The Most Dangerous Woman in Videogames - Anita Sarkeesian

[QuantumWalker]

-snip-
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.

Gonna have to stop you their. You are correct in stating that different people will have different interpretations to a given fictional work. However the facts of that work exist in a number of forms.
1) The events of the narrative: With the possible exceptions of video games and theater, the narrative of any other medium will always play out the same. The script never changes.

With games you have the opportunity to alter the landscape by exercising your own influence on the story with respect to how much control the game gives you. This can be as simple as skipping an NPC and denying yourself a quest, or deliberately going against the games story and doing whatever you want.

However, with Anita's project she is almost exclusively focusing on the non-interactive components of games, their cutscenes. When she does focus on the interactive sequences it is usually the heavily scripted portions of the game. The moments where the outcome will always play out the same no matter what action the player takes. e.g. killing Jenny in Prey.

2) The history surrounding the creators and developers of the game.
- Remember Doom? Remember that rocking soundtrack and striking visual design? Well the creators of the game deliberately put those elements into the game based on their love for Rock & Roll and tabletop role playing games. Some of the monsters are directly inspired by cover art for rock labels and their are even some D&D references with some enemies.

Likewise, what the developers want to create influences what they base the story of their game on. Was the developer trying to convey something from their life through the game. (Fun Fact: Shigeru Miyamoto created the original Legend of Zelda partially around his experiences as a kid exploring local caves)

Even if the gamer is not aware of all the history surrounding a game it is still their.

3) The perceptions of the player
- Fact: Anita Sarkeesian subscribes to some form of Feminism and uses this when looking at games. This is what she has said and this is evident from her works. Whether you agree with her or not this is the lens she uses to view games with and it has a large impact on her observations and conclusions.

For that same reason each player carries with them their own perceptions of "good" and "bad" and while this is variable it is indisputable that people use their own perceptions to judge the quality of a game.

Edit:
Facts are the truth about things regardless of interpretation and they do exist in this case. What I am trying to say is that just because the nature of video game analysis is subjective, does not illustrate that their is no objectivity to that same analysis.

Better phrasing. Facts are the truth regardless of interpretation. Analysis can be subjective, but the actual product has a set story to tell and a set series of events that gave rise to it.

 

[shiajun]

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.

Oh, I see, I didn't quite grasped what you meant, sorry.
But again is there any more/less respectable media site that showcases and reviews only AAA dudebro games?
Those few media sites I visit actually talks about wide specter of games- good, bad, meh, well known and obscure.
Not to mention other forms of media (movies, anime, music and even books)
Maybe there are those who fits the description, but I haven't heard of them :/
Could you provide name or link, so I can facepalm too?

Well..., now that I'm put on the spot, I'm probably exaggerating the issue, but I'm contrasting the front pages of say, IGN, Kotaku or even here at the Escapist with that of Rock, Paper, Shotgun. RPS is always putting up news about some incredibly osbcure games (maybe too many, I'd think sometimes) besides the big spotight hugging behemoths. Of course, this happens because it's a PC focused site, and if anything PC shines on the indie front. They also showcase opinion pieces and interviews that have been pushed back to rare columns even here at the Escapist. I remember the old magazine issue format had me reading a lot more interesting pieces that the current incarnation of the Escapist does. You need something as click-baiting as the article from which this conversation stems to get the ball rolling. Adventuregamers.com is also fairly niche, but that genre (and close sibling hidden object games) is almost exclusively where all the good female/ethnic/minority characters live. We get only the high profile series showcased here at the Escapist or other big sites, and very sporadically. If I didn't visit those other sites I'd have missed about a third of the games I've played and enjoyed. I also acknowledge that specialized sites can give much better analysis and coverage of a specific genre or platform, but to me it seems we're missing tons of things in the main big sites when there could be a column or something dedicated to a niche genre to keep a "captive" audience.

Anyway, I think I've said all I have to say on the topic. I'm done for the day, and the thread has turned kinda messy (too many conversations going on) so I wanna keep away.

 

[Rebel_Raven]

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.

I don't deny I'm a paranoid person. But until I know it's not malicious (and I don't, and have yet to see proof otherwise), I'm not going to give the benefit of the doubt.
People wanna talk like it's business, but this business is exclusionary to the point of seeming to defy logic. There really isn't many excuses that say it's not malicious, or "no girls allowed."
"Guys are the main purchaser! They get catered to!" and so women don't get catered to. More exclusionary stuff. Really, when was the last time we saw a console game that was catered exclusively to women? Cooking Mama?
That leads me to games based on Monster High, Bratz, etc. Pastel nonsense that practically repells men. Games that aren't in a universe even remotely marketed to men. There's not really a middle ground. It's practically segregation. Where's the games aimed at women that could easily appeal to men?
I mean, one might suggest Beyond two souls, but after playing the demo, and hearing the main woman screeching for help, begging for help from aiden because I didn't immediately figure out what I had to blow up kinda put me off some. Yeah, we don't know the gender of Aiden, at least I don't, but it sounds like a guy's name to me.

I mean if you aren't welcoming, you're really close to saying "you're not allowed" if it's not said outright.

I honestly think there's people out there that really hate the idea they won't be as catered to, so they're fighting the notion of other people getting catered to. People can be selfish, and malicious like that. But that's prolly my low faith in humanity speaking.

I don't see this as "benign" because... What's the difference? that it's a passive "we're not catering to you" as opposed to outright saying it? How does that really change anything?
"It's not personal, but we're not going to be interestying to you."

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

However, with Anita's project she is almost exclusively focusing on the non-interactive components of games, their cutscenes. When she does focus on the interactive sequences it is usually the heavily scripted portions of the game. The moments where the outcome will always play out the same no matter what action the player takes. e.g. killing Jenny in Prey.

Yes, but how could she address entirely player-controlled sections?

And anyway... so what? She's not talking about the player-controlled aspects. She's talking about the story aspects.

There's a lot of game design philosophy lately that only the player-controlled stuff matters. Anita doesn't agree. If you disagree with that, then fine. But that doesn't mean she's "cheery picking" - she's simply addressing the only section that is the same for everyone.

Even if the gamer is not aware of all the history surrounding a game it is still their.

Agreed.

Facts are the truth about things regardless of interpretation and they do exist in this case. What I am trying to say is that just because the nature of video game analysis is subjective, does not illustrate that their is no objectivity to that same analysis.

Yes, fine. Just like Orson Scott Card hates gay people. And yes, that has an effect on his books. But I don't recall saying otherwise.

I provided examples of the type of thing I was talking about (in previous posts, but again, I kinda assumed you read up-thread).

Is Ophelia (in Shakespeare's Hamlet) insane? Most readers will assume that, yes, she is. However, I can demonstrate that she is not. Some people agree with me. Others do not.

It is fact that Shakespeare wrote Hamlet. But no one is writing papers about that. (okay, a few crazies are, but all historical evidence says they're crazies)

Also Note: The people arguing that Shakespeare didn't write Hamlet are writing history papers, not literary analysis. Two different disciplines.

 

[BreakfastMan]

Round 3, let's do it!

Okay, well... Here we go!

"Saying sexism in games doesn't cause people to be sexist like violent games doesn't cause people to kill others!" That is a stupid comparison. Sexism is not the same as violence. Sexism is an idea, violence is an action.

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.

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.

It isn't depictions of sexism in video games that are the problem. It is sexist themes and ideas that the games perpetuate. And sexism is just an idea. Being sexist does not require someone to act on their sexist ideas, just like how one can be racist without lynching a black man, or transphobic without beating a transwoman to death.

"She presents no sources!" For what? What does she have to present sources for?

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.

And how does this apply to the video series, exactly?

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.

Why should she have to explain commonly understood terms like rape culture to her audience? We don't expect scientists to explain or cite the theory of gravity or evolution, so why is it expected of her?

"She is exploiting her victim hood!" So, she should just shut up about receiving loads of rape and death threats?

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.

I really don't see a problem here? The backlash against her was shocking and horrible. Why does she have to only talk about her video series and keep quiet on the harassment?

"She takes everything out of context and lies all the time!" Any specific examples?

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.

I don't how she is wrong here? She is focusing on the trope and how it effects portrayal of characters. What does it matter if it was explained why the damsel was kidnapped? It is still an example of the trope. Inclusion of something doesn't automatically become less silly or stupid because the writers found a way to explain it in the context of the narrative. In Halloween 2, for instance, it is revealed that the survivor is Michael Meyer's long lost sister. The writers explain that within the context of the narrative, but it is still a stupid twist as it lessens the impact of the first movie.

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

She is deliberately misleading the audience. Not to mention that she ignores that fact that the games production was rushed do to the looming Microsoft buy-out of Rare. The transition from the Nintendo 64 to the Gamecube, and she trivializes the decision to make Fox Mcloud the main character as a joke rather than a business decision to market a new IP on a new console with a fan favorite character that would bring in more sales.

I honestly don't see why the business decisions around a change made in a game matters when looking at the change. KOTOR 2 still has a crap ending. Knowing the fact that it was rushed to meet the release date doesn't change that. Since I am not a huge expert on the history of the development of a game that is universally mocked, not going to debate on the other parts.

"She says games are inherently sexist!" No, she never actually said that.

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.

She is saying that either by product or design, the gaming industry is geared towards making sexist games. No where does she correct this statement or state the contrary. What she does say however is that not all developers are like that but they exist as the exception to the rule.

I don't see how this is bad? I mean, she is entirely right. There is a problem with sexism, especially in the tech industry. The same with the film industry. Or the fiction industry. We live in a sexist society. I don't see how acknowledging that is bad.

 

[Drake the Dragonheart]

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.

Wait, World War 5? Don't World Wars 3 and 4 need to happen first? Assuming that either one or the two combined don't annihilate us. Sorry for getting off topic here but I had to point that out.

 

[Farther than stars]

--snip--

I weep for the state of Education when a "Professor" cannot see the difference between the interpretation of literature and the supposed logical arguments of a social critic.

OK, here's the thing: you should weep about the state of education anyway but not for the reason you just mentioned, because here the professor's right (and, man, I don't get to say that very often). Just take one step outside of natural sciences and into the rest of academia and you'll be falling over all kinds of subjectivity. Researchers in pretty much every social science are inevitably lumped into "right-wing" and "left-wing" categories, depending on the policy implications of their theories, and quite a lot of qualitative research is quite accredited in sociology circles, to which Sarkeesian's brand of feminism belongs.
But I think it's highly debatable whether Anita Sarkeesian's work should be viewed through an academic lens anyway, since it seems to be aimed at a larger audience, although that doesn't mean it couldn't pass as academic material if she framed it a little differently.

 

[Icehearted]

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.

You've made it clear your mind is made up, I see that, but if you did watch the video you'd see she actually says this herself when referring to a project about video games;

"I'm not a fan of video games. I had to actually learn a lot about video games in the process of making this"

She also adds that she would like to play video games but is grossed out by the violence, which goes into the other two videos I linked earlier, about changing things to cater to new female gamers and ignoring that many are already out there perfectly happy with things as they are. I don't blame you for skipping them, the last one is pretty long, but it hammers the point in over and over again, there really isn't a problem with the industry, there are just problem people in it, though I would add that this can go for both sides..

The irony of her being put off by violent video games and insisting that games that are made a very specific way to cater to female gamers are sexist is not lost on me either.

"shes not a gamer so she cant talk about games" pretty much just shoots itself in the face

Which she herself actually points out. She admits she has practically no experience and hat to learn a lot in a very short time.

Like pretty much every politician that has ever come to link violent video games with crime, or as I referenced earlier, the Fox news report that claimed Mass Effect was pornographic, even though in both cases these claims were made by people that, just as Anita admitted herself (no, really, it's literally in the video) had little to no experience with video games at all.

Assuming that she isn't a gamer, which is pretty much impossible nowadays since everyone plays games

...but that's what she says herself. You don't have to guess or assume, no blanks to fill in, she is on camera saying this. Also, subjectively yes, I know a lot of people that know practically nothing about video games, so as assumptions go I think you've made an incorrect one about who's playing them on two counts.

Like I said earlier, I am not going to hound you about it. You seem completely uninterested in the other side other than to criticize it reactively, and have assumed a lot from the videos I linked without watching them. I think you're a pretty cool person, seen you around for years, so I certainly hope you do not take anything I've said as a personal attack against you, it isn't. I do however see that you're quick to assume an awful lot in Anita's favor and against her detractors. While we may or may not agree, the facts really are right there, straight from her her own mouth.

 

[wulf3n]

I don't deny I'm a paranoid person. But until I know it's not malicious (and I don't, and have yet to see proof otherwise), I'm not going to give the benefit of the doubt.
People wanna talk like it's business, but this business is exclusionary to the point of seeming to defy logic. There really isn't many excuses that say it's not malicious, or "no girls allowed."
"Guys are the main purchaser! They get catered to!" and so women don't get catered to. More exclusionary stuff. Really, when was the last time we saw a console game that was catered exclusively to women? Cooking Mama?
That leads me to games based on Monster High, Bratz, etc. Pastel nonsense that practically repells men. Games that aren't in a universe even remotely marketed to men. There's not really a middle ground. It's practically segregation. Where's the games aimed at women that could easily appeal to men?
I mean, one might suggest Beyond two souls, but after playing the demo, and hearing the main woman screeching for help, begging for help from aiden because I didn't immediately figure out what I had to blow up kinda put me off some. Yeah, we don't know the gender of Aiden, at least I don't, but it sounds like a guy's name to me.

I mean if you aren't welcoming, you're really close to saying "you're not allowed" if it's not said outright.

In these situations I try to look at a similar issue without the social stigma. Take the prevalence of the MMS or the Cover Based shooter. Does anyone think that creators of said games are trying to exclude non FPS/TPS fans? It's just a bi-product of targeting a specific audience.

I honestly think there's people out there that really hate the idea they won't be as catered to, so they're fighting the notion of other people getting catered to. People can be selfish, and malicious like that. But that's prolly my low faith in humanity speaking.

Interestingly it's probably one of the few things both sides have in common. Everyone just wants more games that appeal to them.

I don't see this as "benign" because... What's the difference? that it's a passive "we're not catering to you" as opposed to outright saying it? How does that really change anything?
"It's not personal, but we're not going to be interestying to you."

Well if it were "no girls allowed" there would be more interference from non-stakeholders. That any attempt to create a game with women as the key demographic would be actively hindered, by external forces.

The only thing really stopping inclusive games is that those with the money and/or incentive don't really want to.

 

[Vegosiux]

Why should she have to explain commonly understood terms like rape culture to her audience? We don't expect scientists to explain or cite the theory of gravity or evolution, so why is it expected of her?

We learn about gravity and evolution in school and are expected to have a basic understanding of it. "Rape culture" is far from "commonly understood", case in point, this thread and all other gender threads ever, nobody ever seems to agree on just what it means, and even if we argue that some people are just ignorant/uneducated that only says that the term simply isn't commonly understood, because otherwise there wouldn't be that many people not understanding what it means.

Basically, "rape culture" is not a commonly understood term. "Gravity" is, yes, pretty much everyone knows that if you toss something up, it'll fall back down. "Pretty much everyone" is not how I'd describe the subset of people who understand what "rape culture" stands for.

But yeah, if helping her audience understand her points better isn't what she's after, then she definitely should not be required to put any effort toward it, no matter how marginal that effort might be - if it's not her goal, nobody should force her to work in that direction. Even if it is her goal, nobody should force her into that direction, but it'd make sense that she would, as a rational person, want to maximize the chances of successfully getting her point across.

I really don't see a problem here? The backlash against her was shocking and horrible. Why does she have to only talk about her video series and keep quiet on the harassment?

I'm not sure that all those 4channers actually meant what they said and would have not hesitated for a split-second if they actually got a chance to really kill and/or rape her.

I think hey were just being the kind of obnoxious, reprehensible asshats they've always been, and their reaction wasn't down to them feeling anything personal, any personal issue with her or her theory (which, I'd say, most of them didn't even know existed), but rather down to the fact that they've always been obnoxious, reprehensible asshats in the anonymity of the internet. Egotistical, too - the vitriol they spewed at her wasn't about Anita, it was about them, as a part of their own little echo chamber that needs to keep telling them how awesome they are for...reasons.

Sometimes a cigar is just a bloody cigar.

In a way, I could actually see that as even more dehumanizing as a serious, "I am actually going to kill you if I see you" death threat, because at least you issue such a threat at a person. (But if you do, you need a swift visit from your local law enforcement, naturally.)

 

[BreakfastMan]

Round 4, let's rock!

"Saying sexism in games doesn't cause people to be sexist like violent games doesn't cause people to kill others!" That is a stupid comparison. Sexism is not the same as violence. Sexism is an idea, violence is an action.

And saying that either of them are "caused" by video games are pretty lousy arguments. Especially when her examples of "sexism" are so damn lousy to begin with. The only thing she's got against the likes of Princess Peach is "oh she's a ditzy blonde that can't kick butt." Boo hoo to you, Anita. And she's got NOTHING on freakin Zelda of all characters; that's the first clue to know I shouldn't take her seriously.

Being temporarily dis-empowered = sexism...how? She has no answer for the how part.

She never said that video games are the main source of sexism? And sexism is different than violence? And media does effect our preconceptions and how we think?

And the rest of your paragraph here isn't really any arguments, since you never really address any of what she said. Or if you do, you don't really counter any of her specific points.

"She presents no sources!" For what? What does she have to present sources for?

Intellectual credibility perhaps...? She's always bringing up her own statistics like "75% of something or another are affected by this and that and yada yada yada" and throwing out these big scary numbers left and right without telling us where she got those numbers or who collected said data. If you're going to try to present what you say as fact, SHOW US THE FACTS. You yourself have backed up your attitude toward MRA people by providing sources that elaborate on your point and allow me to do my own investigation into the debate. You're doing what Anita isn't.

And this alllll goes back to the simple question of if she isn't spending the money she gained on research (playing games, conducting interviews with other experts, etc.) or making any noticeable improvements to the production value of her videos, where IS the money going? If I were a financial supporter of hers, I'd want to know exactly what my money is going toward. I'm not to one to go blind purchasing something if I don't know how it's going to be used. The LEAST she could do is offer up the research she did so it'd at least LOOK like "hey I'm spending this money doing this and this and that and that to collect my data."

What specific numbers did she say, then? And where they never mentioned in the credits or video description?

"She censors everyone!" No she doesn't, that is just asinine.

"She is exploiting her victim hood!" So, she should just shut up about receiving loads of rape and death threats?

Clearly she does censor. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7nO9F7okbo] And when she's being a hypocrite about her victimhood that she basically BRAGS about on a consistent basis...yeah my sympathy ain't all that high for you. *shrugs*

If anything she should OPEN up. Open back up her comments sections completely freely and start debating the plethora of rational dissenters openly. Heck I'd love to see her do a one-on-one sitdown debate with someone where they bounce off their points and counterpoints. That'd be...interesting to say the least xP. But as it stands now, she's indeed choosing to exploit her previous victimhood (her previous disempowerment...ain't that a coienkedeenk) and is still hiding behind this little sympathy shield to avoid having to face ANY criticism at all.

Not going to watch 10-minute long videos. If you want to make points from them, simply summarize.

And why should she shut-up about how she was harassed? And why does she have to talk to people on youtube, of all places? Ain't nothing rational there.

"She takes everything out of context and lies all the time!" Any specific examples?

A previous quote from another topic that I wrote:

I encourage everyone who still thinks Sarkeesian's arguments have merit to review Thunderf00t's Feminism versus FACTS [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJeX6F-Q63I&list=PLQJW3WMsx1q3BAZh3XsK1cSwCiaqjSulc] series, Inuitlnua's three [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cj29-hepBiA] part [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07keXDCPXtw] review [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OLdWrVjILg] of the Tropes versus Women series, Instig8iveJournalism's two part evaluation of Sarkeesian's work (here [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6gLmcS3-NI] and here [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpFk5F-S_hI]), MrRepzion's breakdown of her videos (here [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=la9i2np0WTU] and here [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCsfXkbzRI4]), and lastly, but most importantly, the recent video revealing that Sarkeesian is, by her own admission and contrary to her statements for the last two years, not a gamer [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcPIu3sDkEw].

Take your pick. Or there's plenty others in this thread

Again, if you want me to actually address any of the content of the videos, summarize them. There are hours of content there, and I am not going to take the time to watch all that. Who the hell would have the time?

"BWAAA, she is a manipulative ***** that tricked everyone into giving her money!" And what do you base this on, then? A 4chan thread? Oh me oh my, what fantastic evidence. This doesn't even address her points, anyway.

You're the very first person in this entire thread to bring up the word *****. So this point is coming exclusively from your ass and I'm not dignifying this with a response. Next.

Maybe you could ignore the one mean word I had in there and focus on the actual content of what I said, maybe?

"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.

It's not that she doesn't identify herself as a gamer. But to say she had little to no interest in games one minute then go "Oh I've loved video games my whooooole life" the next is pretty damn suspect. And she's barely done anything to show off any genuine affection for video games other than constantly bash them. Even in her videos before this tropes series, ALL OF THEM are negative beatdowns on some aspect of games or movies or something. Where's the love? Seriously? That's a legitimate question to ask, because there's reason TO assume that she doesn't like video games at ALL if she always acts so bitterly toward them.

Her videos are all critiques. Or are you going to start saying Yatzhee shouldn't criticize games, because most of his videos are super critical of games? And did she say that she had little to no interest in games at that point in time, or that she was never interested in games or found them entertaining at all, ever?

"She says games are inherently sexist!" No, she never actually said that.

"She hates sex!" No, she doesn't. Overuse of objectification leads to damaging stereotypes of women.

"She is trying to censor creators!" So... Criticism is censorship, now?

And no one has said any of that about her. Next.

They actually have. If not in this thread, then in previous thread. Tenmar, for instance, has repeated that last point in multiple threads.

"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?

She's not a critic even in the broadest terms. Again, none of her past videos critique a movie/show/game/etc. specifically, rather just taking aspects of said media to create talking points to base a video around. That's be like calling Glenn Beck or Al Sharpton or folks like that "critics". They aren't; they're just talking heads. And she's hardly even that either. (Someone compared her to Ann Coulter...that's an apt comparison)

She is presenting a feminist critique. That word "feminist", it is pretty important there... It means she is looking at things from a feminist perspective. You know, like how films and television represent women.

"Damsel in Distress trope doesn't harm people because people want to protect others in real life, which somehow means it isn't sexist!" You do know that real life isn't fiction, right? And how does this disprove that the DiD trope has a harmful effect on how people view women?

[Insert "who even said that" question here]...again.

That was one of thunderf00t's arguments. Also, some other guy who replied to me agreed with that line of thinking.

And real life isn't fiction. M'kay got it. So...why is she trying so hard to blame fiction for real life situations of sexism against women again? If they're two separate things that don't effect one another, why is she making it out to be such this huge epidemic? Hmm hmm hmm?

How and what was she making out to be a huge epidemic?

I'm not saying media and entertainment have ZERO influence on how society acts. That'd be just naive to say. But the whole "games/movies/TV hypnotize you to do yada yada yada" arguments people try to use are the wrong assessments of it.

But that wasn't her argument, that games hypnotized people to tell women to get back into the kitchen and make sammiches. Her argument is that the prevalence of certain tropes reinforce and help perpetuate harmful attitudes towards women.

But I digress; Let's just pretend that there really is a direct correlation between these games and how people treat women. How IS the Damsel in Distress trope harmful anyways? I watched her videos and I still don't get it. Okay, so women get overpowered by the powerful bad guy. And? How is that sexist or looking down upon women that the hero is trying to get the woman from being in harm's way? Wouldn't that be the OPPOSITE of what Anita's trying to argue? That the hero wants the princesses to be their own free woman again instead of being a captured trophy/slave/etc. for the bad guy? Looking at it that way, it seems like these kind of Damsel in Distress games are a bit more positive than you give em credit for.

She states her arguments as to why the damsel in distress perpetuates is harmful quite clearly: It portrays women as weak, as an object to be won, as incapable of taking care of themselves, etc.

"Damsel in Distress trope isn't sexist because it is an easy motivation that people connect with!" How does this even counter anything? It is a total non-sequiter. Yes, it is an easy, cheap way to create tension and a goal. How does that not make it harmful again?[/qupte]

LOL you complaining about non-sequiturs...cute.

And yes, it's a cheap and easy way to create immediate tension. Creatively lazy? Maybe. Harmful? Hardly. Because again, I fail to see how wanting to save a loved one from being in harms way is in itself harmful. That simply doesn't make sense.

This is the argument from thunderf00t that you said no one else said above, which I already addressed.

"She should use all her money to effect change!" Then she would just be committing fraud. The kickstarter was for the video series, so that is what the money went towards.

Sure it did...

And the point was that if she's as impassioned as she says she is about Violence Against Women, she wouldn't have asked for money for this video series to begin with. If she wanted to start an organization or travel places or donate to charities or DO SOMETHING about all the problems she's going on and on about, I guarantee a lot more people would readily support her. But all she did with the money she gained (I'm SO not using the word "earned" here) was literally do the exact same thing she had been doing for years prior; just sit in front of a camera and share her badly presented opinions. Which accomplishes nothing except (literally) buying herself a few more years of Z-list Internet relevancy.

Why can't someone fight sexism in society using critiques and words? Why does it only have to be through action?

 

[Farther than stars]

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.

Well, race shouldn't have anything to do with quality of life anyway, so I don't know why you just defined your opposition as being "non-white feminists", since this assumedly applies to all underprivileged feminists. But, more importantly, this is a fairly weak argument, because analogously this means that you should only give money to life-saving charities, since all other charities cannot possibly do as much good. Depending on your view, this means one of four things.

You:

a) disagree with the underprivileged feminists.
b) support political populism.
c) are a dogmatic utilitarian.
d) are Gordon Gekko.

 

[Rebel_Raven]

I don't deny I'm a paranoid person. But until I know it's not malicious (and I don't, and have yet to see proof otherwise), I'm not going to give the benefit of the doubt.
People wanna talk like it's business, but this business is exclusionary to the point of seeming to defy logic. There really isn't many excuses that say it's not malicious, or "no girls allowed."
"Guys are the main purchaser! They get catered to!" and so women don't get catered to. More exclusionary stuff. Really, when was the last time we saw a console game that was catered exclusively to women? Cooking Mama?
That leads me to games based on Monster High, Bratz, etc. Pastel nonsense that practically repells men. Games that aren't in a universe even remotely marketed to men. There's not really a middle ground. It's practically segregation. Where's the games aimed at women that could easily appeal to men?
I mean, one might suggest Beyond two souls, but after playing the demo, and hearing the main woman screeching for help, begging for help from aiden because I didn't immediately figure out what I had to blow up kinda put me off some. Yeah, we don't know the gender of Aiden, at least I don't, but it sounds like a guy's name to me.

I mean if you aren't welcoming, you're really close to saying "you're not allowed" if it's not said outright.

In these situations I try to look at a similar issue without the social stigma. Take the prevalence of the MMS or the Cover Based shooter. Does anyone think that creators of said games are trying to exclude non FPS/TPS fans? It's just a bi-product of targeting a specific audience.

I honestly think there's people out there that really hate the idea they won't be as catered to, so they're fighting the notion of other people getting catered to. People can be selfish, and malicious like that. But that's prolly my low faith in humanity speaking.

Interestingly it's probably one of the few things both sides have in common. Everyone just wants more games that appeal to them.

I don't see this as "benign" because... What's the difference? that it's a passive "we're not catering to you" as opposed to outright saying it? How does that really change anything?
"It's not personal, but we're not going to be interestying to you."

Well if it were "no girls allowed" there would be more interference from non-stakeholders. That any attempt to create a game with women as the key demographic would be actively hindered, by external forces.

The only thing really stopping inclusive games is that those with the money and/or incentive don't really want to.

Sure, there's gaps in service in genre universally, but I'm seeing people give more care to fixing those than female character representation. Honestly, I see those gaps as far easier to bridge, too. Especially on PC.
I mean I'm of the mind that it'll be damn near impossible to fix the gender issues with one game, but one tactical squad based strategy game, and people are suddenly rethinking everything! X-Com's practically fixed the issue of lacking such games on console. It's getting a sequel/addon and no doubt there'll be more in the future to fill the niche.

The thing is, I'm not going to say "No, they can't cater to you at all!" or such. I dunno who on the side of more female protagonists are fighting the very idea that men should be catered to, too. But that's probably the same as people claiming they've never noticed guys not wanting to play as women. They prolly exist, I've just never seen them.
Personally, though, I'm of a mind that, yes, games need to be fun. Even with diverse ideas of fun, they should have some service.
People like to pretend games are fun now, but honestly, I'm seeing a different picture. My S.O. pretty much hates all games cept Rune Factory 4 right now. Not even the idea that we're playing together is appealing enough.

Did you know there's a small facebook group actively trying to stop Zelda from getting her own game? And that in the comments sections where the notion is talked about, there's people actively against the idea?
I'm not saying this has any sort of momentum, but, well, I'm not seeing any plans for a game where you play as Zelda either. Hard to say who's winning... wait, no it's not, they are until there is a game where you play as Zelda.
Not sure if the gaming community itself counts as outside forces, though.

And there's that logic defying idea that the industry doesn't want to cater to people who want to play as women, and make more money as they spend more money. People generally want more money. It's why people mimic CoD, isn't it? To get that money?

Honestly, I think there are those in the industry that want to, but are getting blocked by the whole notion that games where you play as a woman will be a mistake.

 

[BreakfastMan]

Why should she have to explain commonly understood terms like rape culture to her audience? We don't expect scientists to explain or cite the theory of gravity or evolution, so why is it expected of her?

We learn about gravity and evolution in school and are expected to have a basic understanding of it. "Rape culture" is far from "commonly understood", case in point, this thread and all other gender threads ever, nobody ever seems to agree on just what it means, and even if we argue that some people are just ignorant/uneducated that only says that the term simply isn't commonly understood, because otherwise there wouldn't be that many people not understanding what it means.

Basically, "rape culture" is not a commonly understood term. "Gravity" is, yes, pretty much everyone knows that if you toss something up, it'll fall back down. "Pretty much everyone" is not how I'd describe the subset of people who understand what "rape culture" stands for.

But yeah, if helping her audience understand her points better isn't what she's after, then she definitely should not be required to put any effort toward it, no matter how marginal that effort might be - if it's not her goal, nobody should force her to work in that direction. Even if it is her goal, nobody should force her into that direction, but it'd make sense that she would, as a rational person, want to maximize the chances of successfully getting her point across.

Eh, you may have a point there. Still, I am not certain why people think this invalidates all of what she says.

I really don't see a problem here? The backlash against her was shocking and horrible. Why does she have to only talk about her video series and keep quiet on the harassment?

I'm not sure that all those 4channers actually meant what they said and would have not hesitated for a split-second if they actually got a chance to really kill and/or rape her.

I think hey were just being the kind of obnoxious, reprehensible asshats they've always been, and their reaction wasn't down to them feeling anything personal, any personal issue with her or her theory (which, I'd say, most of them didn't even know existed), but rather down to the fact that they've always been obnoxious, reprehensible asshats in the anonymity of the internet. Egotistical, too - the vitriol they spewed at her wasn't about Anita, it was about them, as a part of their own little echo chamber that needs to keep telling them how awesome they are for...reasons.

Sometimes a cigar is just a bloody cigar.

In a way, I could actually see that as even more dehumanizing as a serious, "I am actually going to kill you if I see you" death threat, because at least you issue such a threat at a person. (But if you do, you need a swift visit from your local law enforcement, naturally.)

[/quote]
Regardless, I don't know why we need to accept asshattery. They might not mean it (in that they themselves might not do it, though they may be accepting of someone unknown doing it), but that doesn't stop it from being terrible, or being something that needs to be spoken out against and stopped. I mean, I am not going to accept game-breaking bugs from a GTA game just because it is big, you know?

 

[Vegosiux]

Regardless, I don't know why we need to accept asshattery.

We don't, because it's unacceptable.

They might not mean it (in that they themselves might not do it, though they may be accepting of someone unknown doing it), but that doesn't stop it from being terrible, or being something that needs to be spoken out against and stopped. I mean, I am not going to accept game-breaking bugs from a GTA game just because it is big, you know?

That's the unsaid implication from what I've been saying, really. Though I suppose that my opinion is a bit peculiar in that, while I don't consider such asshattery to be as serious if we speak purely about "potential consequences", on the other hand I see it as more degrading than a real death threat, because it shows a callous disregard for the fact that they're actually talking to an actual person.

It's a bit convoluted, I admit.

 

[Atmos Duality]

I absolutely despise Anita for refusing to engage even reasonable critics. As a supporter of hers, it deeply saddens me that she isn't willing to engage others in discussion.

She doesn't engage reasonable critics because she doesn't have to in order to remain relevant, and she knows this.
By refusing to refine her position and engage criticism as any honest academic would, she only gave the raging id of an anonymous internet another reason to keep raging about her. And in their rage, they have ensured that Anita's work will reach more people than she ever could herself.

Anita has bent the internet hate machine to her whim, for immense profit and attention.

(I mean, I wish I could make 6 figures in free kickstarter cash just to play games and ***** about shit I can read on TVTropes. Who wouldn't?)

Anita's subject is relevant, and overdue for a reckoning especially in the gaming world, but Anita's argumentation and methods are intolerably questionable if not outright dishonest. (her usage of other's footage without credit is inexcusable)

So now, there's nothing to do but wait her out, and pray that more level headed feminists will be inspired to enter the market, and rise above her in practice.

...Oh who the fuck am I kidding?
Sensationalism overrules sensibility in the public eye.

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?

It's a Featured Content thread; there will be absolutely no locking.
Around here, MovieBob + Anita Sarkeesian would equal a 500 post topic without breaking a sweat.

Good for the Escapist, since provocative faux-journalism like this draws in traffic, ad-hits and attention to their other content.

Bad for anyone who knows what actual academia is, or who expects higher standards than that of tabloid bullshit.

Had this thread been started by a random nobody user, this would have been locked already.

 

[Farther than stars]

Assuming that she isn't a gamer, which is pretty much impossible nowadays since everyone plays games

...but that's what she says herself.

Yeah... Imma come right out and say it: I've never actually lied about playing video games, but I have bent the truth and changed the subject to avoid talking about them to certain people in the past. That was a wrong thing to do, the same way that it was wrong of Sarkeesian to lie in that video, but I can identify with it, because sometimes you just want to be socially accepted. That's the reason she gave for that statement and I'm willing to buy that.
And, sure, you can argue back and forth on the subject of who said what and what's the real truth and how do the details fit into that narrative, but that's the kind of thing you and I can never know. However, what I can know and what I see is a woman who's very dedicated to what she believes in and has a skin tick enough to stand against all the hate and disdain when expressing those beliefs. I think we shouldn't lose sight of that. Those qualities are too rare as it is and - if anything - the fact that a woman is showing them already makes her a pretty good role model for young women, as far as I'm concerned.

Because isn't the point of feminism to ensure that women have the same legal rights as men under the law?

No. That was the point of First Wave Feminism. We're now in the Third Wave of Feminism. Carry on.

 

[UberPubert]

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?

Well the reason it 's remained opened this long is because the actual article is fairly inoffensive and it was posted by a major website contributor. It'd be rather unseemly for mods to go around shutting down contributor topics.

As for the ban quota... Well, it is an easy way to weed out the "riff-raff" of casual forumgoers who don't mind breaking the etiquette rules when they become inconvenient for them to voice their strong opinions. I see no real issue with it, these people seem like they were bound to break the rules sometime.

Bans for the ban god, skulls for the mod throne.