Question, If Anita Sarkeesian is Right, why is Jack Thompson Wrong?

[Vivi22]

When did Sarkeesian ever explicitly say video games cause men to want to rape women? I've never heard this one, at least not in the form of an exact quote not taken out of context.

See her latest video, she pretty much made the claim that video games that harm woman will infleunce men to do the same.

Happen to have a link and a reference to the time code?

And even if you did, there's a big difference between talking about how depictions of gender roles in media might affect behaviour (but almost certainly do reflect how gender roles are viewed by the people making them, and people not questioning them raises the serious question of how many people don't even notice and don't recognize that there's a problem), and arguing that people playing violent games will go out and murder people despite mountains of evidence to the contrary.

Or to put it more simply, there's a big difference between claiming that depictions of sexist behaviour in media might influence subtle interactions and feelings about and between people of different genders, and arguing that someone who becomes desensitized to fictional violence will lose the ability to separate fact from fiction, right from wrong, and go on a murder spree.

Most people know that murder is wrong and will never engage in it, no matter how many violent video games they play because it is clearly, unequivocally, and categorically wrong and recognizable as such by every human who is of relatively sound mind. But gender interactions are much more of a grey area, and it is legitimate to question how depictions of those interactions in media may influence behaviour if we don't fully understand that yet.

So to reiterate what others have said, you're over simplifying their positions and drawing a comparison that doesn't apply, even if she did say the thing you claim.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

This is the same as asking "If Steven Segal is right, why is Rihanna wrong?".

This is just being facetious. Watch her video. Look at her "Games make it more likely there will be real-world violence and discrimination against women" argument. Look at her "Games are interactive therefore sexism simulators" argument. It is a very similar argument to those made by people on the subject of violence, like Jack Thompsons, that games being an interactive medium makes them impact our fragile little minds and create real-world actions/crimes.

Don't make me and others pick out the quotes again for the 50th time, I'm so very tired of outright dismissive posts. After nine pages this is embarrassing.

I'm sorry you're embarrassed but I see no connection between constructive criticism and censorship.
And no thank you, I'm not watching her videos AGAIN. Sarkeesian is as insightful as TvTropes, and about half as fun.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

This is the same as asking "If Steven Segal is right, why is Rihanna wrong?".

This is just being facetious. Watch her video. Look at her "Games make it more likely there will be real-world violence and discrimination against women" argument. Look at her "Games are interactive therefore sexism simulators" argument. It is a very similar argument to those made by people on the subject of violence, like Jack Thompsons, that games being an interactive medium makes them impact our fragile little minds and create real-world actions/crimes.

Don't make me and others pick out the quotes again for the 50th time, I'm so very tired of outright dismissive posts. After nine pages this is embarrassing.

I'm sorry you're embarrassed but I see no connection between constructive criticism and censorship.
And no thank you, I'm not watching her videos AGAIN. Sarkeesian is as insightful as TvTropes, and about half as fun.

If you have not seen her video, in which she puts this forward, why are you spouting an opinion about it? Why argue about something you state yourself you have not seen?!

I said I wouldn't watch her videos again. I even capitalized the word and everything.

You can't comment.

Yes, and there's no fighting in the War Room either.

 

[Shodanbot]

Happen to have a link and a reference to the time code?

Will a quote do?

"... But the negative effects on men are just as alarming, albeit in slightly different ways.

Studies have found, for example, that after having viewed sexually objectified female bodies, men in particular tend to view woman as less intelligent, less competent and disturbingly express less concern for their physical well being or safety. Furthermore this perception is not limited only to sexualized women; in what's called the "Spill Over Effect", these sexist attitudes carry over to perceptions of all women, as a group, regardless of their attire, activities or professions.

Researchers have also found that after long-term exposure to hyper-sexualized images, people of all genders tend to be more tolerant of the sexual harassment of women and readily accept rape myths, including the belief that sexually assaulted women were asking for it, deserved it or are the ones to blame for being victimized.

In other words, viewing media that frames women as objects or sexual playthings, profoundly impacts how real life women are perceived and treated in the world around us. And that is all without even taking into account how video games allow for the more participatory form of objectification that we've been discussing in this episode.

Compounding the problem is the widespread belief that, despite all the evidence, exposure to media has no real world impact...

BLAH BLAH BLAH... THANKS FOR WASTING 30 MINUTES OF THE ONLY LIFE YOU'VE GOT. SEE YA NEXT TIME. ROLL CREDITS."

Only time I've ever watched any of her videos. Why do I do this to myself?

And even if you did, there's a big difference between talking about how depictions of gender roles in media might affect behaviour (but almost certainly do reflect how gender roles are viewed by the people making them, and people not questioning them raises the serious question of how many people don't even notice and don't recognize that there's a problem), and arguing that people playing violent games will go out and murder people despite mountains of evidence to the contrary.

As a big ol' pillow biter, after watching a bit of gay porno, I've never found myself thinking: "Emerson? He's nothing but a dick and a pair a balls...". I figure adult men of the breeding variety don't do it to adult women of the breeding variety so long as they aren't talking crap.

Or to put it more simply, there's a big difference between claiming that depictions of sexist behaviour in media might influence subtle interactions and feelings about and between people of different genders, and arguing that someone who becomes desensitized to fictional violence will lose the ability to separate fact from fiction, right from wrong, and go on a murder spree.

This line rubbed me the wrong way. Is there something wrong with you or Anita that you can't help but follow a previous paragraph with a simplification of what you said in the previous paragraph? "In other words," and "Or to put it more simply," will be burned in my mind now. Thank you.

Most people know that murder is wrong and will never engage in it, no matter how many violent video games they play because it is clearly, unequivocally, and categorically wrong and recognizable as such by every human who is of relatively sound mind.

You're certainly endeavouring to change that...

But gender interactions are much more of a grey area, and it is legitimate to question how depictions of those interactions in media may influence behaviour if we don't fully understand that yet.

Murder is also a very grey area. Do you like your countries military? Loaded question, I know.

So to reiterate what others have said, you're over simplifying their positions and drawing a comparison that doesn't apply, even if she did say the thing you claim.

If you could put that more simply for me, that would nice. Thanks.

 

[Robot-Jesus]

Feminism and video games deserve a better class of commentator.

 

[generals3]

[

Or to put it more simply, there's a big difference between claiming that depictions of sexist behaviour in media might influence subtle interactions and feelings about and between people of different genders, and arguing that someone who becomes desensitized to fictional violence will lose the ability to separate fact from fiction, right from wrong, and go on a murder spree.

Actually the only reason why you think it's different is because you phrase it differently. Yet at it's core it's the same:
A video game portrays fictional characters. In order for that to significantly influence one's opinion of real people one has to be unable to properly separate both the real and fictional women. If both are correctly categorized one should have no issue not being influenced by pixels of 100% fictional "persons". If one believes there is a significant amount of people who fail to separate fictional women from real women why reject the idea a significant amount of people fail the same with violence?

But gender interactions are much more of a grey area, and it is legitimate to question how depictions of those interactions in media may influence behaviour if we don't fully understand that yet.

I'd say people are currently overestimating the impact of the media. (probably because people love to blame exterior factors rather than themselves. Why point fingers at yourself when it can be pointed at something else?) It's because the interactions were grey to begin with that they... remain grey.

And I would like to note that even when it comes to murder things are very grey. This is can be easily illustrated by how some people think it's ok that a robber got killed, or people who wish a certain rapist would be killed or to make it more extreme take a look at "Attack on Wall Street", a movie which actually portrays a murderous wackjob as "the good guy".

 

[Netrigan]

So if cherry picking is bad, why is it that 99% of the criticism of the latest video centers around two of her examples? That's cherry picking, too.

I think you're misinterpreting what people are implying when they refer to cherry picking. In its rawest form practically everything is cherry picked as it's not feasible or necessary to include everything in a reference.

However when people say cherry picking in the negative sense, their referring to the situation in which the context of the cited information changes significantly when all of the information is observed.

Picking out and focusing on two of her arguments isn't really cherry picking in that sense. Taking a statement she made about her stance on games several years ago without providing the whole presentation is.

But how exactly would that apply to this case.

She's making an argument (or critique). This is largely opinion based and what she's done is identify a trend, provides examples of the trend, and makes a case for its undesirability.

So far, this is "damsels in distress" and "women as decoration". And while we can argue about some of her examples, by and large she has provided a number of examples of damsels in distress and women being used as decoration. And enough examples are provided to argue that it's not an insignificant number.

As in any good argument, she's selected examples which back up her argument. If you wish to make a counter-argument, you provide examples which argue the opposite point. Thus far, the opposite argument (i.e. women save male characters and men are used as decoration) are a lot thinner. A couple of people have put forth the argument that the number of examples she uses is a small percentage of the games released... although I find this particular argument a bit weak since how can we argue anything is a trend. GTA clones wouldn't be a trend since they make up such a tiny percentage of the games released, military shooters wouldn't be a trend because they make up such a tiny percentage of the games released, we could probably make an argument that sequels aren't a trend because so many games are original IPs.

Where the cherry picking fallacy comes into play is when you substitute cherry picked data for scientific data. Such as you ask Republicans what they think about Obama and pass this off as a random survey or you try to make the case that Global Warming doesn't exist because Rhode Island is experiencing a mild summer. A cigarette funded health survey that only examines the cancer rates in teenage smokers. It's about data manipulation, whether conscious or unconscious. There's really not much in the way of data for her to manipulate. She may get the context wrong (either on purpose or accidentally), but there's a female in need of rescuing, there's a stripper who wants you to fondle her. Those data points are objective, but What those data points mean can't really be parsed in a scientific manner. What those data points mean is largely subjective.

To the degree that anyone who goes looking for something subjective will invariably find it, she's letting bias lead her work; but there's really not much of a scientific basis any of this could have been built upon. It's an opinion piece. MovieBob will invariably come to the conclusion that First Person Shooters are not as good as his beloved Nintendo mascot games. She's not really much different, only she spends a lot more time defining terms because it's academia.

And as I say, I take something away from it that she probably didn't intend. I look upon this as a call for better writer. Take the damsel trope. Star Wars came out when I was seven years old and I was extremely lucky that it's one of my first remembered brushes with the trope because Lucas had a lot of fun subverting tropes back in the day. The damsel lays around waiting to be rescued (although she feeds the Empire false information so hero move) and when she realizes what an amateur hour rescue attempt is being made (an assessment backed up by Han, "he's the brains"), she takes charge of her own rescue. Over in Raiders we have Marion who is making several attempts to free herself, all of which are quite fun to watch. In Return of the Jedi, Leia takes down Jabba at the first opportunity. Forty years ago, George Lucas was showing up Max Payne 3... that's just all kinds of disappointing.

 

[MysticSlayer]

I'm guessing it's all about emphasising the message that you're not fighting to win them but allow them freedom of choice.
It's the right to self determination rather than oppression and removal of choice mostly. Other than because it's how the game goes is the Damsel forced to stay with the hero in any way or could she just go off and do her own thing.

I'd understand the argument it's an object to win if the Damsel expressed interest in staying with the capture / claimed they went with the supposed capture of their own accord, but unless the game intentionally has this message I don't think I've ever seen it inadvertently expressed in games.
The only couple of games I can name which intentionally features it is an Xbox Live Indie game called "Monsters Probably Stole my princess" and "Braid". Just in case anyone is planning to now check it out

To me, the idea of the object is mostly conveyed in the mechanics and the general systems of a game. There are win states, such as a flag pole at the end of the level, and lose states, generally death. The problem is that, without characterization, there's little to differentiate the damsel in distress (i.e. the ultimate win state) from any other win state, such as the flag pole at the end of a Mario level or a button at the end of a DOOM level. Sure, games like Mario still haven't really broken away from this systemization, but at the same time, giving more character at least clearly separates a character like Peach from the flag pole.

Now, I understand that it is hard to break away from a lot of this systemization, but we could at least expect them to do as much as they can within the system they are using. Like I've already said, the Galaxy games did a very good job at making Peach feel like more of a character with some agency of her own, and 3D Land even managed to do that with some hilarious photos [http://www.mariowiki.com/images/3/3a/SM3DL_W6.JPG] given between worlds. Of course, Mario probably could find some different ways to present its systems, but it has sort of backed itself into a corner with Galaxy 2 declaring that the series is about the reuniting of people who are special to each other.

And honestly, I don't think all games do everything they can. Again, we've come a long way, and the evolution of Mario has basically shown us how far we've come. But I think we can still do more to either prevent, or at least strongly limit, letting our systems unintentionally deliver negative messages. And I also understand how hard it is to do given that we rarely think of gameplay itself as part of the story, but conversations can certainly help generate ideas.

Actually in one of her videos she brought up Sands of Time and claimed it was a standard Damsel trope, I'm pretty sure at least.

Well, I've been trying to find it but I still can't seem to find The Sands of Time in any of her videos, just forum posts from other people wondering about how Farah would fit into Anita's categorization.

Yes there is still progress that can be made however games shouldn't be forced to try and fit a progressive idea of 50% and should be allowed their own narravivte. Be it essentially Charle's Angels the video game about an all female hero group (not going into the arguments round the show it just happens to be an easy example of capable female characters) or if that does mean some games have sausage fest main cast. If it makes narrative sense then it should be fine.

Well, the issue right now is sort of a sense of overabundance of one type of story. I agree that some stories just don't make sense if they pretty much aren't just an all-male cast fighting each other (e.g. most WWII stories), but at the same time, when that is the only real story told in mainstream games, then we sort of have a problem not just of variety of games but also of excessive underrepresentation of certain people in game stories. I'd imagine, though, that the problem of seeing an occasional sausage fest shooter will be less problematic when it is just something we see on occasion, not the thing that dominates our store's shelves.

Again though it's limitations. Costs are sky-rocketing and the more you flesh out the more expense. I mean Dishonoured almost shows this issue as it was heavily criticised for being what 8 hours long single player only as a $60 game. Yes it was highly regarded but was also limited heavily by the choices made. compared to some 60 hour epics it just shows the difference is scope required almost.

Well, if a 60 hour epic can't at least offer a world as fleshed out as Dishonored's, then it's probably got a paper thin story and world. I mean, Dishonored essentially was a 20 hour game's world condensed into an 8-10 hour game.

Except outside of games revolving round crime and criminality / underworld or seedy activities then I can name three games with a brothel / prostitutes in it.
Legend of Zelda 2 where it's implied
Duke Nukem 3D
Duke Nukem forever

The first one being rather old and the other two being a parody of the stereotype hyper macho hero.

Well, maybe I'm just playing the right games, but they seem to work their way into approximately half the games I play, and most of that other half are all the Nintendo games I play.

Thinking that something is okay and doing it are not the same thing.

Is that contradictory statement to you?

Sorry, I must of misread the post.

Either way, I'm not sure exactly what you mean by how "believing a rape myth" and "thinking it is OK to rape" are the same thing. "Rape myths" could mean things like believing that women are raped because they dressed "improperly" or that rape prevention is should be the job of women. It isn't the same as believing rape is OK to do.

 

[Netrigan]

So if cherry picking is bad, why is it that 99% of the criticism of the latest video centers around two of her examples? That's cherry picking, too.

I think you're misinterpreting what people are implying when they refer to cherry picking. In its rawest form practically everything is cherry picked as it's not feasible or necessary to include everything in a reference.

However when people say cherry picking in the negative sense, their referring to the situation in which the context of the cited information changes significantly when all of the information is observed.

Picking out and focusing on two of her arguments isn't really cherry picking in that sense. Taking a statement she made about her stance on games several years ago without providing the whole presentation is.

But how exactly would that apply to this case.

She's making an argument (or critique). This is largely opinion based and what she's done is identify a trend, provides examples of the trend, and makes a case for its undesirability.

So far, this is "damsels in distress" and "women as decoration". And while we can argue about some of her examples, by and large she has provided a number of examples of damsels in distress and women being used as decoration. And enough examples are provided to argue that it's not an insignificant number.

As in any good argument, she's selected examples which back up her argument. If you wish to make a counter-argument, you provide examples which argue the opposite point. Thus far, the opposite argument (i.e. women save male characters and men are used as decoration) are a lot thinner. A couple of people have put forth the argument that the number of examples she uses is a small percentage of the games released... although I find this particular argument a bit weak since how can we argue anything is a trend. GTA clones wouldn't be a trend since they make up such a tiny percentage of the games released, military shooters wouldn't be a trend because they make up such a tiny percentage of the games released, we could probably make an argument that sequels aren't a trend because so many games are original IPs.

Where the cherry picking fallacy comes into play is when you substitute cherry picked data for scientific data. Such as you ask Republicans what they think about Obama and pass this off as a random survey or you try to make the case that Global Warming doesn't exist because Rhode Island is experiencing a mild summer. A cigarette funded health survey that only examines the cancer rates in teenage smokers. It's about data manipulation, whether conscious or unconscious. There's really not much in the way of data for her to manipulate. She may get the context wrong (either on purpose or accidentally), but there's a female in need of rescuing, there's a stripper who wants you to fondle her. Those data points are objective, but What those data points mean can't really be parsed in a scientific manner. What those data points mean is largely subjective.

To the degree that anyone who goes looking for something subjective will invariably find it, she's letting bias lead her work; but there's really not much of a scientific basis any of this could have been built upon. It's an opinion piece. MovieBob will invariably come to the conclusion that First Person Shooters are not as good as his beloved Nintendo mascot games. She's not really much different, only she spends a lot more time defining terms because it's academia.

And as I say, I take something away from it that she probably didn't intend. I look upon this as a call for better writer. Take the damsel trope. Star Wars came out when I was seven years old and I was extremely lucky that it's one of my first remembered brushes with the trope because Lucas had a lot of fun subverting tropes back in the day. The damsel lays around waiting to be rescued (although she feeds the Empire false information so hero move) and when she realizes what an amateur hour rescue attempt is being made (an assessment backed up by Han, "he's the brains"), she takes charge of her own rescue. Over in Raiders we have Marion who is making several attempts to free herself, all of which are quite fun to watch. In Return of the Jedi, Leia takes down Jabba at the first opportunity. Forty years ago, George Lucas was showing up Max Payne 3... that's just all kinds of disappointing.

It sounds to me, you're trying to argue we can't call what she's doing cherry picking, because everyone cherry picks information, which in and of itself is a falsifiable argument. If we start nitpicking over what constitutes cherry picking when it's obvious we are referring to the data, in the specific clips she pulls that data from, refute the argument she makes if she would show thirty seconds more of that same clip.

In other words, Lthis clip proves my argument!" Is what she is saying, but literally because she is cutting off a part of that exact clip, which would refute her argument.

That would be cherry picking.

Akin to global warming, it would be like saying, well the ice caps in this area have reconstructed back to a wide spread mass like it once was this proves Global Warming or climate change isn't happening as my argument... While I ignore that the ice likewise is only about a tenth as thick as it once was.

It's cherry picking and ignoring data within the same sample which essentially refutes the entire point.

We can call what she is doing cherry picking, because often her work is refuted in the exact same sample she presents if she had just extended the clip 30 seconds longer.

Like an episode of American Dad. In one where Stan died they show things that look like good deeds and acts, but by extending the clip it refutes the point.

I would say that while everyone can in fact Cherry Pick. She is cherry picking with the express intent to create a dishonest representation. This is demonstrated by the idea that simply extending the clip from the exact same scene tends to refute her made points frequently.

What examples of hers are we talking about.

I quibble with her using about half a dozen examples, but they're close enough to her point that I don't consider it cut and dry.

Such as, I don't view Angel as a damsel in Borderlands 2, but this is mostly due to her hiding her confinement until her liberators enter into the area where she's kept prisoner. But even with full context, she is still "rescued" by being killed. I can see why she would use that as an example, although I read the context in a slightly different way.

Another example in the same Damsel in the Fridge motif is Dom's story in Gears of War. Again, Dom's wife is "saved" by killing her, but I'd only give this particular example a pass because it's outside the previous context of the game series. Like with Borderlands, I credit a bit of ambitious writing that they attempted anything remotely like this at all. It's still exactly as she presented it.

I think the only other example from the Damsel videos I played in the current gen was Max Payne 3 and if anything that game was far more despicable than she presented it as. I despise that game for the boring, monotonous, poorly written piece of shit that it is. The endless procession of dead damsels is only one of its many, many sins.

Watch Dogs is a contentious example in Women As Decoration, as many argue the context defuses the image of women being put on display. I argue against Watch Dogs on the basis of the game's shitty writing and no one on the writing team should have even dared attempted to use sexism to argue against sexism... that's a trick well beyond their feeble abilities (see also reports of Jerry Lewis' unfinished Holocaust film... seriously, it sounds hilarious which is, of course, the problem, that it's unintentionally hilarious). Still, regardless of context, women are being put on display as decoration. It's not cut and dried. She' simply taking a harder position than many would.

I can think of no other example in that video (maybe Far Cry 3 which portrays prostitution in a rougher context than usual) in which any argues context would have changed the images. I played a very large percentage of those games and I'd agree that almost every example was for the titillation factor. And since that was the implication of her video, I can't see how she misrepresented Saints Row 1-3, the GTA series, or even Mass Effect 1.

Hitman: Absolution is the one example where she's off the reservation. And even then I get the point she's attempting to make about the nature of open-world games and how devs are well-aware of how some of their audience are putting together the tools they're providing (and even encouraging it with an achievement in the case of Red Dead Redemption), but it was a really poor example of what she was talking about since they have nothing but plausible deniability.

So from my perspective, I'm seeing one example of what I'd almost call a gross misrepresentation of the facts. And three others where I'd classify things a bit differently, but I can understand why she includes them.

What are these glaring misrepresentations which I keep hearing are littering her works? Which examples of hers are beyond the pale?