The Most Dangerous Woman in Videogames - Anita Sarkeesian

[Ragsnstitches]

It's a subversion of a very common trope. The expectation is sex appeal to a generalised male heterosexual audience, throwing in a twist that would often turn sex appeal completely on it's head for many heterosexual men.

If you can't make the distinction then I'm not going pussyfoot around it.

This is not representative to my worldview and I'd thank you to not jump to conclusions.

That's still incredibly stupid. "Ha ha we killed your boner," doubly so because 90% of the time the opposite is true. Look at Bridget, Poison or as I meantioned, Skullgirls. Are they still subversive when they prove these generalized, preconceived notions wrong?

What the fuck is skullgirls and why is it the entire pivot point of your hilariously off point comments? Does one incredibly niche game really change the generalised norm? Wow, if only all those social activists of the last century knew all you had to do is make a microcosmic success in a niche entertainment market to make instant and quantifiable change.

Speaking of quantifiable:

90%... citation needed.

Look, you really don't know a thing about me so I suggest you leave me and my preferences out of this, but to be clear, your really off mark when it comes to that image you seem to have of me.

At this stage, I'm just confused. What the fuck is your point?

 

[Kmadden2004]

Anybody playing the "there's no valid argument against her" card might want to check out this video;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGFWQEQUT5g

(sorry, I don't know how to embed on this site, as much as I've tried in the past - and apologies if anybody's already poster this in this thread)

It's probably the most level-headed, reasonable assessment of her work you're ever likely find on YouTube. No ad hominems, no thunderf00t-esque rants, this guy does at least go to some lengths to try to be objective in his analysis.

It's a bit long (nearly 50 minutes), but he does raise some good points.

 

[Battenberg]

You know how big factories have those days without accident signs?

Spoiler

The Escapist could do with one of those but for Anita Sarkeesian arguments. Who knows, we might even make double digits one day.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

Anita Sarkeesian lectures about female tropes in games and MovieBob was there to see it.

And thanks again!

I'm not even going to engage with some of the... things... being said in this thread. I've said what I have to say before, and I don't plan to say it again here.

I just wanted to thank you, Bob, and tell you how jealous I am of you for getting to meet her in person.

 

[Callate]

I didn't (and don't) really want to get into another Sarkeesian discussion which almost inevitably seems to resolve with polar camps becoming even more entrenched in what they already believe.

But I feel like I do need to say this much: if Anita Sarkeesian is "the most dangerous woman in videogames"... Man, we've really got to up our game.

Which is not to say anything about the quality of her work, one way or another. Take that as you will, good, bad, or indifferent. Just that no one can really, credibly say that Anita Sarkeesian is in video games.

She's a critic. A commentator. A sideliner. One more chatterer in the chattering throng, as it were, enjoying her moment in the spotlight for however long it might last. She might be an irritating rabble rouser mouthing off her own opinion or she might be the spearhead of a growing movement, but in either case, she as an individual means very little to video games, either individually or as a whole.

As hard as it may be for some people to believe, there are actual women making actual video games- from Rhianna Pratchett writing for Tomb raider to transexual activist and game designer Anna Anthropy. If an "armchair quarterback" like Sarkeesian is the the woman influencing the face of video games the most, the figure of doom foretelling the new face of the medium... I'm less than convinced that the revolution is imminent. Sarkeesian's influence on the medium ends with a flick of an off switch and an Amazon purchase of the next Suda 51 game. Someone who's actually in the medium is far more likely to actually bring about change.

But apparently there's no one all that "dangerous", there.

 

[shiajun]

Why should anyone cater to anyone?
You know what?
Best examples of games came out of "white male dominated" era
Just from the surface of my brain
Fallout, Planescape, Baldur's Gate, System Shock, Deus Ex, X-Com, The Elder Scrolls, Age of Empires, GTA and Daikatana (best example of how NOT to do game development )
And I would slap anyone who would claim that these games are played and loved only or even mostly by white males.
So maybe we should not bother game developers with political/ideological bullshit, but rather leave their creative process alone?
If game ends up shit we laugh at it and forget about it month later.
If game ends up good we praise it and throw our money at it.
But pressuring someone to take a stance when developing a game is rather stupid.
Because in that case we end up with game like "Remember me"

I wholeheartedly agree. No one should be catering to anyone specifically. Of the games you mentioned, they have relatively little in common in tone, gameplay, objectives, etc. They were mostly done out of the developers interests. But we're not there anymore. I don't really know, so this is all speculation, but I'd venture that back in the late nineties/early 2000s there wasn't as much reliance on focus groups as evidence to push out anything that's not a following the model of CoD or Gears of War out of the spotlight. There were many mid-size studios back then, budgets were more moderate and a lot of experimentation took place. We're not there anymore, and we should try to get somehow back there in terms of diversity in properly funded projects.

In any case, I wasn't talking about coverage as in development but as in media coverage. Many people out there are making some really interesting, weird games that have nothing to do with the current shooter/cover model, yet we only get to know the tip of iceberg of those through the bigger channels. We should ask why that is, since apparently those crowds put a lot of money where they mouth is if Kickstarter donations are to be believed. So, it's wise form a business perspective to try to draw those audiences to your site and stop plastering the page with the same news about the same games. It would a more accurate reporting of the industry than centering on the action white male demographic alone.

 

[Ragsnstitches]

When you deliberately create an image of a sexual nature, whatever subsequently follows on from that does not automatically change the context of what preceded, unless it subverts the SEXUAL aspect (the sexy woman turns out to be a a post-op/pre-op male, or has a hideous scar or disfigurement somewhere the ad concealed up to the reveal).

Never claimed anything happened automatically.

Getting dressed is not subversive.

Yeah, because that was the only thing that happened that caused a complete change in focus and theme. :/

Throwing on a combat uniform does not subvert the sexual theme and, if uniform fetishes were anything to go by, more likely enhances it (She's Hot AND she kicks ass!). Different Strokes and all that shit, doesn't matter, the goal was clear, make her sexy for the hormonally charged audience.

Initially. That was not the end-goal, however, which is a pretty important distinction.

Whether you got randy or not is irrelevant.

Insofar as sex appeal is required for the setup, it's relevant. But beyond that, it is irrelevant.

Whether the ad is good or bad at what it does is irrelevant.

Okay? Never said otherwise.

Whether Joanna Dark is a fleshed out character or 2D cut-out in the game is irrelevant.

Okay? Never said otherwise.

Whether the ad subverts other negative stereotypes or not is irrelevant.

...you mean kind of like these bulletpoints?

The ad, taking as is and without extraneous details (like what the game is actually about), it is the very definition of Fighting fuckdoll. A character who is made to sexually titillate, then being empowered to fight. The empowerment does not counteract the intent to titillate.

Did not say otherwise. A fighting fuckdoll's sexual appeal is a central aspect. In the ad, the sexual appeal was a red herring and ultimately irrelevant. That is not true of a fighting fuckdoll.

You can argue until the sun goes nova whether that is good or bad, just don't say it isn't what it is. The term was made for that usage.

Indeed, but you are the one that doesn't seem to understand what the term means. Though really, this is the best case scenario for this made up term which you seem to think is sacrosanct. Even if "fighting fuckdoll" was so loose as to include something like the Perfect Dark ad were sexuality was a subversive setup tool rather than a core aspect of a character, then it's far too broad to be of much use as you've stripped context(that important thing you mentioned at the beginning of your post) from the use of sex appeal.

Lastly, I don't care about the feminist angle on this subject, but I have serious gripe with people who seem to think language bends to their whim. Whether you like it's usage or not does not mean you can decide what it can be used for.

Funny, I was going to say the same thing to you.

Don't be so freaking pedantic.
* Actually you did say it was, though not in literal terms:
"And completely dropped any appeal to sexuality after the reveal." Your words, not mine.

* Yeah, the theme shifted... doesn't change the context of the ad.

* So you are saying sex appeal wasn't an integral aspect to that minute long ad?

* Just clarifying.

* Just clarifying.

* Unnecessary jab, but I'm starting to see a pattern here.

* Again:
"And completely dropped any appeal to sexuality after the reveal." - You
"A fighting fuckdolls sexual appeal is it's central aspect"
So 60% of the runtime isn't a major margin or anyway central to the marketing plan behind the ad?

*Never alluded to it being sacrosanct and, in fact at multiple points I pointed out how it isn't a good term either, but having you admit that it is rich, since you are telling other people how it can and can't be used.

*You still feeling smug?

 

[LordLundar]

You know how big factories have those days without accident signs?

Spoiler

The Escapist could do with one of those but for Anita Sarkeesian arguments. Who knows, we might even make double digits one day.

They would have to get rid of every current contributor and editor to pull that off. After all, most of the time this crops up is when it's a contributor doing it.

That said, I'm done here. It's gotten to the point that a day can't even go by without some contributor or editor puts something up largely saying if you don't worship at the Shrine of Anita or fall in absolute lockstep with her ideals then you are at best a joke or at worst the enemy. I'm tired of the same argument every day and it's coming from the people running and contributing to the site. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

 

[StHubi]

And thanks again!

I'm not even going to engage with some of the... things... being said in this thread. I've said what I have to say before, and I don't plan to say it again here.

I just wanted to thank you, Bob, and tell you how jealous I am of you for getting to meet her in person.

That was exactly what I wanted to write! Thanks for preparing the words

But you made me curious...
Are there really people in this thread that do not like the option of free speech? That do not understand the intention behind Mrs. Sarkeesian work? Everybody is free to disagree and I hope there is nothing worse here.
I will take a look at the thread - though it may only be a REALLY short one.

 

[Macroplasm]

Anita is a proven liar and conartist. You can find the videos on YouTube of her saying that she doesn't care and never cared about video games at all. It's not her thing.

I love the internet, where you can back up your claims with diddly-squat.

Here's the video he was talking about.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcPIu3sDkEw

 

[hentropy]

Personally I have no problems with occasional tropes in the video gaming, if you want to have Princess Peach be the helpless Princess in every one of the Mario games that's fine, that's Mario's shtick. I think the problem most people have is when a lot of these general tropes show up in every game with a female character in them in the respective genres. These are no creative expressions on the behalf of the developers most of the time, they are forced in by the publishers because of focus testing and target audiences. Want to have a strong female character? Better be sexy and/or busty. It's this stuff, which tends to be focus-test driven, which maddens many people who want change in the industry. I just want them to move away from stagnation.

The kicker is that it's not hard at all to create a decent female character, it's been done all across gaming history from Chrono Trigger to Chell (who I reject as being purely a "silent protagonist with no personality" as some have asserted). How Sarkeesian fits into it is somewhat irrelevant, and just distracts from the real issue of the stifling of creativity and move to uniformity exerted by the publishers.

 

[Piecewise]

Anita Sarkeesian lectures about female tropes in games and MovieBob was there to see it.

And thanks again!

I'm not even going to engage with some of the... things... being said in this thread. I've said what I have to say before, and I don't plan to say it again here.

I just wanted to thank you, Bob, and tell you how jealous I am of you for getting to meet her in person.

In other words you don't want to rebut any of the many many MANY well reasoned, concise, and lengthy criticisms leveled against her work, which have nothing to do with her being a woman or are sexist in the least.

Because that would be hard. Better to just assume that arguments against her works are the results of "misogyny" and continue to worship her just as blindly as people worship fox news pundits.

 

[Pat Hulse]

There's a difference between having prejudice as a subject within a piece of fiction and a piece of fiction actually being prejudiced. For example, "12 Years A Slave" is about racism, but it isn't a racist film. Meanwhile "Breakfast At Tiffany's" isn't about racism, but it is a racist film for its infamous portrayal of an asian character played by Mickey Rooney.

Your argument is only valid if Anita Sarkeesian is asking video games to not have any sexist characters or explore sexism as a theme. She hasn't said that. What she's said is that she's against games that perpetuate sexism through the use of various tropes and attitudes within the community.

See there is the thing. Everytime someone actually tries to interpret her thesis it always comes with the response "it isn't that".

Okay so why does one get to exist and one doesn't? Keep in mind that recently the video game industry has recently won a supreme court case that upheld that video games are free speech. In other words the entire debate that makes the claim that playing violent video games makes a person violent has been debunked. So what makes the concept of having to deal with sexist subjects and such make a person sexist in real life? It is just as illogical.

People aren't going to become sexist by playing video games just in the same vein as people aren't going to become violent by playing violent video games. If either were true first Jack Thompson's of the world would of won and the video game industry would then have to drastically censor violence in video games.

I'm sure all of use have read many books, watched many movies and played many games but has that actually changed your mind to the point where you think LESS about women? Something tells me it doesn't no matter how "sexist" the content is or is not. Also what gives her the right to enforce her beliefs over the creative freedoms that writers, developers and directors have in the products they create? Not to mention the fact that we are dealing with fictional characters that are drastically divorced from reality and our modern society.

I mean with all the crap that has been said on here no one, not even Anita has actually explained her thesis in detail so that everyone can understand to actually have a starting point to discuss if her thesis has any sort of merit.. Cause I've seen the changing of the goalposts so many times that it makes my head spin.

This argument comes up a lot and it reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of "free speech". What "free speech" means is that the government has no right to prevent its people from expressing themselves. In that regard, no I don't think the government should have any role in preventing games or any medium from being sexist, racist, homophobic or whatever so long as they aren't hurting anyone or breaking unrelated laws.

What "free speech" DOESN'T mean is that fiction that is in some way sexist, racist, homophobic or in any other way offensive is immune from being criticized for any reason, up to and including being criticized specifically for being offensive.

One could argue that this sort of criticism does result in the silencing of a particular work. Where the producers of said work will avoid certain content in an effort to avoid offending people and reducing sales. But that's just the way popular art works. If I make a movie about how the Nazis were heroes, no one would produce that movie and very few people would see it if it somehow saw the light of day. That's not suppressing free speech or creativity. If I wanted to, I could still make that stupid awful movie and show it to whoever wants to see it and the government would do nothing to stop it, but no one is obligated to give me money to give it a bigger budget and no one is obligated to see it.

When we criticize sexism in games, we aren't asking for these games to be banned. There's a possibility that if games continue to be sexist in spite of criticism or if the sexism is particularly egregious, those of us who would be offended may choose not to buy it, but that's not the same thing as petitioning the government to have it banned.

No one is asking that these games be banned. We are merely saying that when games have sexist elements, it bothers a lot of people, some more than others, and usually for no good reason. We feel that games can do better.

And I'm sorry if you're confused, but it's not that we're changing our goalposts, it's that you keep challenging arguments that we're not making.

You want a thesis? "Video games frequently use sexist tropes of women and that's a bad thing." It isn't "Sexist video games make people sexist" or "Sexist video games should be banned" or "Video games that explore sexism in any way are bad too".

 

[wulf3n]

You want a thesis? "Video games frequently use sexist tropes of women and that's a bad thing."

What does "bad" mean in this context then?

captcha: well done.

Thank you captcha

 

[BreakfastMan]

Most of the retorts are either strawmen/misunderstandings of what she said (she never says video games are inherently sexist), character attacks, or absurd non-sequesters (a storytelling trope isn't poorly used and harmful because people want to protect others IRL? wut?).

Care to elaborate your counterpoints, BreakfastDude? Deconstruct these supposed strawmen/misunderstandings and explain to us the flaws in our arguments if you will. That's why we're all here for, to debate these points.

You have the floor, good sir.

Care to give me specific arguments, or do you want me to rant against the various arguments I have seen that stick out in my mind the most?