This is everything I dislike about modern academia. The use of sources, research and evidence is supposed to make academic dialog more objective, but it should not be used as an excuse to stifle innovation. After all, Thomas Edison never used a source in his life, but that didn't stop him from - you know - inventing the light bulb. The aim of these videos is to inspire a broader debate about women in video games; Sarkeesian never lied about that. To dismiss her views because she doesn't fit your image of a perfect academic then seems churlish.
Wasn't Edison like, a douchebag thief who stole everything he claimed to invent? I don't feel like doing the research to back up that claim. Notice how that makes it less believable? In any case...
The inventor of the lightbulb created something which did not exist before.
The only thing Sarkeesian invented is her OPINION.
How are these things even remotely comparable? Good lord...
OK, somehow, just after I hit the send button, I knew could expect an illicit-major argument as an easy cop-out. I listed the invention of the light bulb as an example of innovation to support the rule I had formulated in the previous sentence. That does not mean that I believe Anita Sarkeesian's opinion is comparable to the invention of the light bulb. I do, however, believe that it is subject to that same rule.* Just because she doesn't follow academic form doesn't mean that her views are entirely invalid. But the fact that we've now been able to have an entire debate about this, rather than those views themselves, shows just how broken the academic system really is.
*So, yes, "remotely comparable" in the same sense that you and I are remotely comparable for both breathing oxygen and drinking water.
So many replies, so little time... Okay, let's do this, for as long as I can stand talking at all of you.
Karadalis said:
A) Violent behavior and Sexist behavior are both states of ones mind. The act of violence might be an action but this is about teaching people through video games to behave violent/sexist so in this context it is exactly the same. Your little differntiation that one thing is an idea and the other is an action holds absolutely no meaning when it comes to the basic question of video games actually affecting peoples behavior. Heres a hint: They dont.
Yes, the actually do. All media does. Or, to state it more correctly, media effects how people think and their preconceptions. However, there is a difference between saying "Doom made my son shoot up a school!" and "All these sexist stereotypes have shifted how culture views women and their place in society". Anita is talking about the later, not the former.
B)Lets start off with all the nonsense she spouts about the "patriarchy" that she fights so hard. Is there actual proof that political figures actually are in cahoots with the creators of video games to surpress women throughout the world by implementing tropes of female chars into their game? How about giving credit to all the game footage she has stolen and not recorded herself? All she does is bring forth her own conspiracy theories that lack any sort of footing in the real world and tries to picture this universal boogyman for women that is "the patriarchy". As if there is actually some james bond villain like organisation that actively works against females.
Look up what the feminist theory of patriarchy actually is before you spout of nonsense next time, alright? Because you obviously didn't here.
C)Yes she does and it has been prooven numerous times and actually has been stated by her herself that she moderates every single comment. Saying that she doesnt moderate them is calling her a liar and i think as one of her supporters you surely arent going to call the person you try to stubbornly defend a liar.
Oh no, moderation on a single internet forum. The thing that threatens free speech the most. However shall we all cope?
D) She should come out and admit that she set this all up. Only for that one video she did not moderate all the comments and let the BS vitriol flow freely.. whats more is that "someone" went to 4chan.. a place that makes mos eisly look like friggin kindergarden and spammed the site with her kickstarter project.
Before that basicly no one in the gigantic community of gaming even knew about her. But suddenly BAM every gaming news website reported on the incident.
That is why i said she is a very smart women.. she knows how to attract attention and it literally paid out for her very well.
Right, so she forced people to threaten her with rape because she did a kickstarter and she apparently did this all on purpose to scam people out of moneys. What proof do you have that it was actually her that went to 4chan, again?
E) Uhm yeah... her entire videos up till now? But thats a bit to easy. How about that one time she talked about that star trek episode where Dana Troy is "impregnated" by some cosmic space energy entity? She claimed that the baby dies at the end of the episode and that the topic of emotional trauma isnt even touched upon. When in truth the baby does not die but turns back into the cosmic energy space entity because its existance threatens the enterprise or some such nonsense. Fact is she has no problem with lying or withholding information to further her agenda. Or about that time she said zelda is a powerless entity in the games when in truth zelda is actually a badass girl who for the most part is very competent.
So... She mistook something that seems a lot like dying (but technically isn't even though it has similiar effects) for dying. Wow. All those lies. Amazing.
Also, Zelda is powerless or made powerless in nearly all of the Zelda games. So, I really don't see how that point doesn't carry weight.
Got any more terrible examples, buster?
F) Im really scratching my head about this one... so basically what youre saying is that its okay for her to pretent as if no one disagrees with her?
Where did I say that? And where does she pretend that no one disagrees with her?
G)Then wheres the money? Clearly not in the video series thats for sure.. she doesnt even use game footage recorded by herselfe and isntead rips off lets players. So the question stands... where did the money go to?
Towards camera and sound equipment, rendering software, a studio, that stack of games she made a picture with once, and the like? That shit don't come cheap.
H) She said that she isnt a fan of gaming and that she doesnt like to play games because they are to violent. In her kickstarter video and in her media apearances thought she claims to be a long time player who played games as soon as the age of 10. Something does not add up here and either way she is lying. The argument also wasnt about her being a "gamer" as being part of the community or not.. but if she actually plays games to be qualified to even talk about them in the way she does. And all evidence points to her not playing games.
A: A lot of female gamers I know don't like super violent games. And B: I am not a fan of gaming a lot of the time either. The same has been repeated over and over by a lot of game critics.
I) I havent seen anyone actually claiming that... but its not hard to see because basically everything containing women in games is sexist according to her. She has both stated that powerless women are sexist because they are obviously powerless, and that empowered women are sexist because they are just tits tagged onto "positive" male criteria.. so again she has herselfe to blame for this one.
You are massively oversimplifying arguments there.
J) When moviebob points out flaws in movies he doesnt ramble on about how holywood tries to brainwash the masses. Unlike Arnita here who claims that these video games are trying to enforce their sexist view on their audience. Not only that but she doesnt even care for the success of these games or if they where actually good games or just trash. Again the problem is not with that she critisizes games for perceived sexism... its how she does it.
Strawman. She has outright stated in her videos that she doesn't believe in a schemeing cabal of men trying to keep women down. And I have no idea why success of the game matters or not.
K) You seriously just shot yourselfe in the foot here. Yes it is not real life.. and that is EXACTLY why it does not have this brainwashing effect on people that arnita claims video games have. People KNOW that super mario is not the real live and KNOW that peach is not a real person.. so why should they attribute peachs personality to women in REAL life?
Because the themes in works of fiction effect our preconceptions and how we think?
L) Because this trope was used during a time when the biggest games where as data intensive as 80 seconds of a MP3. You HAD to work with that, there was no way for elaborate storylines or character depth. And that was all she was harping about... old ass games that where made during the very beginning of gamer culture.
I have no idea why this disproves anything. Also, did you actually watch the videos? She said she was going to talk about old games first, then new games later. Which she has done in the most recent videos.
M) Again i have no one here or on youtube ever state that "she doesnt like sex" in any of the many many well thought out response videos to her claims. And we asked you for arguments raised in those responses and NOT from those 4chan 1 braincellers. Straw man.
I pulled this argument directly from this thread. If you want to ignore it, fine, but it exists outside of 4chan.
N)Again.. what? Effect change? Again... a point not brought up. The actuall point is WHERE DID THE DAMN MONEY GO? It is not in the videos who quality wise are little different from the stuff she did before the kickstarter... it wasnt spend on research material or footage because she just uses wikipedia/TV tropes and footage from LPs... so again where did all the money go?
http://kotaku.com/investigation-a-video-game-studio-from-hell-511872642
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/123139-Devs-Had-to-Demand-Female-Focus-Testers-for-The-Last-of-Us
http://www.penny-arcade.com/report/article/remember-mes-surprising-connection-to-facebook-and-why-its-protagonist-had
http://popwatch.ew.com/2012/05/01/god-of-war-ascension-multiplayer/
http://uk.gamespot.com/features/fear-of-a-woman-warrior-6404142/
http://www.gamespot.com/news/naughty-dog-insisted-on-female-testers-for-the-last-of-us-6406619
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evI5pF5h8Ck
http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=252 a point made in the form of a joke
http://indigitainment.com/2013/05/08/indigenous-determination-in-game-space/
http://www.toybox-games.jp/english0107.html
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2013-03-20-bastion-developer-teases-transistor-for-pax-east
http://lesbiangamers.com/2008/05/farcry-2-female-character-fiasco/
*Adjusts my view...* Oh your god... you have a point. :/ Honestly it feels like both "no girls allowed" and "we don't care if you're here." Which might sound weird, but actively being blocked, and apathy...
Would more creative diversity be good? Of course. I don't think anyone would argue that. Would it be cool to see better, interesting, well-written lead female characters? Sure.
...but honestly most of this kind of talks just reeks of some Game Of Thrones jockeying-for-power kinda political bullshit. Like being in a supporting role is somehow worse than being in the lead role because THE LEAD ROLE IS ALL THAT MATTERS...yeah ask the likes Johnny Depp, Harrison Ford, Chloe Grace Moretz, etc etc. how important the "lead roles" mattered in their respective film franchises. They became stars because they had the best characters in their films and had the talent to back it up. Yeah Aaron Johnson got top billing, but Chloe is the one walking out of Kick-Ass 2 with the bigger career ahead of her. And just this year Ellie and Elizabeth are far more beloved than Booker Dewitt or Joel. So I can't really buy the "lead role is what matters the most" argument because...it's not all that true =/
Speaking just for myself, as long as you're interesting and contribute to the story in a meaningful way, I don't give a damn what gender/age/race/species you are or where you are on this "patriarchal ladder" everyone goes on and on about. Protagonist, Antagonist, sidekick, Magical Mystical Mentor, Redshirt, no matter role you're in, whatever you do just don't suck. *shrugs*
Quality > Quantity should be the focus first and for most. Cranking out boring, generic, butt kicking machine female leads just to match the number of boring, generic, butt kicking machine male leads would be pretty counterproductive, no?
Yeah, the supporting role is frikking terrible as far as games go. If I see someone -awesome- in a supporting role, that means I can't play as that awesome person, and learn more about them. It's kinda weird that there are plenty of NPCs who're worth having their own game, yet don't.
In real life, the supporting role gets looked down on. You're seen as looking at the leader of the wolf pack's ass all the time. This holds true in a lot of multiplayer games, too. And sooner or later, I'd think a person might snap, swear vehemently, and wanna do something different.
Sure, people love Ellie, and Elisabeth, but how often does this phenomena happen?
And sadly, no matter how often is it, the problem with your movie metaphor is that Elisabeth, Ellie, and all the beloved NPCs -don't- have a career ahead of them. We'll likely never see them in the next game, and they don't get promoted to star/lead role in DLC. They're thrown away once the game is no longer supported, and then the process repeats. You're the dude in the lead role making almost all the difference in the world, and at best, a woman supports you along the way. We see the occassional iconic woman that's an NPC, and never really play as them. Yeah, you play as Ellie in TLOU, but it's temporary. A fraction of the entire game. That's not really all -that- great. Better than nothing, but not as good as playing as her through more than some hour.
I agree. I do adore an awesome game, and will play regardless of gender, but those, IMO are really far and few in between. At best I tolerate more or less mediocre games with marginally, at best, interesting characters, or characters I respect enough.
Honestly, I'd settle for a few more female protagonists if even if they were just more or less generic action movie stars. I.E. Lara Croft in the reboot, and Nilin.
To be honest, a bland female lead > bland male lead as far as I'm concerned. At least with the former, I get the thrill of playing a female character. Like I said, it's rare, and rare adds some spice.
As heretical as it might be to say, I really wouldn't mind playing Alice in a resident evil movie game. I mean, yeah, it'll be farther away from the horror theme of Resident Evil than it's ever been unless there's some credible threats to ratchet up the tension or something, but well, I like the movies. Alice is about the only woman in movies to star in a movie that gets sequels.
It wouldn't necessarily be counter productive to just crank out more action star women games. If they dress like women we see in real life, or at least more practical than sexy, that'd be a step up from where they are.
It'd help acclimate gamers to the idea of playing women. There's more than a few people who don't want to play as women. I've seen them in threads about gender equality in games. I'm not saying they have to play as women, but it's kinda screwed up they'd expect others to play as guys on that same token.
And in the end, churning out some seemingly meaningless female protagonists will be more equal to guys since it happens to guys.
Still, I'd hope for variety in future female protagonists. The wider the variety of women we get in ethnicity, race, appearance, personality, likes/wants/needs, etc. the less of a lightning rod the few we get become, and the more options gamers get to find a game that suits them better.
Wow, 17 minutes and no comments yet? I wholly believed this place would be World War 5 by now, congratulations. As much as I believe her kickstarter was an unnecessary and dishonest cash grab, the notoriety it earned her is now letting her reach people academically, so that's a good thing.
How is it a good thing? I would understand it as such, if her videos had any academic research backing it. From what I've watched of her games series, all I could say with every point she had was, "Citation needed".
Everything that has come out of her mouth is opinion and instances of "I have experienced this".
If she had handed work like her videos to any professor I had when I was in college, they would have looked at her work and told her she failed the assignment because she didn't cite anything and brought now proof, the nicer ones would have given her and extra couple of days and told her to start over and actually do some real research and work.
If there are actual professors that brought her to that university to speak "academically", I would have to cross that university off as a place of proper learning.
Worgen said:
What is it about Anita Sarkeesian that makes people really really stupid? I mean seriously, it seems like people are just bitching about her to ***** and have paid no attention to anything shes said. "Oh a woman is talking about vida james, RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE BURN STAKE RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!"
Granted that is the reason for a small few, but it has nothing to do with why I can't stand her. Her being a woman has nothing to do about it. I have clearly watched and listened to what she says.
It's the fact that she her work gives off the obvious air of "I did zero real academic research" or "I don't care about real research because it doesn't help my cause."
She talks about in-depth looks at the "issues", but from what I've seen of her videos, to her, in-depth is looking at the surface of and thick shell of information and reporting bias opinion/observation.
Observation is not research. It is a part of research, but only a very small part of it. There has to be cold hard facts to back her research, cited sources and studies. Reading off basic wiki descriptions and saying while playing this game I saw this, is not research.
As I said in my other above comment in this comment, the professors I had in college would have failed her or told her to start over and hand in her assignment in a couple more days(if she was lucky).
It is very troublesome that universities are actually inviting her to speak and calling it an academic lecture. Calling what she is putting forth "research", is sad and laughable.
*Bangs head on desk* I like how you said that she did no research and didn't provide any sources or anything and then proceeded to not give any examples from her videos that prove your point.
Yikes are people still pretending Sarkessian actually has anything to say that is of any interest or relevance? she's just another Mary Whitehouse or Jack Thompson type character, the only reason gamers pay attention to her is because she instead markets her censorship not as against social liberalism (which is what it undoubtedly is) but under the guise the that it is progressive (which of course is lapped up by the many gamers who feel this bizzare desperate urge for games to be taken 'seriously' as a 'mature' medium.)
I haven't watched those specific vids but I have watched a few that claimed to refute her and they were full of shit. They only took the most superficial aspects of her argument or just went with what people thought she was saying and went with it, most of them looked like they were just fishing for page views. I'm not saying your links are full of shit, but for all I care they are. Since Anita isn't wrong about the portrayal of women and for the most part her vids are accurate, really the only leap in logic I could find in hers was when she brought up Ghost Trick. Although if I remember right the only time you had to save someone from getting killed was when it was a women, might be wrong about that, been awhile since I played it.
Yeah, not going to hound you about it. The first video I linked actually uses her own words, not specifically to debunk whatever she has to say about how women are depicted in video games, it even specifically says that it isn't the point, but it demonstrates that the the field in which she's risen to fame is one she actually doesn't really enjoy and didn't know a lot about to begin with. She says this, we see her saying this, there is video footage of it right there. Kind of smacks of the same things we got from people like Martha MacCallum claiming that Mass Effect was pornography, or every politician, parent, and anti-gun lobbyist that has ever attempted to link video games to mass shootings and other types of violence; they didn't play games, they didn't know much about games personally, they just drew sweeping conclusions based on assumption or they very plainly lied. In other words they didn't even know what they were talking about.
All personal feelings aside, one way or the other, in most cases like the topic of politics, religion, gun control, and racism, this is one where nobody is changing anyone's mind, people just become more entrenched when the issue, or in this case the woman emerges as the discussion.
For what it's worth I think any women's rights movements out there could probably do better than get angry about Mario recusing a princess, or other generic Macguffins. But what do I know?
The problem with the first video is that any video that's whole point is that "shes not a gamer so she cant talk about games" pretty much just shoots itself in the face. Assuming that she isn't a gamer, which is pretty much impossible nowadays since everyone plays games, that means that the person making that video can't talk about women's issues since they aren't a women (most likely).
I don't think shes trying to start a women's rights movement with her tropes vs women vids. I think she just wants women to be able to feel at home in games as much as men do. And right now, you will most likely see a women as some object to save instead of as a player character.
For any claim she makes. In several videos she liked to use numbers, and kept re-affirming she did research on the subject, without so much as a link to this research. Another group that practices this is Fox news...
She uses Borderlands 2 as an example of Damsel in distress, using the female character Lilith out of context. She only falls victim to Jack because he knows how to deal with Sirens seeing as he had one for a daughter his entire life, so it stands to reason how he was easily able to capture her. Despite that though, Lilith is still a strong character, as demonstrated nearly every time she is given 'screen time' so to speak. Even when captured she fights against Jack, teleportng you away instead of vaporizing you like Jack commanded her. Yet Anita didn't bring any of this up.
But debate is the best way to change opinion. Yes there are those that don't deserve a response, namely those who argue for the sake of arguing, but how about those that have a clear viewpoint that conflicts with hers? Maybe she can convice them to her side, or possible even alter her own because one of these people saw something she didn't.
So... What makes you believe that she hasn't already done this? Should see post a video to her youtube channel about her debating the points of her videos (you know, if she could actually find someone with good points)?
BreakfastMan said:
"She said she doesn't identify as a gamer in this one video!" I don't always identify as a gamer either. Doesn't mean I don't like games.
Yeah but it does help that if you are going to critique something that you have some experience with it. In essence, critiquing basic concepts of gaming as a whole can earn some serious ire if you cannot claim to be a gamer. Much in the same way Fox News had some psychologist prove Mass Effect as some 'XXX' game despite never once touching it. Some people may view her on that same spectrum, that she doesn't know what she's talking about and may be stretching the truth for shock value or something.
People don't have to be able to self-identify as a gamer in order to critique gaming. Especially when she isn't critiquing mechanics, but common storytelling tropes.
BreakfastMan said:
"She doesn't present any solutions!" Why should she? She is a critic, her job is to point out the flaws. Or do you get upset when moviebob doesn't explain how to fix movies in his reviews?
Well some critics do point out what was missing, and that in itself is how to fix a problem. Kinda like Yahtzee when he explains why Final Fantasy lost its impact with each new addition to the franchise.
Yeah, but I don't understand why that is a knock against her. Because some critics do it doesn't mean all critics need to or that plain criticism can't be valuable.
*Adjusts my view...* Oh your god... you have a point. :/ Honestly it feels like both "no girls allowed" and "we don't care if you're here." Which might sound weird, but actively being blocked, and apathy...
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 would agree but only in the spirit of feminism as it is needed to equal rights for the sexes, and not as the hate group that seeks supremacy and exception. The latter part of your comment I think might be where quite a bit of the newest wave of backlash over all of this is coming from.
But here is the thing with that. Where exactly do you have to enforce legal equality in the genders when it comes to the development or business of video games?
Because isn't the point of feminism to ensure that women have the same legal rights as men under the law?
It has only been this generation of feminism do I actually see actual laws like Roe V. Wade slowly get appealed across the USA but more energy is put towards things like well...this.
I get that the industry could use more female developers, writers, and just people interested in developing games. But then you are left with the question that should we force people into an industry or learning an occupation even if they don't want to for the sake of representation? Or should we enable people to be able to pursue and have access to the tools required to learn and apply for the occupation they desire?
I mean it is hard enough at least in the USA to actually convince people in general to fund public schools to teach students hard skills after the backlash of removing workshop classes, automotive classes, and yes even cooking classes from schools. How are people even going to get those opportunities for that education when the most critical part of the local community won't even fund or have the facility to support people learning hard skills.
Hell I just learned that the entire county I'm living in just dropped ALL computer science classes outright on the college level. That means no windows server classes, no programming classes, no linux or even A+ certification courses.
But I'm rambling a bit. But the point is that we should be able to separate what feminism should be fighting for which belongs in the realm of the law from the actual conceptual idea or question as to why certain individuals will or can pursue a career in the video game industry.
I can only speak for myself as perspectives go, so all can offer is that the industry is what those in power choose to make it. If more women want into the industry creatively or technically, I do not see the issue. It was my understanding that women have been involved in video game development on practically every level for decades, that woman are not sidelined or relegated to some form of position deigned worthy of their attributes based exclusively on their gender. What we have now are radicals that have picked a fight where a fight was not necessary. In many cases it seems that outside of a very vocal vocal minority women have been largely happy with the industry as it exists, and have been for a long time. Diversity is a strength when it is a naturally occurring diversity, and people are simply allowed to gravitate toward their preferences. When diversity is forced it weakens and erodes everything. Then there is the shaming, the purposeful pandering to a guilt-driven demographic that appears to want to support the cause for equality but misplaces this energy toward people that will not use this as a means for change, but as a means for personal gain. Any woman that claims she's out to further a cause, then does so with misinformation has not only lost my attention, she has also hurt the cause she claims she supports in much the same way a radical cultist leader has hurt spirituality or religion by exploiting others and misrepresenting their causes to further personal agendas.
These are just my personal thoughts on the matter though.
Factually, women are more than just eye candy, anyone with half a brain knows this. They aren't there to just be a trophy in a video game, the token sexy character, or a showcase for jiggle physics. Anyone with any insight at all can see this, but there are people that pick and choose their examples and exploit that to justify a preconceived point, or to validate a single-sided very subjective message.
I agree that women and men should be completely permitted to seek out whatever they wish as a career goal, and do so without criticism or judgement, but I was not under the impression this was a problem to begin with. Last I checked women had the right to go into programming and design video games at just about any level. In many cases it may be more of a personal choice than a matter of rights. It reminds me of the debate about the gender wage gap, which erroneously charges that women do not get equal pay for the same kinds of work, when in fact this is not only false, but in some cases quite the opposite. A woman may not be the CEO of Blizzard or Microsoft, not because she is a woman, but because either persons better qualified have taken this job, or simply that it's not a job any woman has really put effort into having at this time, and I see no problem with either scenario.
But then you are left with the question that should we force people into an industry or learning an occupation even if they don't want to for the sake of representation?
That seems to be only part of the argument, and I don't think it's a valid thing to even attempt for obvious reasons. This is also a contradictory concept in that it insists that some people may not choose their careers but must instead, regardless of qualifications or interest, take on a task assigned to them. Sound familiar? Pretty sure that's (in part) how sexism worked in the first place.
I figured there would at least be some strong debate but, with a few exceptions, this whole thread is basically a bunch of close-minded people shitting on their keyboards.
You know guys, if we want to get anywhere with anything, the first step is going to require us to stop trying to tear each others throats out the second someone actually has a different opinion. People who like her aren't mindlessly kissing up to her and people that don't like her aren't sexist MRA activists, ok? Can we please talk about this WITHOUT getting pissed off in five seconds?
I think we should rename this thread, because in all honesty this thread is really of absolutely no relation to the article it is tied to. May be should call it "Smug Self-Satisfaction and Moral Outrage; a Tragey in 30 pages." Seriously people, grow the fuck up.
Honestly, this thread should just be locked.
I really can't see the point in keeping it open and allowing it to accrue 20+ bans like that other thread did, a few weeks back.
Does the Escapist have a minimum ban quota they must meet every year or month or something?
Leader or leaders, it doesn't matter, still silly. My reason for bringing up Dawkins is that he isn't the 'leader' of atheism and that you can perfectly well be an atheist without liking him or even knowing who he is.
If they are in the MRA community, they do. One person who has replied to me as named one of the guys who wrote those articles, when I never specifically did.
Or, rather, the "definition" you listed was specific to the field.
What you described was an "explanatory thesis" - a thesis that asks a question and relies on existing facts to be explored.
As opposed to an "argumentative thesis" - a thesis which supports a proposed argument.
A thesis is the core idea of an essay (or similar work). The focus.
Think about it this way. When you're writing a history paper, there is nothing up for debate (or almost nothing). What you are doing is finding a new way to interpret the existing facts. You are generally using other people's research and facts to support your ideas and citing them for accuracy.
Meanwhile, in a Biology (or other science) essay, you are typically reporting facts from your own research. You do an experiment and report on the results. You are reporting - accurately, one hopes - on the results you observed.
Whereas, when writing about a work of fiction, there are no facts. Two people reading/watching/playing the same work will have different interpretations of that work - possibly very different.
You get a lot of perspective when you have to teach essay writing to a half-a-dozen different majors - English, History, Biology, Cosmetology, Education, Philosophy, Pre-Law.... That's why the definition of a thesis has to be fairly vague when you're teaching for all kinds of writing. "The Focus" is the definition typically used in English 101 type classes. Just that - the focus.
Each student is going to be given specific about what is required in their Major classes anyway. As long as they know the basics, they can take those basics to any of the more specific styles.
Sorry but I'm gonna cherry pick what you wrote here and you probably already know this but if ya don't hey fun fact. In world of Warcraft Burning Crusade you actually do save Thrall from a dungeon(well internment camp) and save him again from a dragonflight that is attempting to change history. So actually you do save Thrall as an individual in a video game
Yeah I did know, BC was my favourite xpac ^^ I specifically chose it because it's a real example and also because the roles of Peach and Thrall are surprisingly similar. Both of them are the equivalent of royalty for their respective people, strong leaders, etc. Both of them are equally helpless and in need of rescue from the player character sometimes. The player character is both times rescuing them for selfless reasons and the greater good (save the kingdom/prevent the timeline from being changed) - the only real difference is the gender. But that minor difference apparently alters the situation from 'having no agency because duh, prisoners don't have any agency, that's the fucking point' to 'having no agency because prejudice against women? Or something.'
'Men are evil' is not feminism. That is like saying christians hate the gays. Some who claim to be christian do but that's not a principal of christianity at all. In fact, isn't it 'judge not and love thy neighbor' more in line with christian thought?
So NO. If someone says they are a feminist and hate men and find men evil or whatever, they are not really feminists. Feminists feel men and women are EQUAL so saying men are evil is right out the window on the very first point.
So you do not dislike feminism.
In fact the whole 'your internal motivations are sex and subjugating women' is exactly the sort of thing feminisim is fighting against (gender roles and stereotypes of patriarchy).
Therefore, my friend, you might actually be a feminist yourself.
I'm not. I was, because the line that people are fed is that feminism is all about equality of the genders. Just like the line that people are fed about Christianity being the whole vaguely hippyish shtick. But I think there's some cognitive dissonance going on, because in either case you have to commit the No True Scotsman fallacy and apply your own subjective assessment of what 'true' feminism/Christianity is.
With the Bible, it's at least clear that all the various interpretations are mostly justified. I can't interpret the WBC as 'not true Christians' because there's plenty of stuff in there about God striking down sinners and whatever, and it does say stuff to the tune of 'teh gays are wrong', even if people prefer to ignore that bit or deny it or whatever. So even though I hate the WBC and think they're horrible people, I can't call them 'not true Christians' any more than I can call the happy clappy 'Jesus said love everyone!' type the same, because both viewpoints are actually rooted to some extent in the Christian dogma, and both viewpoints require ignoring certain bits of the same dogma that you disagree with...
With feminism, it's less obvious, but the same thing is going on. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that feminists hate men, and most of them are probably equally enamoured with this idea of equalising the genders as I was when I counted myself as one. However, outside the realm of ideas and into the realm of actuality it gets results which are eh... not so awesome. Even amongst moderate feminists, there's still a huge tendency to just assume that certain things are always true and dismiss anything to the contrary, which is the spirit of dogmatism and blind ideology, not rationalism.
Plus there's the particularly irritating duality of both saying that women are just as strong and capable as men, but also making them the victim at every opportunity. One particularly egregious example was when an American leader (forget who, I'm not 'Murican) said something to the tune of 'the real victims of war are the women who stay at home and lose husbands/sons!' Sure, that must suck, but I would suggest that the real victims are the husbands sons who fucking well got shot.
Anyway.
For an example, if I asked you whether one gender was more likely to commit spousal abuse, what would you say?
Or, for a less extreme example, what would you suggest is the reason why men worked and women were housewives before although the social upheaval following the wars?
I read the article, found it to be a bit thought provoking, and was greeted by an army of screaming lunatics in the comments. I like discussing feminism, I like discussing what is wrong with the games industry, I hate discussing Anita Sarkesian because every argument related to her winds up being almost exclusively about peripheral matters like MRAs, fraud, threats and hate of varying qualities and targets, and tropes, rather than, you know, the prevalence of sexism in video games.
There's been like, what, 5 comments that were purposely/obviously inflammatory and accusatory. (you now being lumped in with them. Congrats!) And those comments were swiftly called out for what they were by a number of people including myself and Karadalis and Tenmar and the mods themselves (handing out warnings) for the past 11 pages. And many of us have indeed been talking about the various faults in Anita's videos and why many of us don't take her claims very seriously. There have been some sidetracks with BreakfastMan bringing up MRA links and what not, but it's been pretty tight focused as far as I can tell.
No, you guys have been far more focused on the whole fraud thing (I refuse to watch the videos because I'm almost certain I will hate them with a burning passion and quit like a minute in). And a derail about cherry picking. And BreakfastMan's stuff. And the whole fucking thing about sources, who seriously gives a fuck? Maybe it's just because I haven't watched her videos, but I'm betting the core segments of her argument are not totally reliant on some statistic she may or may not have pulled out of her ass. That has been most of the thread.
But please. Continue to make more baseless, actually smug (seriously? trying to be sneaky by hiding it in white? Come on, man...) assumptions that I predicted people would try to make way back on page 3:
I was hiding a joke about the irony of my comment, not my pointing out how smug you have been. If there are going to be repercussions for calling you smug, then I embrace them. It isn't even much of an insult, just an acknowledgement.
The Dubya said:
Bocaj2000 said:
I feel like I'm walking into a shitstorm, but I feel like it has to be said: why is it that that every time Anita articles come up it gets hijacked by hatred?
Yes.
I think it's funny that you assume that the only people I think show a lot of hatred in these discussions are the people who have made it their life's purpose to go after Anita. The people who will defend her to no end and loathe any who speak ill of her are not much better.
Because that's how most of the Anita related flamewars here have started; somebody makes some snarky smartass quip taking shots at people that don't worship the ground she walks on, and then shit spirals out of control from there. Anita's blind cult likes to think they're as innocent as her, when in reality..they aren't =/
This, however, is not true. I wish it was, but some people really are that terrible. Hell, even in your own example the flame war was really started by the smartass quip, not the reaction.
Again, kudos to those who have been staying on the rails and kept these discussions on point. This is still by far the most civil Sarkeesian related thread I've seen on this site...
*Adjusts my view...* Oh your god... you have a point. :/ Honestly it feels like both "no girls allowed" and "we don't care if you're here." Which might sound weird, but actively being blocked, and apathy...
The fairly intense lack of presense in the spotlight, the moves that cut them out of the game entirely as playable options, and the very idea that it's conventional wisdom that women protagonists destroy a game's sales pretty much states "no girls allowed."
Yeah, women can play the games, sure, but like I said, it's not the most welcoming environment, IMO.
The lack of change, really, and the people fighting the idea of change, kinda drives home both points, IMO.
The fairly intense lack of presense in the spotlight, the moves that cut them out of the game entirely as playable options, and the very idea that it's conventional wisdom that women protagonists destroy a game's sales pretty much states "no girls allowed."
Yeah, women can play the games, sure, but like I said, it's not the most welcoming environment, IMO.
The lack of change, really, and the people fighting the idea of change, kinda drives home both points, IMO.
I agree that the AAA isn't welcoming, but "no girls allowed" seems kind of... paranoid. That it doesn't come from a benign selfishness but rather a malicious one.
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.
...
And no.. no amount of argumentation will make me believe in the patriarchy trying to subdue female rights with the use of video games.
This really depends on how you view the concept of 'patriarchy', because the way you use it isn't how most feminists tend to use the phrase anymore (if that was ever the case). Assuming a patriarchy that's "using video games" or "trying to subdue" at worst implies old guys in suits sitting around a dark-lit table and at best implies conscious thought.
But when most feminists speak of a patriarchy, they mean a more fundamental trend which is woven into the very fabric of society and which even a lot of women contribute to. Think of the classic scenario of the unmarried woman who turns thirty and her aged aunt walks up to her at her family party and says: "So, isn't it time you found yourself a nice man to settle down with, deary?" In this sense, the patriarchy isn't a malicious force or even necessarily conscious; it just is.
Hey, I'm not even taking sides in this post! I just think your use of the word 'patriarchy' needs a bit more nuance in order to keep up with modern feminist debate.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
