Yes, I'm sure of that, just like all people know that murder is wrong. I think the rape culture is actually all men being framed as rapists and all women as victims, coupled with the spreading of paranoia among women. Most rape victims are male. Female rapists are a minority, but a significant one that is being downplayed.SummerOtaku said:
The Most Dangerous Woman in Videogames - Anita Sarkeesian
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Recommended Videos
It sounds like it was a great talk, Bob. Thanks for reporting on it and sharing the experience. I think that your observations were quite on-point.
When you write an argumentative essay, you must put forward your thesis as if you are proving a fact. If you don't, your thesis - and essay - will be weak.Draconalis said:
Of course, you aren't really proving anything. You're creating an argument and supporting it. Two different essay writers can come up with two opposing view points and argue to support them - in some cases using the same evidence - and neither can truly be right or wrong. They're opinions - and you can't prove opinions, no matter how much evidence you provide.
This is the foundation of academic writing.
Anita has an opinion. She is using evidence to support her opinion. That's what academic writers do. It is not "cheery picking" - it is selecting evidence to support a thesis.
And the one arguing about the definition of words is you, so perhaps you should consider your own proficiency rather than insinuating about mine.
I can't rebut every point you bring up but I will look at a few.
The claim that sexism is just an idea is misleading. Sexism is an idea but it requires action to happen. In order for someone to treat someone unfairly because of their sex, they have to do something, enact some policy, say something, anything to that person. Ideas without action don't hurt people so without action sexism is just an idea floating around someone's head.
1) It minimizes plagiarism. It's would be easy for anyone to say that an idea or research data is their's. If you were not the originator of a statement or idea, or you did not generate the research data you use in your findings you have to let others know who did so that the community can verify and cross check your findings.
2) It promotes further research and understanding. You know how on every Wikipedia article their is a list of sources on the bottom of the page. Most likely those sources go into further detail about whatever topic the article addresses. It's obvious that Anita is using a feminist perspective to analyze these games. But she did not originate the ideas and concepts she uses, and she does not always explain them to her audience. If she would cite where she gets some ideas from it would allow others to do the extra reading necessary to fully understand her videos.
What this quote tells you is that she will ignore the plot of a game and focus on specific scenes divorced from their context when drawing her conclusions from their. Rather than taking a holistic look at gaming narratives she creates the paradigm that "Being a damsel = being weak" however, characters like Princess Zelda or Lili from Psychonauts are capable characters or solid leaders who are captured by the villain. This does not lower their significance to the story in any way, it just means that the villain is a greater threat then previously thought.
As for lying, it's more like she omits facts. In Starfox Adventures the character of Krystal was not replaced as the protagonist of the original game Dinosaur Planet. It was the male character Sabre that was replaced by Fox Mcloud. So when she says
TLDR; Shady research tactics and presentation methods do not make a credible project.
The question is whether or not depictions of sexism in video games affects actual thoughts or instances of sexism in real life. I said this in an earlier post but Anita does try to correlate real life domestic violence with it's occurance in video games. Likewise we have walked this road already when Jack Thompson tried to pull the same thing with how violence in video games affects violence in real life.BreakfastMan said:
The claim that sexism is just an idea is misleading. Sexism is an idea but it requires action to happen. In order for someone to treat someone unfairly because of their sex, they have to do something, enact some policy, say something, anything to that person. Ideas without action don't hurt people so without action sexism is just an idea floating around someone's head.
She presents her works as academic driven projects. One of the fundamental tenants of academia is to properly cite your sources. This is done for several reasons. I'll name a few off the top of my head.
1) It minimizes plagiarism. It's would be easy for anyone to say that an idea or research data is their's. If you were not the originator of a statement or idea, or you did not generate the research data you use in your findings you have to let others know who did so that the community can verify and cross check your findings.
2) It promotes further research and understanding. You know how on every Wikipedia article their is a list of sources on the bottom of the page. Most likely those sources go into further detail about whatever topic the article addresses. It's obvious that Anita is using a feminist perspective to analyze these games. But she did not originate the ideas and concepts she uses, and she does not always explain them to her audience. If she would cite where she gets some ideas from it would allow others to do the extra reading necessary to fully understand her videos.
Keep in mind that one of her biggest selling points prior to a few months ago was that people waged an "on-line hate campaign" against her. When she went to TEDx it was to talk about how she got harassed. When she spoke on CNN it was to talk about how she was harassed. When she spoke on 16x9 it was to talk about how she got harassed. She didn't use her time at the DICE conference or any other gaming related conference talking about her project or her intentions, she spent them talking about how people said mean things about her and made that one flash game. She took more time and effort to draw attention to how she was a victim of harassment than she did actually telling people about what she was going to say or what her stance was going to be. And it has only been in the most recent tour of college visits that she has actually started talking about her TvC series.
This one would require a more nit-picky look at her videos so I'll abstain from going into full detail. But she has gone on record stating (in Episode 2 of her DiD video)
- Of course, if you look at any of these games in isolation, you will be able to find incidental narrative circumstances that can be used to explain away the inclusion of violence against women as a plot device. But just because a particular event might ?makes sense? within the internal logic of a fictional narrative ? that doesn?t, in and of itself justify its use.
What this quote tells you is that she will ignore the plot of a game and focus on specific scenes divorced from their context when drawing her conclusions from their. Rather than taking a holistic look at gaming narratives she creates the paradigm that "Being a damsel = being weak" however, characters like Princess Zelda or Lili from Psychonauts are capable characters or solid leaders who are captured by the villain. This does not lower their significance to the story in any way, it just means that the villain is a greater threat then previously thought.
As for lying, it's more like she omits facts. In Starfox Adventures the character of Krystal was not replaced as the protagonist of the original game Dinosaur Planet. It was the male character Sabre that was replaced by Fox Mcloud. So when she says
- The tale of how Krystal went from protagonist of her own epic adventure to passive victim in someone else?s game illustrates how the Damsel in Distress trope disempowers female characters and robs them of the chance to be heroes in their own rite
Correct, but she does say. (Man episode 2 of her series had a lot of bad things in it)
- One of the really insidious things about systemic & institutional sexism is that most often regressive attitudes and harmful gender stereotypes are perpetuated and maintained unintentionally.
TLDR; Shady research tactics and presentation methods do not make a credible project.
I found your problem.Bara_no_Hime said:
You're taking one very small portion of the academia, and applying it across the board.
While I'll admit that as a thought experiment, interpreting a piece of work as fact can be considered Academic writing, it's hardly the foundation.
Exactly. The definition of Cherry picking. Having an opinion first, then finding evidence to support that opinion.Bara_no_Hime said:
That's what faux academic writers do. Real academic writers collect evidence then form an opinion based on that evidence.Bara_no_Hime said:
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2013/10/14/why-you-might-want-to-think-twice-about-sending-your-daughter-to-college/BreakfastMan said:
that indeed is quite dumb "article", mainly because it is about mostly patriotismVScriticism, but for some reason it is presented as gender issue.
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2012/05/30/after-25-women-are-just-wasting-time/
Title aside this is quite valid point for everyone. Since most of us age like white wine or even milk, while only exceptional ones age like red wine. I don't know about your age, but as someone at age of 25 who used to believe that it is never too late, I can say that there is such thing as "too late"
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2010/09/15/how-female-suffrage-destroyed-western-civilization/
Despite tone, this article kinda have a point. So what is your exact issue with it?
http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/women-dont-own-sex/
Wait, this article is actually quite true. You know, you're trying to prove me that MHRA are bunch of backward fucktards, right?
http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/chanty-no-not-that-one/
Oh, man, that's 100% Paul Elam, pissed, snarky and cynical.
If you have problem with his tone, then no one can help you.
I'm not even sure at what level of sarcasm he is operating
But I'm quite sure his reporting on event was precise
MHRAs can't exactly make up stuff, othervise feminists will pick flesh of their bones for lying
http://www.avoiceformen-uk.com/2013/07/are-women-homophobic.html
Wait a minute, have you even read these articles? This article again brings on quite good point (hint: it isn't about women being 100% homophobes). Yes they do have controversial titles, but that is good way to bring attention. And most of them have good things to think about (couple were even spot on).
Once again I'll repeat myself
There is no official "leaders" in MHRM
And this organization is quite diverse, so there are enough of angry people
But most of them are angry not because they are batshit crazy
No, majority of those angry people either have been burned few times too much, or something precious (usually kids) has been taken from them (usually by bull-shit-law backed wife).
And I can tell you one thing- every decent man will go berserk when someone even dares to propose harm to their children
(I personally will rearrange limbs of anyone who will even think about harming kids of my siblings)
So being "a bit angry" is quite understandable.
(granted we can't know every single detail on every such case that was ever presented in public, but I prefer to believe people until proven wrong)
And from what I have heard and read about MHRM, physical violence is discouraged, while critical thinking is encouraged
So painting them with broad strokes just proves ignorance of anyone doing so
Anita is one of the reasons non-white feminists are getting so angry at "privileged white girl" feminists, who state their opinions wrapped in the cause of feminisim, drawing attention away from important issues over stupid things like what fictional characters wear in video games. Never mind that women have been a big part of gaming for 40+ years, she acts like they didn't exist before her.
I'm perfectly proficient with word usage... and it's not even my profession.Bara_no_Hime said:
So in short creationists cant be proven wrong?Bara_no_Hime said:
People who claim the earth is flat cant be proven wrong?
Youre making it to easy for yourself.
What youre discribing here is a philosophical debate. Theres nothing philosophical of arnita claiming that games and the sexist picture they draw are used by the patriarchy to surpress womens rights.
Those are her words not mine btw and people should really listen to what she keeps spouting and dont let themselves be cought by all the buzzwords she uses.
She basically claims that the image of women in gaming has not gotten better over the years even thought that is clearly not the case. The way women are treated evolves the same as women are being treated in real live. It might be a slow progress but there is progress none the less.
And no.. no amount of argumentation will make me believe in the patriarchy trying to subdue female rights with the use of video games.
I'm confused as to why this was made into an article, because all I gained from it was that "the internet is not reflective of how people act in real life", and isn't that common knowledge?MovieBob said:
EDIT: Bell Hooks.... really?
That's science. I specifically noted Humanities, and specifically noted that cheery picking was something that occurred in science, not in humanities.Karadalis said:
We're talking about interpretations of artwork.
Piecewise said:
And, since neither of you can rise above petty insults and insinuations to actually talk like adults, I'm done with both of you. I gave you both a chance - you blew it. Goodbye.Draconalis said:
Sorry to bud in, but I'm curious, aren't both ways void for academia so long as the thesis is supported by evidence? I mean, why does it matter which came first or last when you are choosing to take those points e.i cherry picking to support your evidence anyway?wulf3n said:
Why is cherry picking bad anyway?
Having read some of the comments here, apparently it's not common knowledge. You would think so though.Helmholtz Watson said:
Trust me... that wasn't insulting. I can BE insulting, that was positively civil of me.Bara_no_Hime said:
But I wonder... what did you give us a chance to do, exactly?
I doubt it was edjucate you, or change your mind... so what, exactly?
Since you seem rather stubbornly stuck on this inane idea that no opinion can be wrong as it relates to art, literature or other such things, lets put this another way. I've created a graph for you.Bara_no_Hime said:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/nc5ur1fz91es4z3/graph.jpg
Now, you can say "There's no such thing as cherry picking." But isn't it a reasonable thing to say that if the majority of data disagrees with her opinion that perhaps her opinion might not be a great one?