Hypocrisy on my part?

[IPunchWithMyFists]

So I don't like Anita Sarkeesian much. She hated on Ico, a favorite of mine, she makes gobs of money talking too much about my least favorite subject and every once and a while, she eclipses all the interesting or insightful gaming discussion just because everyone else shares my bile and has to vent. She even took over my 'The Big Picture', the highlight of my week. The only thing I could imagine being worse would be if Bob spent two weeks talking about my least favorite movie of all time, Sucker Punch.

But I've never watched one of her videos.

Should I watch one before I judge so harshly or what?

 

[DugMachine]

Well it would only make sense to watch a few before you start hating.

She really does suck though and her videos are shite.

 

[Amethyst Wind]

Yeah, you should.

Firsthand experience is always better (suck it theoretical physicists!)

I haven't read the Twilight books or watched the films so I don't hate on Twilight like the rest of the internet, I haven't experienced the books so I don't know what I'm talking about, I'm working on hearsay, which is shaky ground at the best of times.

 

[Colour Scientist]

So, do you hate her or do you hate the hype surrounding her? There's a difference.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

Should I watch one before I judge so harshly or what?

Why don't you read/watch what she's actually capable of before you slag her on a forum? Being uninformed is worse than hypocrisy, because hypocrisy doesn't invalidate your arguments. Not knowing what you're talking about? That's much, much worse.

Here's an article she co-authored comparing Buffy The Vampire Slayer to Twilight. If it had anyone else's name attached to it, I'm sure you'd immediately love it.
http://www.feministfrequency.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/fanpires-buffyvsbella-web.pdf

 

[Scrustle]

You can hate her without seeing her videos. It's not like you don't know anything about her. You know what she's doing and what she's about.

I didn't read the thing about what she said about Ico, but I get the feeling she was just picking on that game to get attention. That's pretty much the reason she's done everything she's done. She saw that Ico is a well loved classic so she knew it would get attention to single it out, even though there are far worse examples of sexism in games. She knew that it would get people riled up. If she really is seriously saying that Ico is sexist then I think that's kind of missing the point, but that seems typical of her work. I've seen a few of her videos and she seems to be the feminist equivalent of this little guy:

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

If she really is seriously saying that Ico is sexist then I think that's kind of missing the point, but that seems typical of her work.

How do you know she's missing the point if you admitted you have put no effort into learning what her point is?

Amazing.

 

[Zaik]

No it's not, it isn't even close?

You'd be a hypocrite if you conned people into dumping money into a kickstarter playing off recent political correctness controversy where you make youtube quality videos using freely available information to tell people what they already know, and THEN said Sarkeesian was a bad person for conning people into dumping money into a kickstarter playing off recent political correctness controversy where she makes youtube quality videos using freely available information to tell people what they already know.

What you are doing is being judgemental(using past behavior to predict future behavior), which is either intelligence at work or the worst thing everrrr depending on if you ask a rational human being or a 15 year old girl.

 

[Scrustle]

If she really is seriously saying that Ico is sexist then I think that's kind of missing the point, but that seems typical of her work.

How do you know she's missing the point if you admitted you have put no effort into learning what her point is?

Amazing.

Well I actually just went and read it, and while reading it I remembered I actually had seen it before. What she'd said was so completely without substance I completely forgot she said it. Her point is pretty much summed up in the sentence "Ico is sexist" anyway, so I didn't even need to.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

If she really is seriously saying that Ico is sexist then I think that's kind of missing the point, but that seems typical of her work.

How do you know she's missing the point if you admitted you have put no effort into learning what her point is?

Amazing.

Well I actually just went and read it, and while reading it I remembered I actually had seen it before. What she'd said was so completely without substance I completely forgot she said it. Her point is pretty much summed up in the sentence "Ico is sexist" anyway, so I didn't even need to.

Trick question, buddy. It'll be in her video. You can't know that she's 'missed the point' until she releases said video. Do everyone a favor and keep your rageboner in your pants until it's released.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

So I don't like Anita Sarkeesian much. She hated on Ico, a favorite of mine, she makes gobs of money talking too much about my least favorite subject and every once and a while, she eclipses all the interesting or insightful gaming discussion just because everyone else shares my bile and has to vent. She even took over my 'The Big Picture', the highlight of my week. The only thing I could imagine being worse would be if Bob spent two weeks talking about my least favorite movie of all time, Sucker Punch.

But I've never watched one of her videos.

Should I watch one before I judge so harshly or what?

No, you are not a hypocrite. The word you are looking for is "ignorant".

And not because you dislike Anita's perspectives, but because you have no idea what they are, you're just hand waving them out of reflex. That's basically the living definition of ignorance.

What would make you a hypocrite is if you blasted someone else for forming opinions of things they didn't really understand/had incomplete knowledge of.

Generally speaking, it's never a good idea to let your prejudices close you down to perspectives. You've clearly got an axe to grind with "your least favorite subject", and you've fallen into knee jerk dismissal of it. This is the beginning of attitude polarization, which a fantastic way to ensure yourself a rich future of being completely closed minded. It's a good intellectual exercise to confront yourself with uncomfortable perspectives. You should give her videos a watch. It's fine, after that, if you want to slam the lady. Do keep in mind though to slam her arguments, and not her, personally.

 

[Alexi089]

I really wouldn't bother. I've only seen one of her videos (about 'straw feminists'), but the entire thing was built on confirmation bias. She highlights and reads into any scene that portrays a female character in a negative light; whilst ignoring anything positive about that character. She doesn't even consider the male characters, unless they do something that offends her. She couldn't write a balanced critisism to save her life (Edit: I am of course, assuming that if she could construct a substantial arguement, she would have in the space of a 10 minute video).

The fact that google throws up nothing if you search her name along with 'female oppression middle east'; or 'abandoned baby girls china' suggests to me that easy money and attention trump genuine social and political issues for her.

 

[Scrustle]

Trick question, buddy. It'll be in her video. Do everyone a favor and keep your rageboner in your pants until it's released.

The point remains that she decided to single out Ico in the hundreds (I think I heard even over 300) games that she's supposedly playing (or not [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.387184-So-how-about-that-wacky-Sarkeesian-lady]) and dissecting ahead of time, without backing it up with any kind of argument when there are far worse offenders out there. She was flame baiting for attention.

I bet I can predict what her argument will be, but there's no use in bothering about that now. Like you said, the video is yet to come, and you're not her so it would be pointless to try to argue about it.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

Trick question, buddy. It'll be in her video. Do everyone a favor and keep your rageboner in your pants until it's released.

The point remains that she decided to single out Ico in the hundreds (I think I heard even over 300) games that she's supposedly playing (or not [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.387184-So-how-about-that-wacky-Sarkeesian-lady]) and dissecting ahead of time, without backing it up with any kind of argument when there are far worse offenders out there. She was flame baiting for attention.

Does that mean she's 'missed the point'? No.

/argument.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

The fact that google throws up nothing if you search her name along with 'female oppression middle east'; or 'abandoned baby girls china' suggests to me that easy money and attention trump genuine social and political issues for her.

We'll, it's good to know that there are no genuine social and political issues concerning representation of women in American media. Glad the patriarchal hegemony is over.

Anita's a media scholar. She has as much do to with oppression in the middle east as a nutritionist has with a car crash. That's doesn't mean that what she doesn't isn't important, but expecting her to solve problems in china is not within the abilities or responsibility of her discipline. It's also telling that you want her pointed at international rivals and not at issues at home.

She hated on Ico, a favorite of mine

May I also suggest that there's a difference between enjoying something and finding it problematic? It's possible to do both, you know. Just because a game is a masterpiece doesn't mean it's untouchable.

 

[Alexi089]

The fact that google throws up nothing if you search her name along with 'female oppression middle east'; or 'abandoned baby girls china' suggests to me that easy money and attention trump Edit: more pressing social and political issues for her.

We'll, it's good to know that there are no genuine social and political issues concerning representation of women in American media. Glad the patriarchal hegemony is over.

Anita's a media scholar. She has as much do to with oppression in the middle east as a nutritionist has with a car crash. That's doesn't mean that what she doesn't isn't important, but expecting her to solve problems in china is not within the abilities or responsibility of her discipline. It's also telling that you want her pointed at international rivals and not at issues at home.

The point I was going for with that paragraph is that I would expect her to have made some investigation, at least, into those substantially more serious issues, if her priorities lay with equal rights for women rather than attention and money for herself. You'd think she'd care enough about it to direct some attention towards focus groups and charities for it, given all the publicity she's getting. And lol what's so 'telling' about me? That I've got my priorities straight? Don't you think if I wanted to keep teh wimminz in 'their place' I'd be all for 4 wives I can give a damn good thrashing to; laws bordering on obedience training; and a good Saturday afternoon stoning? Also, insinuating that I am sexist simply because I think she's a bad critic with predominantly self-serving motives doesn't make you insightful, it makes you rude (possibly bigoted).

As for the whole patriarchial hegemony thing. Actually, I should change 'genuine' to 'more pressing'. But, quite honestly, there are issues in the way pretty well every demographic is portrayed in modern society. You can find misandristic adverts if you look out for them (Remember: 'So easy, even a MAN could do it!'?). Sex & the City shoe-horns in plenty of male objectification, because they know it sells to the target audience. Perfume adds do it with both genders. Even whilst being subjected to an episode of Coronation Street last night, I remember a line along the lines of 'Men can't help being sex obsessed pigs' Pretty sure 'pigs' was the chosen noun. On a family show! So, yes, there's lots of bad script and ad writers who will use objectification, or sexism because they think it will gather attention. But these are individuals, not the collective. So drop the gender wars, please.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

But, quite honestly, there are issues in the way pretty well every demographic is portrayed in modern society. You can find misandristic adverts if you look out for them (Remember: 'So easy, even a MAN could do it!'?). Sex & the City shoe-horns in plenty of male objectification, because they know it sells to the target audience. Perfume adds do it with both genders. Even whilst being subjected to an episode of Coronation Street last night, I remember a line along the lines of 'Men can't help being sex obsessed pigs' Pretty sure 'pigs' was the chosen noun. On a family show! So, yes, there's lots of bad script and ad writers who will use objectification, or sexism because they think it will gather attention. But these are individuals, not the collective. So drop the gender wars, please.

Have you heard of patriarchy? The limiting roles of men as unfeeling warriors/women as caretakers of the homestead is exactly the sort of thing that hegemony-concerned branches of feminism aim to deal with. My fellow men aren't subjected under patriarchy, but do suffer because of it. Just because we're given the roles that society has deemed more glorious doesn't mean it's a good deal for us.

The idea is that patriarchy isn't a conspiracy by men, but is a self-sustaining paradigm of control that hurts both men and women.

Proof that men suffer isn't a refutation of feminism, but rather support of it. Anita has said so herself.

If you want to know more about Feminism, check out The Gender Knot by Allan G. Johnson and Female Chauvinist Pigs by Ariel Levy, two books which Anita herself has featured in her videos. They deal with the limiting roles assigned to men and shows like Sex In The City. You'll understand feminism isn't concerned with a 'gender war' of men versus women, but a gender problem for everyone.

 

[Alexi089]

snip

Right. Admittedly, this was a while ago, but looking at your new post, I'm getting the distinct impression you just want to argue with someone for the sake of it. Skipping over my response (my first paragraph, post 17) and going off with some barely related self-quote, is not effective discussion.

This discussion has totally de-railed anyway. The OP asked if people thought Anita's work was any good. I said I don't think so; I said that I think her motivations are self-centred. I explained why on both points. Your quote doesn't even relate to my second paragraph. I'm making the point that pretty well every demographic gets condescending treatment in the media because money > respectful treatment. There is no over-arching patriarchal hegemony in the media, from where I'm sitting; only self-interested people being a bit shitty either for money, or for their own personal bigotry. In some casse, it's more or less just a tongue in cheek joke with very extreme types people e.g. Overtly masculine men (Stan Smith, American Dad), and I don't see the sense in reading into every little detail with characters like this in an attempt to find an underlying offence (which is exactly what Anita does, if her work is consistent throughout her videos). Your paragraph is about how humans still tend towards established traditional roles. Anita looking for excuses to call progam or videogame creators sexist women oppressors through her contrived, biased style of critisism will not encourage more boys to learn to cook; or more girls to learn metal work. That's down to individuals choosing to get involved in something new themselves; along with encouragement from parents and mixed gender classes in schools.

If you like her videos, fair enough, I'm not going to try to tell you you shouldn't watch them; but accept that some people disagree with her work and don't believe she's truly well-intentioned or even that interested in improving conditions for people facing genuine hardship (see abandoned chinese baby girls).

I think I'm going to close this discussion with you now, since it's deviated from the OP enough already, and it's ultimately inconsequential.

 

[Uhura]

So I don't like Anita Sarkeesian much. She hated on Ico, a favorite of mine, she makes gobs of money talking too much about my least favorite subject and every once and a while, she eclipses all the interesting or insightful gaming discussion just because everyone else shares my bile and has to vent. She even took over my 'The Big Picture', the highlight of my week. The only thing I could imagine being worse would be if Bob spent two weeks talking about my least favorite movie of all time, Sucker Punch.

But I've never watched one of her videos.

Should I watch one before I judge so harshly or what?

You should definitely watch a few of her videos before you judge her. It's never a good idea to judge someone based only on second hand information, especially when the person in question is as polarizing as Anita seems to be. If you haven't watched her videos, you can't really know if you agree or disagree with her. Keep in mind that there are plenty of people on this very forum who have misrepresented her viewpoints in discussions just because they dislike her. I'd also suggest that you watch more than one of her videos, since some of them are imo considerably better than others. I mean it's ok to disagree with her viewpoints.. I think it's just a good idea to give a person a fair chance before you start hating them.