I used to dislike Anita Sarkeesian, but...

[FoxKitsune]

Lest we forget that she is terribly under-informed on the topic of gaming and shouldn't be talking about it in the first place. The ***** doesn't even know WHO Samus is, and wants to talk about women in gaming. Fuck off Anita.

Does that mean if I don't know who Ellen Ripley is, I shouldn't be talking about women in movies?

If I don't know who Jane Austen is, should I not be talking about female authors?

If I don't know who Georgia O'Keeffe is, should I not be talking about female artists?

Yes on all counts.

If I never ate a steak before, am I qualified to be a food critic for steak restaurants? NO!
If I never listened to music, should I be making videos online talking about how terrible ALL music is? Fuck NO.

Anita has never played a video game in her life, and that isn't invented, its fact. She isn't even remotely qualified to talk about the subject material.

If you aren't properly informed on a topic, you shouldn't be trying to change peoples opinions on them. End of discussion.

Talking about women in video games without even knowing the existence of the one of the earliest examples of strong female leads that happens to deflate large parts of her ENTIRE argument, is a major debate problem. Anita is a hack.

This particular comment bothered me just enough to stop lurking.

I'm 25, and I've been gaming since my very first Sega Megadrive fell into my lap back in the days when it was cutting edge. Yet up until a few months ago I thought Zelda was the guy.
Yep. See feel that weird, tingly feeling spreading up from the deepest pits of your souls? That's embarrassment for me.

Now, despite that little (who am I kidding, monumental) mistake on my part, I like to think I've been paying enough attention to the industry over the years to know a thing or two, and I don't think that silly gap in my knowledge should prevent me from joining a serious discussion on the topic, even getting my views across to those mad enough to still let me talk about this sort of stuff.

If she indeed doesn't know who Samus is, that doesn't matter nor make her opinions invalid. By that logic you shouldn't be arguing with her points unless you can also name every one of the world's most prominent feminists.

I'd also like to say that I like the way the OP approached this thread, and it was nice to see it at least begin respectfully. I'm not a fan of Anita myself, but even ignoring my personal issues with her videos no one can deny she's opening a lot of eyes to the issues that genuinely are around women in the gaming industry.

 

[CloudAtlas]

Its really simple: You don't allow comments, you get no respect.

Of course, I apologise.
I am certain your critique would have been most eloquent.

This comment managed to draw a smile on my face, and that is no easy feat in these discussions. Thank you, Lieju.

I don't dislike the fact she has ideas.

I dislike the fact she closes off any chance of anyone debating the issues with her ideas.

If she were a scientist, she'd refuse to have her research peer reviewed.

Youtube comments are the equivalent to peer review? What an amusing notion.

You clearly haven't watched her videos. She already HAS that opinion of the gaming community, which is why she has them disabled.

Or perhaps she disabled them as a result of the events surrounding her kickstarter campaign. I know, what a ridiculous idea... I'm sure your reason is much more likely.

Anita has never played a video game in her life, and that isn't invented, its fact. She isn't even remotely qualified to talk about the subject material.

A fact, you say? That makes me wonder what I should make of this picture then:

Caption: "Anita with some of her research materials."

 

[Tony2077]

i used to dislike her series now i just wish all this stuff would just go away

 

[Daystar Clarion]

Youtube comments are the equivalent to peer review? What an amusing notion.

When did I say anything about Youtube? You built that strawman yourself.

In all aspects of her work, not just Youtube. Ever see her create videos that answer criticism? You don't. because all she can do is argue her side and not adapt it for an environment based on debate.

It's feminism 101, and if it got 1/10 of the attention it's getting now, it would still be too much.

 

[Charli]

She went at this issue too aggressively to an audience that is far too knee jerk and hostile to ideals such as hers. (Brave but maybe she needed to be a little more covert about it, if it were me I would have found a way to make one video episode first and highlight that this is for the benefit of the gaming industry and why that is. Her opinions are far too slanted to the side of 'femenists are for women folk only', and quite a few men can't take that... Gender exclusivity is what feminism seeks to end, not try to parallel and surplant in order to 'level the playing field' or slant it the other way, like some believe)

What she wants to achieve will take time, discussions, and raising the next generation to see those ideals in clearer and more accepting lights. For women to breach the industry on a much larger scale.

I respect what her goal was... however men (and even a few women) with already fragile egos (See, nerds) being told that they might be marginalizing and victimizing another demographic subtly through behavior and acceptance of outdated status quo, is never going to rub them the right way. And how do such people on the internet react? Like tasered monkeys with speech capability. And it's hard to have a rational discussion on places like Youtube and the like when they're in a majority and encouraging one another to be close to criminal in their treatment of human being.

I would argue that she does have to allow a little more critique her way, and find a good way to allow that access with filters. (Maybe hire someone to go through it) But her intentions are good, I see some of her in me, but we're going different routes to change those around us, and I do not see anything being done in the near future about any of what she tackles, I suppose educating those who will follow us to see another take on things is never a bad idea.


I find myself a the end of the day indifferent to this whole project for reasons of my own and that I favor a far less direct approach to changing the minds of whom are not enforcing gender inequalities knowingly, but UNknowingly, and ignorance shouldn't be admonished so harshly, it should however be filled with new knowledge with someone patient, passive and willing to listen in turn.

For those that are knowingly enforcing it, sadly the only cure for them is time.

 

[ZtH]

snip

The obvious conclusion is she is spoiled to be able to afford all those video games and all three consoles.

Seriously though, I question Anita's actual depth of research, because beyond a surface familiarity she seems to make a lot of blatant mistakes in regards to the games she features in her videos. I feel as though she may have skimmed all those games giving each far less time than she should have. It's unfortunate that she has seemed to misinterpret or misrepresent many games and characters to illustrate her points when there are bound to be characters and games that actually fit the point she's trying to make.

Overall, I find Anita Sarkeesian's videos to be underwhelming. Considering the funding and the hype they really come off as half-baked. So I guess my conclusion is she fits in with the AAA gaming community where she offers a product that is over funded and underwhelming.

 

[Dante dynamite]

I don't dislike the fact she has ideas.

I dislike the fact she closes off any chance of anyone debating the issues with her ideas.

If she were a scientist, she'd refuse to have her research peer reviewed.

I'm always curious why people say she leaves no room for discussion just because she disabled her youtube comments. You could always e-mail her site and engage from that angle, it's not like youtube is the only way to start dialogues, though I believe these are pretty rare given the age of youtube commenters.

Of course the real problem is that she probably has thousands of those (and more then likely just a ton of ugly hate mail) and can't respond to everything as fast as you'd like.
So I guess talking about her on a forum is the next best thing in my mind...

As for her "research," isn't her thesis available online?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA that's a good one engage form another angle I'm sorry to burst you bubble but that's nothing but a dream
she has become infamous for deleting any comments that are a legitimate argument against her especially on Facebook. unless you blindly agree with her your comment is deleted. In fact check her tumblr she posted moviebob's game overthinker response on her tumblr just because he agrees with her and she acknowledges that there are many videos out there giving criticism of her.

Look here is a great example of why a lot of people don't like her

its because of that mentality that she can do no wrong and any complaint of her is form a misogynist dudebro with no understanding of feminism.

 

[frizzlebyte]

SNIP

I'm going to ignore most of the posts in this thread, because as usual they seem to be more interested in attacking Sarkeesian for not "playing by the rules" of debate, which is just another way to avoid debating Sarkeesian by focusing on collateral minutiae.

In answer to your post, Sarkeesian's analysis of gaming narrative is one of the reasons I love literary analysis in general. It gives us a way to examine *why* the narratives we create follow certain patterns, and I think this gives us tools to enhance our appreciation of stories, if not break out of those patterns.

And you are right: We each exist with a worldview that affects how we interact with that world, even when we think we are being "unbiased." Even in story-worlds that are supposedly "gender equal," we see glimpses of a biased structure underneath, either by design, or because the creators live with the same biases.

A good example of this is the re-imagined Battlestar Galactica. Sure, Starbuck is a total bad-ass and the military structure is egalitarian for the most part, but (and I brought this up in an English class that used BSG for literary criticism), if you notice, the military uses a traditionally masculine term ("sir") to refer to each other, but uses "ma'am" when speaking to civilian women. This has always amused me, because it is so obviously sexist, in a world that is supposedly "gender integrated." Even the default use of "sir," a masculine term to refer to both sexes, as opposed to sir and ma'am being on equal footing is blatantly sexist.

The one thing that I do disagree with Anita and many other feminists on (as I consider myself one; I'm male, BTW) is how damaging these tropes are, but that is a whole other post of material.

Great post, FF. While my post is not as fully-fleshed out as yours, I hope I've added something to the discussion.

 

[Silvanus]

She wants her series to be used as classroom curriculum

Where are you getting this from?

I know you can't have just made this up, because a few sentences earlier you made a point about how Anita Sarkeesian making stuff up is bad.

 

[TrevHead]

I'm not a fan of hers, personally I think she has been very savvy in manipulating everybody to keep talking about her and keep her in the limelight.

I'll be glad when her 12th video is over and done with and the internet can move on and maybe then I might be able to take the subject of sexism in games seriously rather than a circus act.

 

[lacktheknack]

If you aren't properly informed on a topic, you shouldn't be trying to change peoples opinions on them. End of discussion.

So what you're telling me is that you've spent a few days or weeks as a female in the video game community, then? Enduring things like being called "the *****" because you dared question the potential sexism in the industry/community?

Because if you're not properly informed on how females are treated or react to these things, you shouldn't be trying to change their opinions, right?

First off, your comment is about a strawman as it gets.

But for the record, I played a female toon in a MMO for years. I also had a male toon in that same MMO.

The female toon was treated better, given free stuff, invited early to dungeons and raids, and practically royalty.

The male toon was just "another person". Where is her video on THAT topic? How women are treated better in online social settings? Oh wait, that doesn't fit her "victim" story, better leave that out as well.

Well, maybe she had MY experience, where the dude avatar was just some other player, and the female avatar couldn't talk to anyone without the other person saying "sho ur tits". Even if the other player had a female avatar as well.

Hell, I got some creep sending me his phone number for phone sex (I didn't ask for it). I almost called it to tell him what a perv he was, but I decided against it.

 

[Silvanus]

Her kickstarter page. I think she mentioned it in the beginning of one of the videos too.

Ah. That's not quite how it is, though. Her Kickstarter page explains she created a curriculum-- not the main video series-- to serve as a "small example" of how to discuss it in a class. She wasn't suggesting her video series be a part of the classroom curriculum.

I did think it sounded a bit mad.

That said, you were partway right, and I was partway wrong.

 

[Fox12]

See, that's the problem. If she's not engaging people and responding directly to responses, critical or otherwise, it's not a dialog.

Since Lieju basically said what I did and you responded, I'll respond here. If she came out with the goal of starting a dialogue(and I think she did state that now that I think about it) and she's not part of that dialogue, then yes, that is a mark against her for not participating in the very thing she wanted to start. But that still doesn't say anything about whether or not she considers criticism, which is the point I'm contending here.

My question is, quite frankly, why are we talking about her at all? No, I'm not talking about ignoring the feminist issue, I just don't see the point of talking about HER anymore. We're missing the big picture when everyone debates the merits of Anita, but forget to discuss the larger issue she brought up. It's the same thing with Snowden, everyone is arguing about whether he's a criminal when the real issue is the spying program he helped reveal.

I agree with some of her points, but I don't consider her the best spokesman for the issues she's trying to raise. There's an issue with how women are portrayed in games, I agree, but I don't really feel like discussing the merits of Sarkeesian when it doesn't really forward the dialogue in any meaningful way.

 

[Abomination]

See, that's the problem. If she's not engaging people and responding directly to responses, critical or otherwise, it's not a dialog.

Since Lieju basically said what I did and you responded, I'll respond here. If she came out with the goal of starting a dialogue(and I think she did state that now that I think about it) and she's not part of that dialogue, then yes, that is a mark against her for not participating in the very thing she wanted to start. But that still doesn't say anything about whether or not she considers criticism, which is the point I'm contending here.

My question is, quite frankly, why are we talking about her at all? No, I'm not talking about ignoring the feminist issue, I just don't see the point of talking about HER anymore. We're missing the big picture when everyone debates the merits of Anita, but forget to discuss the larger issue she brought up. It's the same thing with Snowden, everyone is arguing about whether he's a criminal when the real issue is the spying program he helped reveal.

I agree with some of her points, but I don't consider her the best spokesman for the issues she's trying to raise. There's an issue with how women are portrayed in games, I agree, but I don't really feel like discussing the merits of Sarkeesian when it doesn't really forward the dialogue in any meaningful way.

It's difficult for people to even believe there is an issue worth addressing if the person who introduced the issue to the debate floor is someone that many people do not perceive to be someone worth considering.

What turned me off has already been mentioned in this thread:

I don't mention her making stuff up, just not supporting her assertions. She doesn't make up facts, just applies them to a conclusion without connecting them well.

Edit: Retracted. I do think she was essentially making up the developer feelings about tropes. So yea.

She makes declarations as to the INTENTIONS of developers - many of which imply they are sexist - and that just rubs me all sorts of wrong ways.

The "issue" does get addressed in other areas but most conclude that it's not the video game industry that is at fault but rather a combination of gender roles, the economy and the primary consumer base of AAA games.

 

[bug_of_war]

snip.

As much as I try not to focus so much on what she does (Partly because I see both sides points) I find that she is not so much a feminist as she is a radical feminist. Instead of being open to debate she focuses on the trolls who send her crap, instead of offering alternatives she makes three 20 minute videos where in which all she does is hammer in one point so much that by the time she's done the hammer has broken through the wood and not actually fixed the problem or shown signs of improvement, and instead of allowing the context of the game to dictate WHY something happens she jumps up and down over a scenario where in which a damsel is used to motivate the protagonist. She's clearly done her research, albeit not in the most efficient way possible, 3 videos over the course of many months when she got A SHIT TON of money to do said research is a poor effort. I don't expect anyone to work 24/7, but come on, it doesn't take months to make a 20 minute three times (Especially if this is something that you have been given exorbitant amounts of money to do).

So yeah, I don't think what she is doing is wrong, I just think the way she is doing it is wrong.

 

[Rebel_Raven]

Anita may not be the best advocate for better representation of the female gender in games, but at least she's doing something about it instead of trying to ignore it, and demand other people ignore it. I.e the "Oohhh I don't want to talk about this anymore! Stop making threads on this!" sort that want this sort of talk censored.
We need people to talk sense into the people who believe the gaming industry is some shining paragon of equality on gender representation. I'd say Movie Bob, and Jim Sterling do a better job, but the more the merrier, IMO.
She's not sweeping the issue under the rug, and ignoring it like a lot of people want to. She's fed up with the status quo in gaming, and so am I.

Female representation in videogames will be talked about until it's not an issue anymore, and no one person can say it's no longer an issue because it's an issue to other people. Anyone saying it's not an issue is expressing an opinion, frankly, and there's plenty of other people with opposing opinions.
Want an idea of how to make these topics die off? Give us more female representation to talk about, and better variety. Especially among the female playable characters. The more opinions to be had, the less they get focused into certain areas.
I gotta ask, what, exactly, is so wrong about getting more variety among playable characters? And more variety in games?
There's no way in hell that games will stop using the "sex sells" approach. We'll just get a bit less of that, and more sensible female representation.
Do you -really- think there will be some PC police creating a checklist of what must be done in gaming? I find that utter bullshit. We don't even have a unified game rating system across the world. There's no way a force will control the international game industry. Well, unless it's the "conventional wisdom" that female playable characters harm a game, and that female representation must be removed, tampered with, and have their agency screwed over. <.<

There's so many ad-hominem attacks berating her because she's female, she's feminist, her clothes, kickstarter, her method, the unforgivable fact she doesn't allow dialogue (Coz she'll get riveting, civilized stuff, right? Don't be deluded into thinking she won't be harassed more than anything, and to hell with the motives behind the harassment. Moreover, "civil" people won't do jackshit about the harassment to keep things civil.), and so forth.
Worse are the "me, too!" people just jumping the bandwagon to be cool. The latter probably don't even have a real reason to hate on her.
There seems to be a vast swath of people who can't overlook things beside the points she's trying to make, and oppose her just because she's a woman, she's a feminist, and so forth.

Just because you agree with anything she says doesn't make you a sarkeesianite, or a feminist. It just means she said something you agree with.

Seriously, just because you say you can be civil, and discuss things civilly with her doesn't mean you speak for everyone who disagrees with her.

tl;dr; Yeah, she may not be the best representative of better than the status quo representation of women in gaming, but I'd rather have her than the people who want the issue ignored, suppressed, and have the status quo maintained.

captcha: words of wisdom

Why thankyou, I try! >.>