Treblaine said:
700th* post SPECTACULAR. Lets have a summary of all that has been discussed so far:
-It has been established that Ms Sarkeesian's main concern is her hatred of female sexuality being seen by her or anyone.
-It has been established that Ms Sarkeesian holds all gamers and the entire video games industry accountable for the minority who sent hate mail, to spite the support from most gamers, and how every famous person in history has received hate-mail
-It has not been established that there is any inherentproblem with depiction of female sexuality
-It has been established that female sexuality is not at odds with dominance, power or ability to progress the plot
-Females being sexy DOES NOT make them "less of a person" to spite how some might express a prejudice otherwise
-We have established that all segregation is wrong, just as racial segregation is racist, sex segregation is sexist.
-Ms Sarkeesian supports such Segregation
-Ms Sarkeesian doesn't need close to $160'000 for such a project
-Ms Sarkeesian has a critical lack of transparency in her project that takes in a vast amount of money
-Sarkeesian blames sexy adverts for sexual abuse on public transport
-Sarkeesian refuses to address the criticisms against her to spite taking the time to give Trolls attention they do not deserve
-Sex-Negative Prejudice is NOT a form of feminism
-Feminism is about empowering and enabling women, not saying that they can't show their skin.
-Sexy does not mean "sex object". Sex object is defined by how they lack all qualities of agency and only sex, not that there is any sexualisation.
-Sarkeesian is not the first person to ever be subject of a beat-up game, but also the past two MALE Presidents of the United States, that makes this NOT singling out for sexism.
*Ninjad!
Holy fuck you could not be more wrong about ANY of this if you fucking TRIED, dude.
It has been established that Ms Sarkeesian's main concern is her hatred of female sexuality being seen by her or anyone.
What? No. The exploitation of female sexuality and women as sex objects - and despite your uneducated claims, a sex object isn't just a personality-less wall flower; a sex object is any female whose sexuality/appearance is being manipulated for the purpose of appealing the Male Gaze. For instance, when Lara Croft, a (theoretically) well rounded character, stretches and bends over in idle animations, she is a sex object. When Samus breaks out of her power armor into skintight Zero Suit, she is a sex object. When Sakura does her Shououken uppercut and you see her panties, she is a sex object.
There is no evidence whatsoever that Anita Sarkeesian is against female sexuality or its portrayal. At all. Period. She is against its exploitation.
It has been established that Ms Sarkeesian holds all gamers and the entire video games industry accountable for the minority who sent hate mail, to spite the support from most gamers, and how every famous person in history has received hate-mail
And you know what? We all SHOULD be accountable. Videogame culture, from the industry making them, to the people playing them, has SERIOUS problems with its treatment of women (and other minorities too, but that's besides the point). If we do not speak up about it, if we see our fellow gamers saying something that is problematic and don't say anything, even a "hey, that's not cool, dude," then it's on us.
Every famous person in history has received hate-mail, but few received coordinated attempts to silence them before they even have a chance to start talking.
It has not been established that there is any inherent problem with depiction of female sexuality
Is there an INHERENT problem with the depiction of female sexuality? No, of course not. If done correctly it should be just fine. The problem is that videogames overwhelmingly do not portray or depict it well. Ask yourself this: are the (largely male) designers dealing with aspects of female sexuality to round out their female characters or make them seem more human, or are they depicting it to titillate their (largely male) audience? Overwhelmingly, the answer is the latter.
Again, there is no problem with the use of female sexuality in fiction, and Sarkeesian is not arguing that, nor would pretty much any sex-positive feminist of the current wave. The problem is A.) the reasons and B.) the execution thereof.
It has been established that female sexuality is not at odds with dominance, power or ability to progress the plot
In theory, yes, this is correct. There are even examples where this is true in gaming. However, gamers and game creators frequently insert one in the place of the other. Do all game creators do this? No. Do many, if not most? God yes.
If you ask a male gamer who grew up in the 90s what his fondest memory of Lara Croft is, 9 times out of 10 it isn't going to be her character arc.
Females being sexy DOES NOT make them "less of a person" to spite how some might express a prejudice otherwise
True. What does make them less of a person is that their presence in a game, and their being sexy, has everything to do with them *being made to be sexy to titillate a male audience.* These aren't women who woke up and decided to wear a low-cut blouse and short skirt because they felt like being sexy today - a perfectly valid choice for any woman! - but because they were designed that way by (again, usually male) designers to appeal to an (again, usually male) audience.
There are even elements of this with characters who ARE fleshed out and fully realized. In FF10, does Lulu wear a dress that's barely held onto her boobs by tape because she lives in a tropical environment and wants to remain cool? (Judging by the rest of the fur dress), not at all. She has that impossible neckline because HEY BOOBS.
We have established that all segregation is wrong, just as racial segregation is racist, sex segregation is sexist.
Providing an optional safe space for women is not segregation. If it were "all men in this car, all women in this car," then that would be segregation. Women can still go into the mixed-gender cars, but there is now an option for women who don't want to have to deal with the fear of getting groped.
(And your other "solutions" are unworkable at best. Have you ever seen a Japanese subway car at rush hour? There's barely any room to move, you're packed in there so tight. It's impossible to tell whose hand that is on your thigh, so it's impossible to accuse or prosecute. Ultimately, the end goal is to raise a male population who doesn't do these things, but in the decades up to that, this is a sadly necessary stopgap.)
Ms Sarkeesian supports such Segregation
She supports safe spaces for women. Not segregation. Is she advocating for women-only movie theaters, restaurants, water fountains, etc? No, she is advocating for women to have a safe space *IN AN ENVIRONMENT WHICH IS CONDUCIVE TO THEM BEING SEXUALLY HARASSED.* Your appropriation of the term "segregation" is not only completely off base, it is grossly offensive to anyone with even a cursory understanding of history.
Or is providing a shelter for abused/battered women (and not men) segregation too?
Ms Sarkeesian doesn't need close to $160'000 for such a project
She asked for 6,000, which, if you've read stuff posted by some of the LRR guys or MovieBob on this very site, is actually pretty appropriate for a professional-quality web series of that length. SOME people do it for free, yes, just like SOME people write hundreds of pages of fan fiction for free online. Does that mean that novelists should stop seeking money for their work? No.
Perhaps she wants a better camera or better software. Perhaps she wants to rent an actual studio space. Perhaps she wants better lighting. Perhaps she wants to do actual interviews or pay for costly academic materials. There are a thousand things she could be spending the money on.
(Also, again, if you've actually paid attention to her posts and updates, you know that they're still trying to figure out what to do with all the money, but a large portion of it will now be going into creating a school curriculum for this sort of thing, which isn't inexpensive).
People GAVE HER the $160k knowing fully well the project was funded.
Ms Sarkeesian has a critical lack of transparency in her project that takes in a vast amount of money
BZZZT. She has constantly along the way talked about the stretch goals, et cetera. Beyond that, she has been no more "critically" untransparent than any other kickstarter. She has, however, told us what the money is being used for [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/6.379179.14861578] - at least, up until the point where she got way more than she could have wildly imagined, and is now trying to figure that out.
How is this any different from, say, writer Seth Godin asking for $40k for his new book [http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/297519465/the-icarus-deception-why-make-art-new-from-seth-go], and taking in over $267k? Where is the outrage over RAWH WHERE IS THE TRANSPARENCY THIS IS A SCAM!!!
There is none. Because he's not a woman criticizing (some aspect of) a male dominated industry and culture.
Sarkeesian blames sexy adverts for sexual abuse on public transport
No, she blames sexy advertisements for creating a culture that encourages men to view women as objects, rather than people. And interestingly, studies show just this [http://www.livescience.com/20318-sexy-women-ads-objects.html] - a woman in her underwear is seen as an object, a man in his underwear is seen by both genders as a person. This, in turn, supports a society in which men are more comfortable sexually harassing or abusing women because it's easier for them to not see them as people.
Sarkeesian refuses to address the criticisms against her to spite taking the time to give Trolls attention they do not deserve
Wheat from the chaff. There's literally so much noise being thrown in her direction right now, I don't blame her. And given that much of the criticisms seem to have a sexist bent anyway...
Sex-Negative Prejudice is NOT a form of feminism
Modern feminism, probably not, but sex-negativism was indeed a part of classic feminism. It's irrelevant, since I have never seen anything indicating Anita Sarkeesian as sex-negative.
Feminism is about empowering and enabling women, not saying that they can't show their skin.
Agreed. If these characters were real life people, then you would have a point. But they are not. They are being designed (usually by men, or at the direction of men) and placed into situations (again, usually by / at the direction of men) to appeal to a MALE audience. There are certainly indications of the empowering of female sexuality in games, but they are few and far between. For the most part, it's all about the sex appeal to men.
Sexy does not mean "sex object". Sex object is defined by how they lack all qualities of agency and only sex, not that there is any sexualisation.
You don't actually know what a sex object is, got it.
Sarkeesian is not the first person to ever be subject of a beat-up game, but also the past two MALE Presidents of the United States, that makes this NOT singling out for sexism.
And yet, men have not been subject to a long history at violence and oppression at the hands of women. Men do not have a long history of being threatened by violence to shut their mouths and get back in the kitchen. There is a very real contextual history of violence being used to silence and control women, and you are willfully ignoring it.
In other words, please stop. Your ignorance and privilege have been showing all through this thread, and I literally can't take it anymore.
The only person who thinks that this has all been "ESTABLISHED" is you.
