I used to dislike Anita Sarkeesian, but...

[FriendlyFyre]

My only goal has been the same as Anita's really, to open up as many gamers who are willing to the possibility that what many gamers have come to see as "normal" is in reality the result of a deeply ingrained set of values and beliefs about the world that have gone unchallenged for too long. But maybe if we stop treating each new iteration of Damsel in distress, or murdered loved one as just another rehash of the trope, and instead ask WHY it is so prevalent a trope, and WHY developers feel both the need to use it and to adhere strictly to it, we'll give them a compelling reason to evolve their stories.

Or you stop to try to convince people that your feminism based interpretation of the state of gaming is right and instead settle for a position that less ideological, less controversial and more likely to lead somewhere. Shouldn't it be enough to believe that the damsel trope is lazy and bad story telling and therefore should be used less instead of insisting on everyone sees the feminist "truth"? Because i would guess that many people on forum could agree to the first but not to the second. But instead it mostly becomes a discussion about whether one thing or another is sexist or objectification or leads to real live aggression against violence (my favorite) and in turn a discussion of this terms and in turn a discussion of feminism in general; all of which (as should be clear by now) has a close to zero chance of changing the opinion of anyone of either side.

Edit: Perhaps i come off as harsh, but i really have no problem with your post. If anything, i like it: you calmly explain your position and it clearly shows that you care about the subject. But still this stuff has been debated so many times (mostly without leading anywhere) and i don't see why it should be better this time as everyone has made up his/her mind by now.

Thanks for the constructive criticism.
Here's the thing, i don't believe that arguing feminism is "the truth" works, because our idea of truth is often warped by what we come to believe through life. In this way I don't see Anita trying to "reveal" the hidden patriarchal design behind games, but merely open us up to the possibility that the trends we see in games are not "normal" Once you consider this, you can ask the question "Why are they there?"

Another thing which perhaps doesn't come out in these discussions is the importance of understanding that things like objectification does not CAUSE violence against women, just like violence in games doesn't CAUSE violence in real life. Cause implies we could change it through conscious decision not to, but feminism says that the images of violence and sexuality in media make us more susceptible to believing that this is normal, and this an unconscious factor that we would do well to consider.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

...You're assuming her attitude towards direct criticism wouldn't change if she and her research, or whatever, was elevated to the professional level, which is absurd. Perhaps it's not criticism she takes umbrage with but the quality of said criticism.

See, that's the problem. Criticism of her ranges the entire gamut from the aforementioned threats, all the way to professional, academic-quality work. Sure, the latter is the minority, but it still exists and goes unanswered.

 

[shrekfan246]

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?

This might be a loaded question, but how is knowledge of who Samus is relevant to the greater topic of the portrayal of females in gaming? Better yet, considering the latest Metroid outing, it might be better that Anita doesn't know who Samus is, because Other M is one of the most embarrassing, patronizing, insulting things I've ever seen in the entire video game medium.

OT: To be honest, I haven't actually watched her videos. They're lengthy, supposedly rather dry, and she apparently spends more time simply pointing out the issues than trying to offer suggestions on how to change them for the better. I have nothing against her, and all of the people getting angry about her are just giving her a louder and louder voice to sway the industry with.

Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with having games like Mario, Dragon's Crown, The Witcher, or even Gears of War; So long as they aren't the overwhelming majority, which currently they tend to be. I don't believe there's a problem with having strong, nuanced, deep stories with complex characters and stereotypical "Bowser is holding the Princess hostage!" stories. Unfortunately, apart from being brought about by sheer laziness on the writers' parts, I don't know why these tropes show up as often as they do and so I don't know what we can really do to change it.

 

[LetalisK]

...You're assuming her attitude towards direct criticism wouldn't change if she and her research, or whatever, was elevated to the professional level, which is absurd. Perhaps it's not criticism she takes umbrage with but the quality of said criticism.

See, that's the problem. Criticism of her ranges the entire gamut from the aforementioned threats, all the way to professional, academic-quality work. Sure, the latter is the minority, but it still exists and goes unanswered.

I don't think it would be physically possible for a youtube comment, no matter how well structured and meaning, to reach the level of professional academic peer review[footnote]No one confuse this as demanding that they be on that level, I'm just responding to what he said.[/footnote]. That's like saying a tweet can be on the same level as a dissertation: they're too different of mediums to be comparable. Second, that's also assuming the juice would be worth the squeeze. What would the threshold of shit be where it's no longer worth digging through it for the little nuggets of diamond underneath?

 

[FriendlyFyre]

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?

The problem is not merely that she disables Youtube comments. I don't think one person could make a reasonable argument against doing that, given the general attitude, intelligence, and cogency of the average Youtube comment on non-controversial videos, let alone ones that handle sensitive or controversial topics. The problem is that she largely ignores, or at least fails to respond to in an intellectually-honest and charitable manner, reasonable, respectful, and cogent criticism of her work -- regardless of venue. It's not even a matter of not having access to, or not reading, criticism, given the amount of time she spends discussing the unreasonable, destructive, or ill-conceived criticism and repeating the threats and invective levied against her that only other A-holes and trolls attempt to defend -- if she has that much time to respond to the internet's sewage, she certainly has the time to respond to quality criticism.

She seems to have more interest in knocking down straw men, and creating an echo chamber than a meaningful, productive dialog. I concluded a long time ago she falls into the category most liberal, academic radical feminists fall into -- she's so convinced she's right, and that her cause is righteous and just, anyone "capable" and/or "has done their research" will agree with her by dint of her having spoken, and that anyone who disagrees or approaches her outside the confines of radical feminist discourse is simply an unfortunate product of patriarchy. It's not a narrative designed really for education, outreach, or encouraging discourse; it's by, of, and for those who share her beliefs for the purpose of self-perpetuity. At least, that's my opinion.

That's before you consider the number of questions about the veracity and ethics of her work -- whether or not she's a plagiarist, whether her research was dutifully done in its full context (i.e. whether she played these games about which she speaks, given displayed ignorance of plot points, characters, and the context of shown game scenes). Hell, I remember her critique of Kanye's video "Monster" in which she completely missed the entire point of the song and video...the very point she was making.

You say that she's more interested in knocking down straw men, that you have already got her pegged as a "righteous feminist," and that she expresses arrogance and that she has no interest in starting a dialogue. You're right that that's an opinion, and you are entitled to it.
But is ignoring her or writing her methods off REALLY the best thing to do on a larger scale?


I know her MONSTER critique, which falls into the "Can't have your cake and eat it" area. I liked the message of the song, but understand how she also feels that filling it with the exact things she is trying to discourage jepordizes the point about them. Hell, if you go further you could say that drawing attention to the thing helped "normalize" it in our minds.

 

[nogitsune]

My problem with Anita is that I just she doesn't accept any ideas other than her own, any criticism is only to be shot down, she disabled comments but also censors other avenues of discussion with her and she won't hear anything but The Emperor's Nudity is the finest Regalia. She only accepts the radical feminist ideals that all these cliches are to keep women down when they are for other reasons. I Just find her criticisms to be shallow kneejerks of this is sexist and I don't see them leading into having more and/or better Female characters, She just wants to complain and really that's easy, but the only things I see happening is either she gets ignored or artists censor themselves to keep the gaze of Feminists off them.

I dunno, I'm just frustrated with the Feminism movement in general when it comes to gaming, It's all about Shame and if you don't agree with them, you're as bad as the troglodytes that get shown off on Fat Ugly or Slutty. I want to have better female characters and gaming to be more open, but when I disagree, I'm scum. I just can't support that kinda movement and I would go for the somewhat sexist status quo then let Radical feminists call me scum and try to stop art that they dislike instead of building up better games. It's harder to do than just complain but it's what needs to be done. Sure they can complain too but I just can't take the movement seriously until they do something in a positive direction, like True egalitarian feminists do.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

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

No, but it does mean you probably shouldn't use the character as a case example for an argument about the portrayal of women in movies. Of course, not having watched her videos in detail means you probably shouldn't discuss the context in which she uses case examples.

But, I'll be nice: she does cite Samus, more than once in fact. Her points about the evolution in Samus' portrayal across the Metroid series is actually one of the strongest, best-supported, and ultimately most cogent arguments she makes, especially in light of "Other M".

 

[LetalisK]

You say that she's more interested in knocking down straw men, that you have already got her pegged as a "righteous feminist," and that she expresses arrogance and that she has no interest in starting a dialogue. You're right that that's an opinion, and you are entitled to it.
But is ignoring her or writing her methods off REALLY the best thing to do on a larger scale?

Yes, specifically to ignoring her. If she doesn't add anything meaningful to the issue, then the best reaction would be to ignore her. Trying to have a meaningful conversation with someone who can't or won't is an exercise in futility.

 

[shrekfan246]

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

No, but it does mean you probably shouldn't use the character as a case example for an argument about the portrayal of women in movies. Of course, not having watched her videos in detail means you probably shouldn't discuss the context in which she uses case examples.

Sorry, I was reaching for the same logical fallacies that the first guy did when he said that he dismisses anything Anita has to say because she doesn't allow Youtube comments.

It's not that difficult to research characters you don't have first-hand experience with, though. Sure, I should actually watch Alien before I try bandying about how strong or weak Ripley's character is, but not having watched Alien shouldn't mean I don't have the "right" to discuss it.

 

[FriendlyFyre]

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.

Exactly.

I automatically dismiss her entire message because she doesn't allow comments or even voting on her videos. Someone who does that clearly has a major ego problem and thats a shadow on everything she's trying to say.

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.

Okay, I'm gonna stop you there. Calling someone a ***** is rude, but what's more problematic is you don't realize what you're implying.
***** is a gendered insult, and even though you think you're just being egalitarian by treating her like a man, you miss a key thing about what the word implies when it's used for a man instead of a woman.

For a man it often means being weak ("Quit your bitching"), but for a woman it is often used as an insult to her character ("The ***** turned me down") Either way, it implies that when women are bitches, they aren't being weak, just "unfair," but when men use it, they associate femaleness with weakness. And that is not something that is either true, nor respectful.

 

[Weaver]

*sigh*... With all due respect, I just don't care. And have never cared about this 'sexism' issue. How many bloody threads are we gunna have about this before we put this to bed? I'm not upset, I'm exhausted of this topic and I wonder when this community will have some ELSE to talk about.

I agree, I just don't care anymore. Society has ingrained gender roles and those aren't going away. I'm not going to make them go away, no matter how hard I try and I just don't give a shit. I hope you're all happy, you've killed any shits I've once given.

Day care, nurses, bakers, and cashiers (to name a few) are a female dominated professions.
Welders, mechanics, garbageman, and construction are male dominated professions.

The thing is, it's not like the welders association is just not letting women in, there are just simply no women entering the industry. Similarly, it's not like no man can run a daycare; they just aren't, in general, very inclined to do it.

A lot of this has biological motivations as well. My real question is, why is the fact that gender roles exist the worst thing ever to happen in society? Because, the way people react, it's fucking atrocious.

On the topic of feminism, the problem is it's just fucking crazy now. I think anyone should be able to pursue any career they want and be paid fairly in that position. The issue is that train of thought is now a very standard, very reasonable position that nearly everyone holds. So, to differentiate itself "feminism" had to go more extreme.

George RR Martin, for example, said he stopped being a feminist because, despite marching in feminist protests in the 70s in the 90s someone told him "If you're a man you can't be a feminist."

 

[Zenn3k]

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.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

I don't think it would be physically possible for a youtube comment, no matter how well structured and meaning, to reach the level of professional academic peer review...

I was unaware Youtube comments were the only place one can respond to her videos and arguments.

You say that she's more interested in knocking down straw men, that you have already got her pegged as a "righteous feminist," and that she expresses arrogance and that she has no interest in starting a dialogue. You're right that that's an opinion, and you are entitled to it.

But is ignoring her or writing her methods off REALLY the best thing to do on a larger scale?

I know her MONSTER critique, which falls into the "Can't have your cake and eat it" area. I liked the message of the song, but understand how she also feels that filling it with the exact things she is trying to discourage jepordizes the point about them. Hell, if you go further you could say that drawing attention to the thing helped "normalize" it in our minds.

If she is indeed a plagiarist and uses compromised sources, you're damn right it is. That dog don't hunt, period. But then again, that's my opinion as someone who's been through and in academia. If I appropriated someone else's work without proper citation, even if that work was itself fair use, my happy ass would have been under the bus faster than you could say "academic honesty".

And, in regards to her "Monster" critique, that was Kanye's entire point through sensationalized and violent imagery: he's pointing out shit that is normalized and excused (or even celebrated) as the idiosyncrasies of fame and celebrity, that in any other circumstance or framing device would be condemned by contemporary society. I hate to draw the comparison, but it's not dissimilar to Pasolini's point in "Salo" by using the imagery he did to underscore the lunacy, debauchery, and inhumanity of fascist Italy.

 

[Lieju]

Sarkeesian has some good points and some over-generalisations (And there's certainly a problem with sexism in gaming), I don't care for her stuff because I don't find it interesting or informative.

The ***** doesn't even know WHO Samus is, and wants to talk about women in gaming. Fuck off Anita.

So, that would have been the kind of 'criticism' you would have posted on her Youtube-videos if she allowed it? What a loss.

I suddenly remember why I usually stay away from these threads.

BTW, I don't see why she disabled the Youtube-comments if she really loves playing a victim as much as people claim.
All those comments calling her a ***** and telling her to fuck off would have just been perfect fodder for that.

 

[LetalisK]

Anita has never played a video game in her life, and that isn't invented, its fact.

From where? Because it sounds more like you pulled it out of thin air.

 

[Zenn3k]

Sarkeesian has some good points and some over-generalisations (And there's certainly a problem with sexism in gaming), I don't care for her stuff because I don't find it interesting or informative.

The ***** doesn't even know WHO Samus is, and wants to talk about women in gaming. Fuck off Anita.

So, that would have been the kind of 'criticism' you would have posted on her Youtube-videos if she allowed it? What a loss.

I suddenly remember why I usually stay away from these threads.

BTW, I don't see why she disabled the Youtube-comments if she really loves playing a victim as much as people claim.
All those comments calling her a ***** and telling her to fuck off would have just been perfect fodder for that.

No, thats the kind of criticism she gets for not allowing comments or voting.

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

 

[Lieju]

Sarkeesian has some good points and some over-generalisations (And there's certainly a problem with sexism in gaming), I don't care for her stuff because I don't find it interesting or informative.

The ***** doesn't even know WHO Samus is, and wants to talk about women in gaming. Fuck off Anita.

So, that would have been the kind of 'criticism' you would have posted on her Youtube-videos if she allowed it? What a loss.

I suddenly remember why I usually stay away from these threads.

BTW, I don't see why she disabled the Youtube-comments if she really loves playing a victim as much as people claim.
All those comments calling her a ***** and telling her to fuck off would have just been perfect fodder for that.

No, thats the kind of criticism she gets for not allowing comments or voting.

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.

 

[broca]

I have no problems with her disabling youtube comments, but she should have made a way of public interaction and discussion available, especially as she tries to educate/convince people. She could have for example included a forum with some (temporarily) hired mods as a stretch goal, where she could have set the rules for what's acceptable and let the mods take care of the rest. It wouldn't been perfect, but it would imo far better than having nothing.

Why? Not only are her videos completely basic Feminism 101 (and shouldn't really be generating 1/100th of the interest or controversy they seem to), why does it matter a jot if there is a platform on which people can debate her? It's fine if you WANT to, but that doesn't reflect on the quality of the argument in the slightest.

Of course a dedicated place for comments and discussion doesn't change the quality of her arguments and i wasn't trying to argue that, but i still think that it would have been a good idea to have such a place. It would have allowed people to discuss, support and/or criticize her videos with a possibility for her to interact with people and answer questions and criticism (maybe even making her next episodes better as she learns what works and what not). This interaction between community and content maker is missing from her (understandably, considering the abuse against her), but a forum like i described would have allowed such useful interaction while protecting her from most harassment.

 

[LetalisK]

I don't think it would be physically possible for a youtube comment, no matter how well structured and meaning, to reach the level of professional academic peer review...

I was unaware Youtube comments were the only place one can respond to her videos and arguments.

True, that wasn't explicitly stated. What forms of direct criticism are we talking about?

 

[LetalisK]

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

Conversely, if you do allow comments, you're probably still not going to get a whole lot of respect. At least not in the comments themselves.

(Edit: Just realized this comes across as serious, I was trying to make a joke by exaggerating )