Anita Sarkeesian "I'm not a fan of gaming" leaked 2010 video reveals

[Uhura]

Why hasn't she mentioned more positive female characters in her videos? Maybe this gives you an answer

 

[BloatedGuppy]

The simple fact she couldn't be bothered to name even ONE strong female protag' when there are dozens and dozens of them...

Slight sidebar here, but...really? Dozens and dozens? Let's go easy and say "Dozens and Dozens" reasonably constitutes four dozen, or fifty. Can you name fifty "strong female protagonists" in gaming? I could probably come up with five.

I'm not even DOUBTING you I'm seriously curious to know if you can name that many.

 

[Strazdas]

Lets say i claim to be a surgeon. And based on that, i will go on and campaign for all surgeon tools to be chagned to scissors, claiming that i have been a surgeon for a long time and know how the tools work. Then later you find out that im not actually a surgeon. But i would just call out "argumentum ad hominem" and continue claiming i am a surgeon and thus know better.

Unfortunately, you would still be arrested for committing false equivalence.

Would i?
Lets see.
Anita claims to be a gamer - fact
She claims to talk about gaming issues because she has a passion and long experience with gaming - fact
She is not actually a gamer - fact

I claim to be a surgeon - fact
I claim to know whats best in surgery (gaming) based on my passion and long experience with surgery - fact
Im not actually a surgeon - fact

 

[BloatedGuppy]

She is not actually a gamer - fact

Please define "gamer" and explain how you are presenting this as "fact". As per the online dictionary:

A person who plays a game or games, typically a participant in a computer or role-playing game.

According to this, playing A GAME makes you a "gamer". What definition are you working with? Or are you suggesting she's never played so much as a single game, and have fact-based evidence to support the claim?

 

[Vegosiux]

Why hasn't she mentioned more positive female characters in her videos? Maybe this gives you an answer

Ehm, no, that's not how it goes, and she's being overly smug about it.

The non-Damsels deserve at least a mention; if only to demonstrate[footnote]Which is different from "Just throwing the sentence in"[/footnote] there are so few of them that the Damsel is actually the prevalent pattern! If she's right, why is she shooting herself in the foot on principles? If she's right, showing the non-Damsels and demonstrating there aren't many of them would speak in her favor. "I'm going to show the statistical ratio of Damsels vis-a-vis the statistical ratio of non-Damsels" would do a lot more for her case than the current "Why would I talk about non-Damsels?" does.

 

[Stephen St.]

The only way to make her argument any less valid would be by conducting a study which suggest she's false. That's because right now her argument has a "speculation" validity. And the only thing with less validity is something proven false.

But what annoys me is that she and her supporters act is if her points are more than speculation.

And what annoys me is people brushing away valid factual statements as "speculation" because they do not agree with some of the conclusions drawn. At the very least, you need to qualify that statement to the effect that the various interactions of games and culture are, currently, very speculative.

On the other hand: Examples of the Tropes: Not speculative. Conclusion that the tropes are prevalent: Not speculation (No, not even if you think the conclusion is wrong). Statement that if anything, the marginalization of women has increased: Not speculation. That is the overwhelming part of the video series that, even should it be proven factually wrong, can certainly not be dismissed as speculation.

Problem is that she is not and indeed cannot make that argument. To be frank, it often doesn't even hold up if we confine our examination to a given franchise.
(...)
...Point being that we do not only see a portrayal of women as weak and/or victims even if we assume the ONLY media a person consumes is video games, limit our scope, confine the scope to single franchises or single games in many cases, or even just those franchises that make use of the damsel in distress plot devices.

That seems to imply that if we cannot even find the alleged trope in any one genre, then it cannot be a cultural issue. But that doesn't follow, since it is not necessary for all genres of videogames to show the same tropes in order to conclude that the tropes are prevalent in the overall culture. It makes even less sense to confine our view to any single franchise or game (which game or franchise? Why should this one be the important one?).

It is almost comical to try to dismiss a series of videos that has examples from about 80 games by giving counter examples from about 8.

Princess Peach is probably the clearest cut example of a character whose nature practically revolves around being a Damsel in Distress (to the point of even echoing the classic criteria of being locked away in a tower castle by a dragon-esque character). What does this say about the treatment of women in the franchise? Well given the advent of titles such as Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door (which is one of the few titles without a minimalist plot to boot)...not that much. Your party includes Goombella, Flurrie, Vivian and Ms. Mowz, to say nothing of how Luigi is himself promptly put at the villains' mercy, showing both that women are capable in their own right and that manhood isn't a magical key to resistance, respectively. Princess Zelda? She gets captured quite a bit but at the same time she's usually instrumental in preventing Ganon[dorf] from achieving his goals. If we want to look at Ocarina of Time alone, we also see Zelda ninjaing around as Sheik for most of the game and also have the certified badasses that are the Gerudo. Lili in Psychonauts? 22nd kidnapping victim in that game, 13 of which were male. Doesn't exactly speak to gender issues.

So there is one game in the franchise that reverses the roles. Why does this one game change the entire cultural impact of the franchise? Princess Zelda has been covered more than adequately by the videos themselves. Sheik is actually especially sexist, as has been pointed out. So Psychonauts was balanced, conclusion?

What about Angel in Borderlands? Iffy at best. On the victim end of the scale, Roland needs to be rescued earlier in that same game[footnote]

Spoiler: Late Borderlands 2 Spoiler

and is killed immediately after Angel

[/footnote], and on the empowered end of the scale you have more empowered women throughout the supporting cast, to say noting of Maya as one of the protagonists. Bioshock? Tenenbaum's the one who saves you near the climax of the game, it's one of the few franchises that indiscriminately use both men and women for enemies, Sofia Lamb is the principle antagonist of the second game, the most powerful enemies in that game (Big Sisters) are universally women, and the 'damsel' you spend that whole game trying to rescue ends up rescuing you and spends the rest of the game probably becoming the most badass character in the franchise[footnote]Elizabeth is more powerful, yes, but she's less action-y[/footnote].

Perhaps Persona 4? Nope. You're rescuing men and women alike without concern for their gender and a good deal of them join your party, including the one who directly invokes the Damsel in Distress stereotypes in the manifestation of her own insecurities. Mass Effect? Suffice to say that the two women you rescue in the first game (Liara and Tali) become bona fide badasses in their own right and go on to become some of the most politically powerful characters in the galaxy (Shadow Broker and an Admiral of the Quarian Fleet). Outside of them, you have the all-female Asari as one of the most powerful races in the galaxy (politically, technologically and physically (by way of biotic combat)), men and women filling all sorts of roles among the background characters and of course there's no discernible difference between MaleShep and FemShep (outside of appearance and voice acting, of course).

Your points may be valid, but what is the conclusion? Are isolated examples enough to argue that the trope is not prevalent? It seems to me you would need a study that is quite a bit more extensive than this. Also note that in videogames, there is a notable difference between main characters and supporting cast, because the agency is markedly different. Furthermore, do games where you can select multiple different protagonists and can play as both genders (Borderlands, Mass Effect) actually tip the scales back in favor of women, or isn't it rather a neutral move that doesn't have an effect?

Heck, Sonic 2006 probably has one of the best examples of a damsel in distress in recent memory, but given Blaze the Cat and Rogue the Bat's roles within the game[footnote]Her own separate issues notwithstanding >_>[/footnote] you'd be hard pressed to derive a gender statement from Elise being a walking rescue mission.

Obviously you would be hard pressed to derive a gender issue from a single game, without even properly differentiating between the story level and the message level. But that doesn't mean that the statement isn't there when you put the game into a bigger picture.

 

[Asita]

Listing examples bucking the trend (to varying degrees), does not negate the trend, especially when it is still prevalent in many, if not most, media. Sarkesian is limiting the scope of her analysis to games, but the problem is societal, and is still a problem in many games. We wouldnt be having this conversation if it wasn't.

I refer you again to what was bolded. "If you only see one portrayal of something since youth, you're unlikely to argue the point, right?" That was an absolute statement. Any exception disproves an absolute. That is the nature of such claims. You might also take from what I said that we suffer from a rather severe case of confirmation bias, especially if we try to view this trope as indicative of greater trends. Simply put, we tend to focus on the distressed character to the expense of both context which might alter that interpretation and surrounding characters that defy it outright in that same work. With this meaning, a pertinent question might be: "Does it really reflect/enforce sexist attitudes for Lili to be kidnapped in a game where the lion's share of the cast - male and female alike - suffers the same fate?" Or "Given the surrounding cast, is it honest to use Angel's death as indicative of the treatment of women in Borderlands? If not, is it fair to use her as if she were indicative of the treatment of women in videogames?"

 

[Specter Von Baren]

When you make videos of the same length and scope then you can tell me how long it "should" take, until then your opinion about her output means less than nothing.

I've seen Let's Players gather more information for no money and in less time than Sarkeesian has done in all of her videos on Youtube. You're damn right her output is factually awful.

Here's just one example.
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLD01274DE2CB2A5AF

He knows about what the team did to make the game, he knows about the inner political struggles in the company, and he knows things about the game like how long it takes for a specific monster to spawn. Pretty impressive for someone doing it with no budget.

Her points seem to be based on sociological trends and analysis. I've seen similar hypotheses in my own research for my degree plenty of times. It's not new information, but it's no less valid now than it was then.

Regardless of what her points are based on, they're poorly made ones. Her hypotheses mean nothing if she can't bring any facts to support them.

 

[Stephen St.]

Would i?
Lets see.
Anita claims to be a gamer - fact
She claims to talk about gaming issues because she has a passion and long experience with gaming - fact
She is not actually a gamer - fact

I claim to be a surgeon - fact
I claim to know whats best in surgery (gaming) based on my passion and long experience with surgery - fact
Im not actually a surgeon - fact

It's funny how you manage to exactly fulfill the definition of a false equivalence, to the (wikipedia-based) letter:

False equivalence is a logical fallacy which describes a situation where there is a logical and apparent equivalence, but when in fact there is none.

Logical and apparent equivalence: check. You demonstrated as much.
Actual equivalence: Nope. A surgeon is a profession who has to undergo very specific training and state-mandated tests, because mistakes will directly affect the health of other humans. Which is why calling yourself a surgeon when you aren't one is a serious offense.
A gamer on the other hand is a person who plays videogames and uses that as a title.

One of the two has very specific knowledge associated with it, that you need to have in order to gain the title. The other has not. So while we have an apparent equivalence, the two situations are actually completely different.

Ehm, no, that's not how it goes, and she's being overly smug about it.

The non-Damsels deserve at least a mention; if only to demonstrate[footnote]Which is different from "Just throwing the sentence in"[/footnote] there are so few of them that the Damsel is actually the prevalent pattern! If she's right, why is she shooting herself in the foot on principles? If she's right, showing the non-Damsels and demonstrating there aren't many of them would speak in her favor.

If the argument is that the DiD is THE prevalent pattern, such proof would probably be necessary. Since that is not what has been said, I think it's fine as it is. You can't disregard evidence by stating that there is potentially even better evidence.

 

[Uhura]

Ehm, no, that's not how it goes, and she's being overly smug about it.

The non-Damsels deserve at least a mention; if only to demonstrate[footnote]Which is different from "Just throwing the sentence in"[/footnote] there are so few of them that the Damsel is actually the prevalent pattern! If she's right, why is she shooting herself in the foot on principles? If she's right, showing the non-Damsels and demonstrating there aren't many of them would speak in her favor.

One of the upcoming trope videos is going to discuss positive female characters. I'm personally happy that she did not explore the topic in her damsel series because the videos were already kinda "losing-my-interest-here" -long. And imo she doesn't sound smug at all... maybe a bit frustrated.

 

[Vegosiux]

If the argument is that the DiD is THE prevalent pattern, such proof would probably be necessary. Since that is not what has been said, I think it's fine as it is. You can't disregard evidence by stating that there is potentially even better evidence.

"You can do better" and "You've done nothing" are two distinctly different statements. Of course, in the world obsessed with competitiveness and the "second place is for losers" mentality, I'm not surprised that the two often get conflated.

Showing that there's a pattern gives no sense of scale. And yes, it is undeniable that there is a distinct pattern of games employing the Damsel trope. But until we see how this pattern looks compared to the medium as a whole, we can't argue about how "big" the issue is. (It's rather big on the AAA scene, actually. If she went on to put in that qualifier, that'd be great. Because the casual/indie scene is definitely suffering a lot less testosterone poisoning than the AAA scene)

One of the upcoming trope videos is going to discuss positive female characters. I'm personally happy that she did not explore the topic in her damsel series because the videos were already kinda "losing-my-interest-here" -long. And imo she doesn't sound smug at all... maybe a bit frustrated.

I am indeed waiting for that one. And seeing as how the second and third part of her DiD presentation were both an improvement over a previous one, I'm actually cautiously optimistic about it. I'm not going to deny she's improving her presentation. She is. But she still has a bit to go. If she can pull it off, that's good. That means the discussion will go to a higher, more serious level.

 

[Stephen St.]

"You can do better" and "You've done nothing" are two distinctly different statements. Of course, in the world obsessed with competitiveness and the "second place is for losers" mentality, I'm not surprised that the two often get conflated.

Showing that there's a pattern gives no sense of scale. And yes, it is undeniable that there is a distinct pattern of games employing the Damsel trope. But until we see how this pattern looks compared to the medium as a whole, we can't argue about how "big" the issue is. (It's rather big on the AAA scene, actually. If she went on to put in that qualifier, that'd be great. Because the casual/indie scene is definitely suffering a lot less testosterone poisoning than the AAA scene)

Oh, you don't actually want to dismiss the evidence? Thats... actually reasonable. You see one comes to always assume the worst in discussions like that.

I don't quite agree that we got not sense of scale. The sample of games wasn't small, and it is already apparent that the pattern is pretty well spread among most AAA titles. I do, however, agree with you that adressing the criticism more directly at AAA titles would probably be more accurate. There are definately ways of improvement for the series.

Honestly, I think that the most important part of the series isn't actually the academic part of the work, which may or may not be impressive. I think what is more important is having someone actually adress the issue with somewhat of a high profile. It opens up the field for others to join the discussion, hopefully without having to deal with quite as much backlash.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Oh, you don't actually want to dismiss the evidence? Thats... actually reasonable. You see one comes to always assume the worst in discussions like that.

Indeed. Cheers, Vegosiux, on an impressively reasonable post in a subject that regularly breeds angry, hyperbolic intransigence.

 

[Vegosiux]

Oh, you don't actually want to dismiss the evidence? Thats... actually reasonable. You see one comes to always assume the worst in discussions like that.

I know, trust me >.>

I don't quite agree that we got not sense of scale. The sample of games wasn't small, and it is already apparent that the pattern is pretty well spread among most AAA titles. I do, however, agree with you that adressing the criticism more directly at AAA titles would probably be more accurate. There are definately ways of improvement for the series.

Not only are there ways, improvements have been made, so while she's not actually addressing criticism, she does seem to at least acknowledge it. If nothing else, I'm willing to give her the benefit of doubt, which is something that after the first video I was not willing to do.

I still have problems with her methodology and presentation. But she has been working on them. I could argue that considering her resources, improvements are very slow, but that's still a lot faster than most other improvements I can think of >.>

Honestly, I think that the most important part of the series isn't actually the academic part of the work, which may or may not be impressive. I think what is more important is having someone actually adress the issue with somewhat of a high profile. It opens up the field for others to join the discussion, hopefully without having to deal with quite as much backlash.

I'd be inclined to agree here. And being a fan of Hanlon's razor, I'm even going to allow the possibility that her attitude towards her series is borne not out of active adversity, but simply from misjudgement. Still, especially in the first video, she asserted herself as "I'm right, this is why, and you're scum if you disagree"[footnote]Bit of a hyperbole.[/footnote] She still seems a bit...partial. If she can take the series to an impartial level, hey, gold star.

Problem is, improving upon her series only means she'll get less legitimate criticism/dismissal, seeing as people who legitimately want to discuss this will be more inclined to consider her points; the trolls are there to stay.

Indeed. Cheers, Vegosiux, on an impressively reasonable post in a subject that regularly breeds angry, hyperbolic intransigence.

Thanks. And yes, I'll be the first one to admit that my initial reaction to her might have been more hostile than warranted. I still stand behind that, though, seeing as I did not know back then what I do know now (two videos later).

 

[generals3]

And what annoys me is people brushing away valid factual statements as "speculation" because they do not agree with some of the conclusions drawn. At the very least, you need to qualify that statement to the effect that the various interactions of games and culture are, currently, very speculative.

On the other hand: Examples of the Tropes: Not speculative. Conclusion that the tropes are prevalent: Not speculation (No, not even if you think the conclusion is wrong). Statement that if anything, the marginalization of women has increased: Not speculation. That is the overwhelming part of the video series that, even should it be proven factually wrong, can certainly not be dismissed as speculation.

Who questioned that the examples of tropes she gave were examples of the tropes?

Secondly: the conclusion the tropes are prevalent? Hah, her methodology does not allow to make such a conclusion. I'm sorry but that one is pure speculation as well. Call me again when she makes a statistical analysis to test the prevalence by using a sample of randomly selected games.

And thirdly: and even if this were to be somehow true the big question would remain: so what? If all her other claims are pure speculation whether or not these tropes are truly prevalent becomes a non-issue. Well... A non-issue on any other level than "the industry is not original".

 

[Vegosiux]

Secondly: conclusion the tropes are prevalent? HAH her methodology does not allow to make such a conclusion. I'm sorry but that one is pure speculation as well. Call me again when she makes a statistical analysis to test the prevalence by using a sample of randomly selected games.

Well, "tropes" are prevalent by definition since they're basically the building blocks of a fictional story. When we talk about a specific trope's prevalence in a storytelling medium, then yes, you have a point, and she really should address this concern.

And thirdly: and even if this were to be somehow true the big question would remain: so what? If all her other claims are pure speculation whether or not these tropes are truly prevalent becomes a non-issue. Well... A non-issue on any other level than "the industry is not original".

Again something that's on her to address, naturally. I know I will listen when/if she does (then get on her case if I notice inconsistencies to be resolved), and I have a feeling you will too.

 

[Zenn3k]

Why hasn't she mentioned more positive female characters in her videos? Maybe this gives you an answer

The answer is much easier and clearer then that.

She doesn't mention positive female characters (outside of that game she talks about that got transformed into StarFox Adventures, she certainly had a major hard-on for that one "Pretty cool right?"), for one of two very simple reasons.

A: It destroys her pre-conceived narrative she's trying to spew to anyone who will listen to her, so she ignores them intentionally to make her point seem stronger.
B: Being she isn't a gamer and obviously has incredibly limited knowledge of the subject material, simply doesn't KNOW they exist.

Both are equally likely.

Its not like the "damsel in distress" trope is exclusive to video games, its exists in every class of literature since the dawn of recorded time. Homer's Iliad has a damsel in distress in the form of Helen of Troy.

Also, she's pretty much exclusively picks on the Mario franchise...again because its likely its the ONLY one she has any form of decent knowledge about, which is made by JAPANESE developers. The Japanese have different views on sexism and women than the western world, this is clear from their anime.

So Anita's video series is basically, complaining about how the Japanese portray women in 1 very specific series of games, without even a SINGLE counter example to how other games treat women. Thats wholeheartedly disingenuous, at BEST.

For the record, my FIRST EVER experience with a female lead was Samus from Metroid, and upon seeing she was a women, my 8 or 9 year old self said "Oh cool, its a girl". Metroid remains one of my favorite series of all time, in part because I like women, so female leads are appealing to me.

 

[runic knight]

The answer is much easier and clearer then that.

She doesn't mention positive female characters (outside of that game she talks about that got transformed into StarFox Adventures, she certainly had a major hard-on for that one "Pretty cool right?"), for one of two very simple reasons.

A: It destroys her pre-conceived narrative she's trying to spew to anyone who will listen to her, so she ignores them intentionally to make her point seem stronger.
B: Being she isn't a gamer and obviously has incredibly limited knowledge of the subject material, simply doesn't KNOW they exist.

Both are equally likely.

Its not like the "damsel in distress" trope is exclusive to video games, its exists in every class of literature since the dawn of recorded time. Homer's Iliad has a damsel in distress in the form of Helen of Troy.

Also, she's pretty much exclusively picks on the Mario franchise...again because its likely its the ONLY one she has any form of decent knowledge about, which is made by JAPANESE developers. The Japanese have different views on sexism and women than the western world, this is clear from their anime.

So Anita's video series is basically, complaining about how the Japanese portray women in 1 very specific series of games, without even a SINGLE counter example to how other games treat women. Thats wholeheartedly disingenuous, at BEST.

For the record, my FIRST EVER experience with a female lead was Samus from Metroid, and upon seeing she was a women, my 8 or 9 year old self said "Oh cool, its a girl". Metroid remains one of my favorite series of all time, because I like women, so female leads are appealing to me.

Trust me when I say no one hates the cancerous personality that it Anita more then me when it comes to video game discussions or discussions on gender representation or participation. That said, this is just missing the point entirely. Like it or not, her initial video said she would find good examples in later issues of the series, so expecting too many of them now is expecting far too much. A better point may have been how she broke her own rules and instead wasted as much time on one trope as she has instead of moving on, or did not offer counter examples of said trope just for clarity sake. Or she did not explain how the trope could be used in a way both fitting with the design and purpose of the games' stories (you know, the player's experience) without doing what she claims the trope has done for disempowerment or whatever else. Not so much good examples, but an explanation of how one could turn current examples into a good one to better show she understood the whole rather then just looking like she scratched the surface looking for things that supported her current worldview already.

The rest, regretfully, reveals you didn't bother to watch the videos. Go, watch the damn things if you actually intend to speak on the subject and don't post again until you actually do. And no, I don't mean turning it on and watching for a minute then getting pissed, but watch and see what her points truly are. Trust me, she is so far gone your viewpoint here will only be justified, but you will look a lot less like you don't know what the hell you are talking about when you try to bring up the history of the trope in other medium (which, she does discuss) or claim she only picks on Peach (which, she doesn't. Though she does go heavily after the mushroom kingdom princess).

Seriously though, there is many good reasons to hate her project and to dislike her as a journalist/researcher. Don't undermine that by being lazy.

 

[Carpenter]

Opened back up due to requests in the Mod Group. (See, we're reasonable people... )

Please try to keep it civil. I'll be letting the other Mods know to keep an eye on this thread.

You poor mods have been having a rough week with the WGDF thread, I don't envy your jobs at all. Especially since now the GTA V review is out and Greg didn't give it a perfect score. I fear your job may be getting harder. D:

OT:

We've already had this thread twice. Both times mods locked them. Its a bullshit argument, and it saddens me that people keep feeling the need to parrot it.

I pretty much agree with what you've said in the first, or was it the second, thread about this, it's a stupid argument in general. I mean personally I don't agree with a lot of what Sarkeesian says, but this is by far one of the pettiest arguments I've seen about her. Now to disappear from this thread because I don't feel like talking about gender issues in games anymore because they clog about as much space on these forums as ME3 threads used to. XD

Love the strawman arguments you people use so often to defend the poor helpless escapist website. People were not chattering because he "didn't give it a perfect score" it's because he gave it a good score but spent the entire review going on and on about one aspect of the game. He barely even mentions the actual gameplay and twice has to use a spoiler warning because he apparently doesn't understand what a review is supposed to be. It's not meant to be read only after you have played the game.


There are plenty of legitimate reasons to hate on Anita, but that doesn't mean this is a "BS argument" just because it's a few years old. A few years is hardly the amount of time it takes to declare yourself a huge fan of gaming. It's pretty obvious at this point that she has no desire to play games but rather a desire to spark outrage and to make money.

She collected all that money for her "work" only to do very little research and take clips from lets players on youtube because she can't be bothered to collect her own footage.