Uploaded by Niggoslav_Krawczyk 
700x870 PNG 367 kB
Interested in advertising on Derpibooru? Click here for information!
Help fund the $15 daily operational cost of Derpibooru - support us financially!
Description
No description provided.
Rainbow Rocks 10th Anniversary - Let's celebrate the 10th anniversary of Rainbow Rocks with an art event! Here
How’s Gamergate going?
Nonsense, a true feminist would find the notion of any place not being legally allowed to women sexist and chauvinist, no matter the reason or justification.
Pretty sure that’s what this image meant, not literally everywhere.
minus places that would otherwise be illegal or not safe, just like a man
I go back to Sarkeesian because here she is blaming gamers, is shown to not care for gaming and has the red carpet rolled out for her, because Vagina.
All the negativity she got, was made that way, she or someone she knew spammed 4chan, and they responded in the way they normally would have.
One person even put it, the online harassment isn’t a gender problem. http://youtu.be/4NPQlTqcQJI?t=9m44s you can watch the whole video if you want, but I just put it at what if sort of the important part.
Well… I’m a man who watches My Little Pony, so I clearly disagree with that sentiment, as you do. I believe women and men both should do whatever they want, and not worry about whether or not the activity is “for” their gender or not. Because as long as they enjoy it, it shouldn’t matter if society perceives it as masculine or feminine.
I question how “wide open” the door is to certain fanbases or certain occupations though. There are certain men (not all, certainly) who make women feel very unwelcome in those communities, often by means of unwanted advances and belittling of their ability (or both). I think complaints about that are totally valid, because I hate seeing that happen too.
Except when girls complain about the not being let into the boy’s only club when the door is open it’s seen as empowering, but when boys do certain things it is seen as creepy or moving in on girl’s territory.
Eh, I don’t read it that way. It seems more like a reaction against the tired old, “A woman’s place is in the home” mantra that traditionalists like to spout. “A woman’s place is everywhere” is a direct rebuttal to that idea; that she can go wherever she wants and do anything she wants.
I don’t see it as “Move over, boys,” I see it as, “Men and women go achieve your individual dreams equally, and don’t let societal expectations or gender roles stand in your way.” I guess we’re just reading a drastically different message into the same image.
And it doesn’t sounds as demanding or forced upon anyone.
the Everywhere sounds like “GIRLS GET OUT THERE AND FIGHT THE PATRIARCHY!” and “BOYS MOVE OVER FOR GIRLS NO MATTER WHAT!”
“Wherever she wants to be” certainly works for me. Which is… potentially everywhere, if nothing else.
Also, what if the goal the female character is to help someone will their goals? They don’t have their own, but they are willing to take some of the weight off.
You’re still right in the regards, however it’s not that don’t want to wright more female character it’s more or less their not sure how, or even when they do or try to they’re afraid of the backlash of putting women is danerous situations (E.I. Beyond 2 souls) and others would rather slap together a terrible story book in the form of a game and make people waste $15 on it (I.E. Gone home).
I don’t like this “A women’s place is Everywhere” line, it just sounds so forced. I think a better one would something like
A woman’s place is where she can sets her mind to be.
why does it fucking matter whether or not there are strong female characters? why cant it just be strong characters? why do we need to fill a quota for how much cunt or cock needs to be in the media? why cant we just focus on the actual characters regardless of race, gender, creed, sexuality or whatever the fuck else people use to label and segregate themselves with?
No, no. Just because someone is contracted doesn’t make her weak. That’s not what I meant. She still chooses to work for them, and I’d argue her goals are - whether ordered or not - still her own. Samus is still her own person, no matter who she happens to be employed by.
Peach, depending on the game, can certainly be this way as well. Hell, even in damsel-in-distress mode, they can pull it off; Like when she helps Mario from behind the scenes in the Paper Mario games. Of course, it’s all the better when she’s out there fighting alongside the Bros., because she’s quite capable whenever she does.
And I agree, playability is not a requirement for that.
Yes, the ponies would be the same excellent characters regardless of gender. I think the reason I’m focusing on the fact that they’re examples of strong female characters, though, is that media is sorely lacking in them - and the ponies are a great positive example.
So in by that logic, Samus was never a strong female character, because she was contracted time and time again by the Galactic federation. Her “goals” in the games were not entirely her own goals.
You don’t even need a strong female character to be the main or playable character. Look at the Boss form Metal Gear Solid 3 for example: She was strong, tactical, courageous, and would have done everything to carry out her mission even if it meant death. She’s a highly respected character and you don’t even play as her. They could have easily made her a man and he’d be the same character.
See that’s the thing, it should be just about gender, a good character is a good character. if you switch Genders of the ponies in the show are they still good characters? I think so.
To sum it up in a sentence: A strong female character is one who has her own goals, and the autonomy to accomplish those goals.
It doesn’t matter what the goals are, or how they’re accomplished. It might be as grandiose as saving the world from a tyrant (See: Twilight vs. Tirek), or it might be as everyday as running a profitable business while excelling at her craft (See: Rarity). She has something she wants to do, and she has the capability and drive to go out and do it.
Things like personality, appearance, dress, etc. are largely unimportant in light of those two qualifiers. The character can look like, dress like, and act like whatever she wants, and it has no bearing (good or bad) on her being a strong or autonomous character. I could be wrong, but I have a feeling we both might agree on this definition.
The problem is the people that do nothing be castigate and attack the people that were already in a community regardless of race, gender, sexuality. Even in the 80s women were welcomed with the creation of Ms. Pac-man for female fans. The problem is a majority still did not care for games and the market went almost all to males, especially the ones that were considered geeks and nerds, so a female market didn’t take off. There are also tons of titles with female protagonist, the problem is, Anita belittles them by shoving them into categories and or ignores them if she can’t. She’ll even ignore her own statements if it’s something she likes.
Also, what makes a strong female character? because I guarantee you She will attack a female character, because she’s either attractive or because she’s thrown into danger. Look at Beyond 2 souls, when you have an invulnerable ghost barrier around you and mess up a QTE fight prompt and come out unsaved should you really care about this character that no matter your actions she walks away, or would you rather try and fight to keep her alive?
Again: Women that like game or anything is a good thing, but women there are women that are just SJWs and make their 1st world problems the community’s problems.
Also: to a gamer, whatever you are doesn’t matter as long as you can play the game without complaining that you should be allowed an easy rout because you’re a whatever.
Change the very core of what, exactly?
I don’t see anything wrong with more positive representations of all kinds of people; regardless of race, gender, or sexuality. I say this as a man who’s been into video games since childhood. Strong female characters are a good thing, and I don’t think the “very core” of gaming has to be changed in order to see them better represented in the industry.
Things have gotten considerably better since the 80s. I’m glad for that. But progress can and should continue. Simply wanting better female representation is not a threat to gamer culture, not is actually getting better female representation. At the very least, it’s no threat to this gamer.
Again, just to clarify, I agree there are huge problems with Anita’s videos. I don’t hate her for it, and I’m certainly not going to send her nasty messages about it like (what I hope was) a very vocal minority did, but I do agree with the underlying motivation behind her work, however lacking in execution her work may be.
She also completely looks over Peach in the cartoon series, and the N-power comic where she’s an overall bad ass. Now, you can say “she’s only talking about the games.” yet she used Wendy O. Koopa’s attitude from the cartoon as a negative portrayal of women, so she purposely left those out and only mentions Super Princess Peach to say she takes a back seat in her own game. The problem with the is a lot of Nintendo game feature a trope: The silent protagonist. She mentions Peach’s abilities are her mood swings during PMS, yet if you play the game, there are a bunch of toads with wild emotions. Many who played it say hoe good a game is, and the emotion element was added so it wasn’t just a SMB game with just Peach.
My problem is not with the women that like things and want to pursue them, my problem is with the women that have want to change the very core of something just for them and fuck all that was apart of it before, and many get a free pass out of being called out by using the “I’m being a victim” card.
The SMB2 thing might be referring to the fact that it wasn’t originally a Mario game at all, and that she was put in as an afrerthought, since they had to fill four character slots. I am disappointed she never mentioned the RPGs (or that they “don’t count,” for whatever reason), since Peach is written as way more competent and capable in those - not to mention playable in a few.
I believe her claims that she’s been into gaming before. I even think her message is a good one, but it’s presented poorly and inconsistently. But overall, “women should get more positive representation in gaming” is hardly a bad thing, and I don’t think she’s some sort of fake gamer girl just because of those opinions.
But really, even if your grievances are legitimate, what does it have to do with her being a woman, or with women doing whatever they want? Cannot men also pursue things they have no interest in? Just because they can, does it mean we should discourage those who truly do have an interest in a hobby or career that is dominated in numbers by the opposite gender? I say no. Let people do what they want to do, so long as they enjoy it and they’re good at it. I can think of no job or interest in the world that should be only for me, or only for women.
would a longtime fan say Mario is a bad a Bowser by saying it condones Patriarchy and will ignore every other title except when like the RPG series, smash, and says Peach was “Accidentally” put into Super Mario bros. 2. Yes they “accidentally” made a sprite sheet for her and constantly use her hover ability from that game in others.
Anita isn’t a gamer at all, she’s just a con-artist that used the criticism she got from “conversations” on pop-culture. Conversation my ass. disabled comments and ratings and she’s the only one speaking on the matter.
plus this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afgtd8ZsXzI is pretty damning evidence. I doubt anyone could get away with saying their a livelong fan of something, but then say “I’m not a fan” only to damage control and say “Oh well that was then, I am now.” and get away with it.
Anita is not a gamer, and only used that to scam people and push the agenda of her puppeteer boyfriend.
While Anita’s journalistic merit is certainly questionable, I don’t think it’s fair to say she had no interest in gaming. She grew up playing games, and despite her criticism of the series, is a longtime Mario fan.
I’m not defending Tropes vs. Women, no. I think there is something to be said about negative stereotypes in video games, but her series does a lackluster job at it anyway. What I am saying is, she clearly has some interest in gaming, and isn’t deliberately getting into a hobby she dislikes just because she can. So this isn’t an example of what you’re saying, really.
to answer your question.
The same reason she did it. Cash, attention or to push an agenda.
Why would someone be part of something they had no interest in? The way I look at it, “everywhere” here simply means that nothing should be off-limits on the basis of gender. That if any individual woman is interested in something, no matter how traditionally male-dominated it may be, she should pursue it.
The converse is also true. Men shouldn’t feel like they can’t pursue traditionally feminine jobs either. My father is a nurse, and I’m an elementary school teacher (and the only male at my school aside from the principal), so I’m definitely a believer that this ideal should go both ways.
“Women’s place is Everywhere” that Everywhere sounds like a statement entitlement. I’m not saying they are forced to do things they don’t want. I’m saying they force everyone to make them apart even if they hold no interest, and only want to carry out some self-righteous crusade.