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

[SuperScrub]

And if you look to your left, you'll see the White Heterosexual Cisgendered Male or as I like to call them W.H.C.Ms using a classic example of the ad hominem attack in an order to stop the wild feminist from taking his games away, of course what he doesn't know is that the wild feminist actually has no intention of taking his games away and that she's only interested in giving an opinion on it, but the zookeepers generally agree it's more fun to watch him pointlessly argue his weak points like a cry baby who got his ice cream taken away. So anyway let's go people this zoo's going to be closed in a while because the W.H.C.Ms are starting to kick up quite the fuss.

 

[kaioshade]

The strange thing is, in her videos she flat out says video games are not all inherently evil, and there is not a room full of guys plotting to make their games as sexist as possible. You can enjoy a medium and still be critical about it. THAT point i agree with 100%.

She is not trying to shut gaming down or take them away from people, she is just trying (albeit somewhat incorrectly) to elevate the medium by bringing attention to some of the possible (even if unintended) sexist themes that can exist in games. And that is not a bad thing.

 

[Lunar Templar]

Anyone else find the use of a 2 year old comment rather, sad.

things like opinions can change in 2 years ya know.

Sides, if you don't like her, do what I do, ignore her.

 

[K12]

The motivations of somebody's arguments don't detract (or add to) their validity.

If she has decided to pretend to be a gaming fan to avoid the reactionary "well she would say that she doesn't even like games" comments then that's not a big deal. Either that or her opinion hasn't been consistent over time or with different audiences.

The fact that this is being made a deal of shows that pretending to be a gamer may be a necessary tactic for someone who wanted to tackle a aspect of pop-culture with some problems regarding female friendliness.

 

[sweetylnumb]

Everyone trying to discredit her is just proving her point that gamer's are entitled and bigoted. Yeah, she might not be entirely honest about her past. Yeah, she might not be a "real" gamer. That in no way makes anything she says about gaming incorrect nor should it prevent her talking about it. It just makes her dishonest. That's all.

And everyone lording this as the savior of the safe male space that is modern gaming should shut their mouths. This is not even news, everyone already knows she didn't actually play the games she shows.

 

[A-D.]

Well..i cant believe im doing this but..i am actually gonna post here.

The Video? It tells me nothing. I dont need her to say she "does" or "doesnt" like videogames, or whether she considers herself a gamer to begin with. She is not a gamer, not a hardcore one at least. And i use hardcore in this context with "growing up" with games, literally. She is claiming to be an expert, boasting a large library funded by the kickstarter money, the first question that has to instantly pop up into your head should be "Why does she need to buy all those games?". I mean take your average youtuber, or take a bit more "prominent" ones, reviewers, lets players, whatever. They all share the hobby of gaming, they boast a large library to some extent without having to go buy them for a "study". If she was an expert on games to begin with, or it was her hobby in any serious way, she'd have a large enough library to cite countless examples without the need to actually buy any for a while, or at least not use the kickstarter cash for it.

It is obvious that gaming is not a big hobby, she may have played games, she might have only played a certain type of game, but that should disqualify her from making any claims to what she is doing, i.e. a series about tropes, their usage and the industry in which these games are made. She lacks the context of the games she has to play to give specific examples. I mean if we look at Mario superficially, its about a dude in red who eats mushrooms, plants and stars, saves a princess and throws a giant lizard into lava by jumping onto an axe. The princess is obviously a damsel, you saving her means she had to be saved, tada, damsel in distress. You dont need to play the game to see it, but playing the game might also give insight into WHY she needs to be saved, what she is saved from, the entire motivation behind the character. Of course using mario as a example doesnt work there since it really is archetypical hero saves princess, but other games that pull this? The Zelda series for example? Thats a whole different story there and varies depending on the game you use as example.

In short it is clear that she is not really a gamer in the sense that gaming is not her hobby. She has not spent the amount of time in these fictional worlds as others have who are by definition more knowledgeable on the subject of why game X uses trope Y and why it matters there. All she does is look at games, plays a bit or looks just at footage and then goes to tvtropes to find the right trope that fits the game and some kind of sexist undertone, whether it applies or not. I mean if you really want to, you can find something sexist about an apple, yes the fruit, you might have to bend logic a little but im fairly certain that you could come up with a argument as to why the apple is sexist eventually. So the problem is, either confirmation bias, in that she looks at a sexist trope and then cites examples that prove it, even if they might not (Zelda..). Or she is simply lazy in that she merely looks at a plot synopsis or a short footage of beginning and end of some game and then labels them with a trope, which is by itself just lazy.

In short, her opinion should not matter because it is evidently clear that gaming is not her hobby, therefore her expertise, or lack thereof, or opinion on the state of the industry should be considered suspect at best.

And before someone goes "but you just want to detract"..no, i dont. I dont see the problem of mysoginy or sexism in gaming, in the community? Oh yes, but blaming games doesnt solve that. It is fact that gaming has been dominated by males for most of its history, gamers were male, developers were mostly male, the community has a large amount of males in it, so you are obviously going to find the view skewed to one side right away. Does sexism exist within the gaming community? Oh yes it does, but are games at fault for it? Are the developers? Are tropes, some random thing we apply a name to somehow at fault for doing this? Not really. Look at the idea of feminism and how long it took them to get..anywhere, get voting rights for women, equal opportunities in the workplace and so forth and then come back and tell me how a medium that has at best existed for 30-40 years should be all equal right now, when it took way longer than that for our societies to get even anywhere close. She demands results now, rather than just trying to educate the community at large in a better, constructive way to include the female element into our hobby.

 

[michael87cn]

This lady obviously scammed people out of money, and it is all a performance in my opinion.

Personally, I don't really care. The world is full of people that do ridiculous things to make money, she got rich basically, so good for her.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

Around the same time social networking became such a huge thing would be my guess. I have mentioned this before, but the kind of negative behaviour we see amongst gamers online is by no means exclusive and I cannot help but think that they must have some kind of common cause.

After all, we get people sending threats to developers for changing a weapons firing rate and women threatening to be raped for suggesting that British currency should have a woman (other than the Queen) on it. It seems that on the internet it doesn't really matter who or where you are, you will find people like this.

I also suspect the fact that developers are now so personally tied with the gaming community a lot of it comes down to a sense of self entitlement. One of the worst communities for fans making demands and going berserk when their personal tastes are not met are fans of Bioware, and they are also the company that seems to have the closest ties with their fan-base.

It's kind of like "The more you get given, the more you expect to be given". If developers had remained silent and merely made their games like they did before the internet became so common a place to discuss things, we might see less people thinking their opinions are something that "should" be listened to.

The anonymity also certainly doesn't help either. A person can rant and rave as much as they like online but they can easily avoid consequences for their behaviour. Once they log off the site they can put it out of their mind so for many people they don't really care how many others they piss off or upset.

No... they're really not. They're bitching about her because she's a delusional quasi-feminist with no arguments of her own, inventing problems where no problems exist and trying to claim that every female in every video game ever is a negative stereotype for one reason or an other, even when they clearly are not. She defeats her own arguments just fine without outside help.

The only thing that will "solve" the problem of females in games not being represented more evenly will be more female developers making games. There are already a fair amount, and more will come in time. We know they can do it, and even great titles like Portal came from them. They don't need affirmative action, they just need to shut the hell up and make some great games, and it won't be a problem anymore. Trying to force people to stop producing what they produce is counterproductive; only by broadening the horizons of gamers and publishers alike by introducing more, successful games with great female characters crafted by great female designers will "fix the industry." Forcing a male-dominated industry to arbitrarily include 50% more female dialog or 50% less breast physics will only hurt the games that already exist, not introduce anything new or groundbreaking for female equality.

If Anita gave even half a shit, she'd spend the money she gouged out of retarded kickstarter people and use it to fund a game with a strong female protagonist just to show the world it can be done (you know, because she ignores all the times it's already been done; they're all damsels in distress or some other negative stereotype, even when they're strong, smart, capable and independent).

Well, I think I would actually say that it was wrong. Just because you broke no law does not mean you are faultless. After all, it is not illegal to be a jackass but that doesn't make it right.

That said, I do think tacky is the word to describe it. If I had a friend who did the same thing I would tell them to stop being a jackass and give credit where it is deserved, but it wouldn't be a big thing.

As for the original topic, I really don't care about Anita. I have watched one of her videos and I wasn't really impressed at her arguments, but whatever. If she wants to say things on the internet then she should go right ahead.

But if she was claiming that she was a life long gamer and is not then there is a bit of a problem there. In fact, I would say there are two big problems there.

The first is the more important one: When Anita made her kickstarter she made the basic claim that she is both an expert on video games and on issues of feminism. She asked for money so she could do what she is doing now. To establish her expertise she made certain claims about herself being a gamer. If, in fact, she is not an expert on video games, if her claim was false, then she is basically a con artist. She lied in order to get money from people.

That is IF she lied. I really don't care enough to comb through her history to find out if she lied, but I did check out her kickstarter and she never claimed to be a life long gamer. She only claimed to be a gamer. It is possible that, if she really isn't part of the gaming community at large, she did not understand the connotations that "gamer" has. She may have thought along the lines of "I play games, therefore I am a gamer" and did not understand that to the gaming community "gamer" means much more than simply a person who plays games. It is equally possible that she was not a life long gamer but had really gotten into the scene over a two year period (easily enough time to go from non gamer to hardcore gamer.)

Last of all, if she ever did claim to be a life long gamer it is still possible that she simply did not understand what that means to the gaming community. Within the community "life long gamer" implies a life style and a huge background knowledge in gaming. An outsider is unlikely to understand this and the claim may have been made in good faith without fully understanding the implication.

The second problem is how this impacts her credibility and the legitimacy of the views she expresses in her videos. And before anyone says that this is an ad hominem argument, lets actually think about that. The issues of feminism and how it relates to gaming are highly subjective. There are no direct measurements that can be made to determine if a work is sexist and why. It is something that must be determined by a judgement call. And while anyone can make that judgement call only an expert can make the judgement call with authority. She can make all the arguments she wants but each piece of evidence she presents again comes down to another judgement call.

If I remember correctly the first video she made was about the damsel in distress trope. The question centered around this trope is if it is sexist for a man to save a woman from danger. Obviously it is not always sexist for this to happen, so Anita looks for specific examples and makes a series of judgement calls. She has arguments, but even her evidence always boils down to her making a judgement call based on the authority that her status as an expert grants her. Her status as an expert is the basis for her entire argument. Or at least it is the basis of why she should be taken any more seriously than, for example, any random 4chan poster.

Since Anita is claiming expert authority, calling into question the truth of that claim is a legitimate counterpoint to her arguments. If, in fact, Anita is not a gamer then it greatly weakens her claim as an expert.

It is like an expert witness in a legal situation. Sometimes an expert witness is called and a claim is made based on their authority as an expert. For example, an expert witness may be used to establish that a defendant is insane. The expert may cite sources, give evidence, etc. but ultimately in a case like establishing insanity it comes down to a person making a judgement call based on their authority as an expert. In this situation an attempt to prove the individual is not an expert is not an ad hominem argument because the legitimacy of the expert is the basis of the evidence presented.

TLDR:

"Anita is a ****, this is why..." is ad hominem.

"Anita is not an expert, this is why..." is not ad hominem.

Since I'm tired of constantly arguing against people over this to no avail. I'm going to try something different for this one and instead point out comments that I like, rather than ones that I don't.

I do have some thoughts though. This topic is not one made to be "THIS ONE THING PROVES THAT SARKEESIAN IS BAD" it's just one more thing for her detractors to find fault in. The people that know of this info should have stayed quiet and waited until Sarkeesian was relevant to a topic again to bring it up. However, the people on the other side need to understand that this is not, as I said, an argument of "THIS ONE THING PROVES THAT SARKEESIAN IS BAD", it's just another bit to "add to the arsenal" as it were.

My other thought was this. Do we respect each other? I was thinking about how I consider Rebel Raven to be someone I can respect despite arguing on the opposite side of me often in this debate. I haven't ever really tussled with them in this debate either, I've actually avoided doing it because I don't want to get into an argument with someone I respect.

And that got me to thinking, as I said above... do we respect each other? Would these debates and arguments go better if we actually respected one another? If we considered each other to be someone we don't want to needlessly get angry with because we respect their thoughts and feelings, would these debates go better? If we respected each other then maybe we'd all stop and think about whether or not the other person had a point because we'd believe that there has to be a good reason that someone I respect would have a different opinion than me.

I think Legion got it right, anonymity is the main cause of our strife.

 

[Kaendris]

My other thought was this. Do we respect each other? I was thinking about how I consider Rebel Raven to be someone I can respect despite arguing on the opposite side of me often in this debate. I haven't ever really tussled with them in this debate either, I've actually avoided doing it because I don't want to get into an argument with someone I respect.

And that got me to thinking, as I said above... do we respect each other? Would these debates and arguments go better if we actually respected one another? If we considered each other to be someone we don't want to needlessly get angry with because we respect their thoughts and feelings, would these debates go better? If we respected each other then maybe we'd all stop and think about whether or not the other person had a point because we'd believe that there has to be a good reason that someone I respect would have a different opinion than me.

I think Legion got it right, anonymity is the main cause of our strife.

I am new here, so what the heck, I will wager an answer.

These will be short, but do not take that as a sign that I think your questions are somehow easy, or invalid, because that is far from the truth. They are going to be sort answers because these questions are more abstract and qualitative in nature, and as such can be answered succinctly.

No, we do not respect each other. At least, not everyone for everyone. Why? Anonymity. As you have pointed out, and has been declared over countless discussions preceding this time and place, anonymity frees an individual of consequence for social transgression. I could explain this further, but I feel I do not need to, as your post leads me to believe you can easily understand the concept. We may respect one or two, here or there, but on the whole.... no.

Would the conversations go better? Yes, and no. Yes they would be more polite, and more reasoned, but it is also my belief that sometimes aggressive discussion can lead to positive discourse. Simply stated, in too polite a society, no one says what is on their mind, out of fear of doing harm.

Full respect within a community, for the community, does not exist, and it may never be possible. The addition of anonymity makes this even less likely. We respect those we find deserving, and the rest we tolerate, until the time comes when we can not.

 

[Mrkillhappy]

Just going to leave this here.

Seriously how many variations of this thread are there going to be today can't people just stop talking about Sarkesian.

OT: Do you really believe that a person can't become a gamer in the span of three years is that such a hard statement to believe.

I think Anita hits a nerve with a lot of gamers, especially the way she presents some things in her videos. It comes off as very hostile and "bitchy" at times. I do not like the tone she has in her videos, and i think some of her points are outright incorrect. However i have watched every single video, and i can appreciate what she is TRYING to do. The discussion and subject need to be tackled, i do not think she is the right person to do it, but at the moment she is better than nothing.

You do not necessarily have to LOVE a subject to speak about it. I do hope some of her next few videos are a bit better researched, because her first few videos have not had a lot to them, except a list of examples, and not really delving into the details of them, which is something i would like to see done.

Captha: Smelling Salt. How amusing and strangely fitting.

I think you hit the nail on the head with your statement of her tone passably being why some gamers freaked out.

*note I don't necessarily agree with her points as more then a few youtubers have pointed out flaws in her examples*

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

It doesn't really discredit any of her arguments, it just makes her a bit more... desagradable.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

My other thought was this. Do we respect each other? I was thinking about how I consider Rebel Raven to be someone I can respect despite arguing on the opposite side of me often in this debate. I haven't ever really tussled with them in this debate either, I've actually avoided doing it because I don't want to get into an argument with someone I respect.

And that got me to thinking, as I said above... do we respect each other? Would these debates and arguments go better if we actually respected one another? If we considered each other to be someone we don't want to needlessly get angry with because we respect their thoughts and feelings, would these debates go better? If we respected each other then maybe we'd all stop and think about whether or not the other person had a point because we'd believe that there has to be a good reason that someone I respect would have a different opinion than me.

I think Legion got it right, anonymity is the main cause of our strife.

I am new here, so what the heck, I will wager an answer.

These will be short, but do not take that as a sign that I think your questions are somehow easy, or invalid, because that is far from the truth. They are going to be sort answers because these questions are more abstract and qualitative in nature, and as such can be answered succinctly.

No, we do not respect each other. At least, not everyone for everyone. Why? Anonymity. As you have pointed out, and has been declared over countless discussions preceding this time and place, anonymity frees an individual of consequence for social transgression. I could explain this further, but I feel I do not need to, as your post leads me to believe you can easily understand the concept. We may respect one or two, here or there, but on the whole.... no.

Would the conversations go better? Yes, and no. Yes they would be more polite, and more reasoned, but it is also my belief that sometimes aggressive discussion can lead to positive discourse. Simply stated, in too polite a society, no one says what is on their mind, out of fear of doing harm.

Full respect within a community, for the community, does not exist, and it may never be possible. The addition of anonymity makes this even less likely. We respect those we find deserving, and the rest we tolerate, until the time comes when we can not.

(Nods) A good observation, and indeed, if someone is too worried about upsetting someone, then they might not bring something up even if it were the best thing to do.

 

[MorphingDragon]

Edit: And "valid concern", what the hell? This isn't a matter of national security for Christ's sake.

She undermines whatever legitimate complaints feminists could have with games, especially when a lot of them were relying on her for a place to start discussion.

 

[newwiseman]

...wwwhhhhhyyyyyyy do you people give a fuck what one person on Youtube thinks???? This woman has the same amount of actual clout as Lindsay Ellis* or Douglas Walker. No one cares what she says except for the folks that get so threatened by her, and the people that give her money.

*On a unrelated note, turns out these two have formed a friendship.

I mean I'm almost sounding borderline trollish, but why do you people care about this one woman and her views bias or unbiased? It's like getting ticked off at something Mark Levin or Rush Limbaugh says on the radio. It doesn't amount to anything, doesn't change anything, she accomplishes really nothing.

I still say to this day, Anita knows already what she doesn't like about video games. Instead of critically analyzing them, SHE SHOULD MAKE HER OWN. You can't change things outside the system, you gotta be apart of it, then you can try to influence it. fuck

The main difference I see between A.S. and other critics like Lindsay Ellis, Douglas Walker, MovieBob, or Yahtzee is their videos are opinions on specific sources in limited scope ie. a video, weird event, or game. Anita's approach is like criticizing all of film by pointing out the worst they have to offer. She is making an opinion beforehand, then finding specific examples to support her claim; using this "cherry-picking" approach you could "support" an opinion on anything, even if all you have as "evidence" is a few seconds long clip removed from context. /ironic sarcasm targeted at OP not intended, I swear...

If Lindsay Ellis said all young adult paranormal romance is trash, I imagine she would get the same treatment. Instead Lindsay and the rest of team NChick have called out specific examples of paranormal romance as trash while simultaneously defending the genre and criticizing the genre as having a lot of trite garbage; the whole 50 shades of Cthulhu subversion is a prime example, being trite as a form of parody and creating an event as a means of cultural satire, with a possible revenue stream as a reward for the effort.

*edit and semi-off topic: The backlash Serra Elinsen has received from the Lovecraft fans has some amazing parallels to Anita Sarkeesian.

I could draw the conclusion, as many have, that Anita is a B*, misrepresenting herself as a means to attack a gaming subculture, but she seems more intelligent than that, even if her content isn't. I wouldn't be surprised if it's revealed someday that all of this was a subversion on her part, calling out games in a shill manner as a means of drawing out all the immature juvenile behavior that she actually wants to criticize... either way the only valid response is to ignore her; or, if that is too hard, only point out when she states as fact something that is false; this means NOT ATTACKING her opinions.

As for the last bit about her making a game. There is an old saying, "Those who can't do, teach," but having spent a few years working with educators I've learned of another saying that follows, "Those who can't teach, complain". If there is one thing the world has taught me, it is that there is no shortage of people willing to complain, and an obscene amount of money in making yourself a victim through such behavior. Rush Limbaugh is an excellent example of someone who has made a lot of money by complaining and playing a victim under attack.

Now, having spent the day remembering who Anita Sarkeesian is, I will forget about her. At least until the next time she stirs the pot and makes the insecure "gamers" feel threatened.

*sigh, stuff like this is why I'm a misanthrope.

 

[Laser Priest]

Anita Sarkeesian is a false flag operation to steal are guns.

Next Week: Anita Sarkeesian is an Illuminati plug from Mars sent to destroy gaming from the inside by causing a bunch of self-proclaimed "gamers" to have brain aneurysms.

But seriously, I don't care if she plays the games or not, even considering that she probably does considering that three years is more than enough time to get into video games. Really, I don't even care about her opinion. Not that I disagree with her, necessarily. But I am getting a lot of fun out of it and all the people having mental breakdowns over the fact that she is so daring as to suggest that maybe games aren't perfect.

 

[Signa]

I sort of wonder when this happened. There was no definitive tipping point in gamer culture that I can see, but it went from a hobby to something everyone had to RAAAAAAEG about and it mystifies me. I mean, it's not like I've never been upset or angry (I'm not perfect), but man, the vitriol that goes out from the community to just about everyone: devs/pubs, other gamers, non-gamers, the media....

I noticed it around the time gaming went mainstream. So about 2002 or so. Really, I could probably point at the first Xbox and Halo as being one of the earliest games that really caught the asshole frat-boys as part of the subculture.

 

[wetnap]

...wwwhhhhhyyyyyyy do you people give a fuck what one person on Youtube thinks???? This woman has the same amount of actual clout as Lindsay Ellis* or Douglas Walker. No one cares what she says except for the folks that get so threatened by her, and the people that give her money.

*On a unrelated note, turns out these two have formed a friendship.

I mean I'm almost sounding borderline trollish, but why do you people care about this one woman and her views bias or unbiased? It's like getting ticked off at something Mark Levin or Rush Limbaugh says on the radio. It doesn't amount to anything, doesn't change anything, she accomplishes really nothing.

I still say to this day, Anita knows already what she doesn't like about video games. Instead of critically analyzing them, SHE SHOULD MAKE HER OWN. You can't change things outside the system, you gotta be apart of it, then you can try to influence it. fuck

The main difference I see between A.S. and other critics like Lindsay Ellis, Douglas Walker, MovieBob, or Yahtzee is their videos are opinions on specific sources in limited scope ie. a video, weird event, or game. Anita's approach is like criticizing all of film by pointing out the worst they have to offer. She is making an opinion beforehand, then finding specific examples to support her claim; using this "cherry-picking" approach you could "support" an opinion on anything, even if all you have as "evidence" is a few seconds long clip removed from context. /ironic sarcasm targeted at OP not intended, I swear...

If Lindsay Ellis said all young adult paranormal romance is trash, I imagine she would get the same treatment. Instead Lindsay and the rest of team NChick have called out specific examples of paranormal romance as trash while simultaneously defending the genre and criticizing the genre as having a lot of trite garbage; the whole 50 shades of Cthulhu subversion is a prime example, being trite as a form of parody and creating an event as a means of cultural satire, with a possible revenue stream as a reward for the effort.

*edit and semi-off topic: The backlash Serra Elinsen has received from the Lovecraft fans has some amazing parallels to Anita Sarkeesian.

I could draw the conclusion, as many have, that Anita is a B*, misrepresenting herself as a means to attack a gaming subculture, but she seems more intelligent than that, even if her content isn't. I wouldn't be surprised if it's revealed someday that all of this was a subversion on her part, calling out games in a shill manner as a means of drawing out all the immature juvenile behavior that she actually wants to criticize... either way the only valid response is to ignore her; or, if that is too hard, only point out when she states as fact something that is false; this means NOT ATTACKING her opinions.

As for the last bit about her making a game. There is an old saying, "Those who can't do, teach," but having spent a few years working with educators I've learned of another saying that follows, "Those who can't teach, complain". If there is one thing the world has taught me, it is that there is no shortage of people willing to complain, and an obscene amount of money in making yourself a victim through such behavior. Rush Limbaugh is an excellent example of someone who has made a lot of money by complaining and playing a victim under attack.

Now, having spent the day remembering who Anita Sarkeesian is, I will forget about her. At least until the next time she stirs the pot and makes the insecure "gamers" feel threatened.

*sigh, stuff like this is why I'm a misanthrope.

Yea basically she cherry picks evidence to make broad generalizations that aren't actually supported by evidence. She's the new Jack Thompson of video games, just remixed as a self proclaimed feminist.

Jack was all about how video games were murder simulators corrupting the minds of the youth. Both of them work from the principle of correlation is causation. After all if she's going to claim that princesses in games affects girls in real life, I guess murder simulators will make us...murderers irl?

But yes its clear women like her have learned the lesson of the womens basketball league. Its easier to just complain, because if test things in reality, like with the womens basketball league, and it fails, it tells you an awful answer you cannot acknowledge or deal with. You'll note that since that failure, its like the womens groups never pushed for such a thing, its like it never happened. Its why women like anita don't make games for other women modeled around their criticisms, they know it will fail. After all there are countless wealthy women out there now, happy to donate millions to all sorts of causes, yet funding game development targeting women seems to have no takers. If the assumptions by the anitas of the world are correct, and its only angry misogynist geeks and sexist tropes keeping women away from video games, then there are literally billions of dollars to be made from this untapped market. The total world market of video games is already closing on a hundred billion in revenue, if say just 20% more women started buying video games that would be a huge amount of profit to turn away from, yet there are no takers, its quite odd don't you think

 

[kklawm]

This thread should be locked, that she does/doesn't love gaming... who cares???

She could have said she hates anchovies and all of a sudden she does a video on the health benefits and delicious taste of anchovies, she's suddenly a monster!

People need to separate the person from the content. Also need to stop character assassinating people. I don't even know who she is, everything I know of her is from multiple threads trying to kill her character. Well at least you're free advertisement...