this criticism as against individuals and characters for their personalities and actions, which is pretty far off the mark

Direv said:

Also, as far as Anita Sarkeesian and pop-academics go - they are generally problematic because as Friztic points out, they are selling books and ultimately a point of view, and also because much of their work tends to be inaccessible. They write for college students and the middle and upper classes who can afford their books and who have the free time to read - not single parents holding down two jobs who barely have time to think about making food for their kids. They're also problematic because they might not be active participants in the communities they critique - this is true throughout academia. So, for those reasons I don't see the usefulness in centering conversation around these people. That said, those people are not problematic for espousing feminism, and it's important to remember that misogyny and patriarchy are far more able to be sold and marketed than are critiques of male-dominance. 

 

Just to address this, while I feel like most of your analysis here is sound, I don't think Sarkeesian really fits the model of what you describe. She produces youtube videos that are free to watch and generally create fairly concise and accessible points, which is probably shown by just how many people know of her at this point. I don't think I've ever seen her advertise anything, the one reason for her being conceptualized as out to make money being her kickstarter (and while that was certainly appealing to the pockets of white, upper class people, it also was doing so in the form of asking for donations rather then trying to create a product that would be able to make a profit off of them, which is far less problematic). But yeah, on the scale of accessibility, she's free for anyone with an internet connection. Also, as 'gamers' is such a loosely defined 'community,' I'd probably argue that you can't really claim that 'she's not part of it' in this instance either. People that call themselves gamers might claim that, but those claims usually end up being quite exclusionary and problematic as well.

Chryenth

In this case main cast ~= plot relevant. Unless you think a 33% advantage in numbers is insufficient to prove your point.

If we're considering the entire SW franchise, then may I present to you Keira, Nomi Sunrider, the Exile, Mara Jade and Boba Fett's granddaughter, who's name escapes me because it's been years since I read those books.

Anywho, the point is that it wasn't anyone that said it, it was Mon Mothma, leader of the Rebellion. A very important woman who steers galactic history for decades.

If you watch the movies and you don't care who Mon Mothma is, that's fine. But missing out on such a massive amount of backstory is going to make it seem far more sexist than it is.

Nakari

wait, @Chryenth fully conceded that there was a problem

Chryenth said:

I'm not saying there isn't a problem. What I'm saying is that test (the two women talking exclusively about men) is laughably bad at detecting sexism.

And the only thing he continued to assert was something that was pointed out about the test 

Sena said:

Failing the test isn't inherently problematic (and a movie can pass the test and still be horribly misogynistic), but it is an easily visible symptom of the larger problems (such as the general lack of female characters).

seems like we should be on the same page?

Fitz

Sarkeesian cherry picks her data to prove a point she decided prior to committing to her research. This has been proven. There is video evidence that she went into her research with a bias, and sought to prove it. This is no different than a racist citing The Bell Curve. 

If you want to destroy the patriarchy, as you put it. Stop allowing others to define you as a victim. I will agree with you that people aren't equal in standing, but everyone has an equal opportunity, at least in Western Culture, to be equal. My judgement on feminism isn't a judgement on the movement as a whole, as I specifically stated that it was against modern, radical feminists. Like Sarkeesian.