The Most Dangerous Woman in Videogames - Anita Sarkeesian

[Icehearted]

What a masturbatory article.

"The most dangerous woman in video gaming"? Bullshit.

The people with the money don't care and the people with sense don't take her seriously.

The only dangerous thing about her is her fanbase's misguided belief that her work contains anything of academic value.

To read quite a few of her supporters one would think it is irrelevant whether or not the article itself is substantive, or whether or not anything she has to say is substantive, she is a woman and a feminist (or not a feminist, apparently depending on who you ask). Because she is a woman, because she talks about women in video games, she has a larger voice than anyone else, and if anyone disagrees with her it's relegated to the same slush pile as her attackers, therefore to disagree is to attack her. Never mind academia, if you disagree with her you're just another attacker.

There's a difference between being reasonably skeptical and flagrantly obtuse and prejudicial, looks more and more like those in agreement with her side to the latter with the same radical fervor as those they accuse of attacking her.

Yes, it is good that the community and hopefully the industry are now thinking about that...

its just sad that Anita gets the credit for it.

She's not a good scholar by any stretch.

Why?

1. She disabled comments on her videos. Say what you will about trolls, this also prevents people from having a reasonable, polite debate with her and those that support her. At least directly. And yes, a well thought-out, civil debate is possible on youtube. It doesn't happen nearly as often as it should, but it does.

2. The only comments that survive on her channel's comment page (which is different from video comments), are those left by sycophants. Any dissent is swiftly removed. How do I know this? Because I attempted to start a polite debate. Simply asked for clarification on a few points, as making my disagreement with some of them known, and of course, asking what her sources for any of this were.

3. Which brings me to my last point, she never cites any of her sources. Not once in the videos, and not in the video's description. That is the territory of plagiarists, and those who arrogantly believe that their own suppositions and opinions are fact. And someone that simply has no idea how to do and show proper research.

4. She presents her opinions as fact. She makes a number of highly contestable claims about various games and, more to the point, what impact art and culture have on us as a whole, as if they were self-evident truths that don't need defending. They ARE highly contestable (just look at some of the better worded, and better researched video responses to her stuff). For example:

There are plenty of people out there that have piece by piece, point for point, offered counterarguments to her presentations, none with hostility, many of them also women, most of those women also gamers, but because they appear to "side" with her detractors, only by virtue of their not siding with her directly, their valid and often reasonable counterpoints are dismissed as hostility.

Probably the most curious of all of this is that when she is given a platform, like this article, whatever she has to say is validated in the eyes of her supporters regardless of whether or not it's factual or subjective. I don't know if that's the point. I realize editorialized articles aren't necessarily intended to be about facts, but it looks like others seem to miss that part entirely and take whatever she and her supporters say at face value and as fact. How do you argue with that kind of mentality? How do you present the rational to the irrational?

I've seen your points mentioned by others in one variation or another repeatedly here and elsewhere, nearly always to closed minds already set to disagree without even considering them. This is by definition prejudice. There's no fighting it.

It's not that I'm saying don't bother, I just don't see the point.

 

[Worgen]

You're right, my mind is made up, I have yet to see the side against her offer any compelling evidence that shes wrong, pretty much all the angles of attack on her are personal. They all seem to come down to "ohhhhh shes not a real gamer." Video games are not a walled off garden, you don't have to have devoted yourself to them for a life time to understand them or to learn the tropes that are in them. I have spent a life time playing them and that is why I agree with her. The fact that other gamer's on this site agree with what she has to say kinda proves that shes not full of shit, Movie Bob obviously agrees and so does Jim Sterling, if you want some names.

Again, she pretty much said this herself.

Not really sure how anyone agreeing with her proves she's right anymore than someone disagreeing with her is proven right by those that agree with their dissent. Self-aggrandizing web personalities or otherwise.

By that type of reasoning and using your very logic (and wording) I could argue, for example, that the Ku Klux Klan says that Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world and run all the media, the fact that some people agree with what they have to say kinda proves that they're not full of shit, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad obviously agrees and so does Mel Gibson, if you want some names.

See? Logic fallacies really don't hold up either.

Want to stress that I am not in agreement with the KKK, Ahmadinejad, Gibson, or any other racist or racist organization in any way shape or form, I myself the son of a mixed-race couple have experienced a lot of the evil of bigotry first hand. My post was about making a point regarding another user's absurd reasoning and not in support of the views expressed by the persons mentioned about the Jewish community.

Edit: cleaned up the quote box, sorrys.

First of all, what the hell are you talking about? Second of all, it helps her case because even if she isn't a gamer and assuming that videogames are impossible for people to get into unless they have been into them since birth. It means that people who have devoted their lives to games can see the same problems she does.

Your point makes no sense, the only way the whole kkk, ahmadine-jad, gibson thing you brought up would make some sense if they were also all jewish or they got a bunch of jews to agree with them. On its own it doesn't work though.

It makes perfect sense because they have people in agreement with their beliefs; not all that agree with Sarkeesian are gamers, it's a feminist cause that other people agree with. It only wouldn't make sense to someone who's seeing things one-dimensionally. Has nothing to do with being born into anything, she says she doesn't even like video games, and leanred about them for the purpose of making a pro-feminist video with the song "Too Many Dicks (On The Dance Floor)".

I worded things exactly as you did to demonstrate the fallacy of your logic. Since it seemed as ridiculous to you as it did to me, I'd consider that a point taken, even if by your own admission you've made up your mind on the issues and everything everyone has to say about it in advance of all comments posted.

No really, if it was an exclusive matter of gaming that would be one thing, but she's discussed Legos, Movies, Television, Fantasy art, and a plethora of other matters, and last I checked it was "Feminist Frequency" which is broader than "Gamer's Frequency", so you can give the exclusivity argument a rest. She's not just talking to gamers, she's talking to anyone that will listen, on CNN, at expos, wherever they'll give her a mic, to whomever will listen to her.

*bangs head on desk* You're not listening. The only way your example is compatible is if they went to a bunch of Jewish people and got them to agree that the jews did everything you mentioned. Just having someone agree with you means nothing, but if you have some people who are members of the group you are taking about agree with you, then it means something.

Again, by your own fallacy of logic, Bob and Jim are not female gamers. You're ignoring that she isn't just talking about video games, or to gamers, or to women. She is not speaking to any specific demographic. My example stands.

Your example FAIIIIILS. They aren't females, but they are gamers, she clearly is capable if figuring out enough about games so that gamers can see her point and agree with her.

 

[Icehearted]

You're right, my mind is made up, I have yet to see the side against her offer any compelling evidence that shes wrong, pretty much all the angles of attack on her are personal. They all seem to come down to "ohhhhh shes not a real gamer." Video games are not a walled off garden, you don't have to have devoted yourself to them for a life time to understand them or to learn the tropes that are in them. I have spent a life time playing them and that is why I agree with her. The fact that other gamer's on this site agree with what she has to say kinda proves that shes not full of shit, Movie Bob obviously agrees and so does Jim Sterling, if you want some names.

Again, she pretty much said this herself.

Not really sure how anyone agreeing with her proves she's right anymore than someone disagreeing with her is proven right by those that agree with their dissent. Self-aggrandizing web personalities or otherwise.

By that type of reasoning and using your very logic (and wording) I could argue, for example, that the Ku Klux Klan says that Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world and run all the media, the fact that some people agree with what they have to say kinda proves that they're not full of shit, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad obviously agrees and so does Mel Gibson, if you want some names.

See? Logic fallacies really don't hold up either.

Want to stress that I am not in agreement with the KKK, Ahmadinejad, Gibson, or any other racist or racist organization in any way shape or form, I myself the son of a mixed-race couple have experienced a lot of the evil of bigotry first hand. My post was about making a point regarding another user's absurd reasoning and not in support of the views expressed by the persons mentioned about the Jewish community.

Edit: cleaned up the quote box, sorrys.

First of all, what the hell are you talking about? Second of all, it helps her case because even if she isn't a gamer and assuming that videogames are impossible for people to get into unless they have been into them since birth. It means that people who have devoted their lives to games can see the same problems she does.

Your point makes no sense, the only way the whole kkk, ahmadine-jad, gibson thing you brought up would make some sense if they were also all jewish or they got a bunch of jews to agree with them. On its own it doesn't work though.

It makes perfect sense because they have people in agreement with their beliefs; not all that agree with Sarkeesian are gamers, it's a feminist cause that other people agree with. It only wouldn't make sense to someone who's seeing things one-dimensionally. Has nothing to do with being born into anything, she says she doesn't even like video games, and leanred about them for the purpose of making a pro-feminist video with the song "Too Many Dicks (On The Dance Floor)".

I worded things exactly as you did to demonstrate the fallacy of your logic. Since it seemed as ridiculous to you as it did to me, I'd consider that a point taken, even if by your own admission you've made up your mind on the issues and everything everyone has to say about it in advance of all comments posted.

No really, if it was an exclusive matter of gaming that would be one thing, but she's discussed Legos, Movies, Television, Fantasy art, and a plethora of other matters, and last I checked it was "Feminist Frequency" which is broader than "Gamer's Frequency", so you can give the exclusivity argument a rest. She's not just talking to gamers, she's talking to anyone that will listen, on CNN, at expos, wherever they'll give her a mic, to whomever will listen to her.

*bangs head on desk* You're not listening. The only way your example is compatible is if they went to a bunch of Jewish people and got them to agree that the jews did everything you mentioned. Just having someone agree with you means nothing, but if you have some people who are members of the group you are taking about agree with you, then it means something.

Again, by your own fallacy of logic, Bob and Jim are not female gamers. You're ignoring that she isn't just talking about video games, or to gamers, or to women. She is not speaking to any specific demographic. My example stands.

Your example FAIIIIILS. They aren't females, but they are gamers, she clearly is capable if figuring out enough about games so that gamers can see her point and agree with her.

Right, so again, by your mode of logic these people speak to anti-Semites, they aren't politicians or entertainers, but they are anti-Semites, they clearly are capable of figuring out enough about antisemitism so that anti-Semites can see their point and agree with them.

Again, my original example stands.

 

[Baresark]

She doesn't do a particularly good job at anything other reinforcing the dreadfully ignorant conception of feminism. At this point, the radical feminism she manages to engender, is woefully over emphasized by her videos. She has many fine points which tend to be undermined by her whole general attitude to the media and it's representation as a whole of women. She is representative of that super puritanical first generation feminism, which unfortunately does a fine job at slutshaming women who don't fit their description of what a strong woman is. That is why the much more middle of the isle feminism (such as sex positive feminism) are easier to digest, because it's a kind of feminism that doesn't attack the very people it claims to be trying to defend, protect, and teach.

On the other hand, I'm no expert on her, her views of society or feminism or the like. I am just taking what I said out of context of the videos I have seen (not just the ones involving videogames). Incidentally, Moviebob loves to pole jock people like this. It's even a bit disconcerting that you knew exactly how this was going in the first three lines of the article. You didn't have to read the whole thing to know where it was going.

 

[TheDoctor455]

What a masturbatory article.

"The most dangerous woman in video gaming"? Bullshit.

The people with the money don't care and the people with sense don't take her seriously.

The only dangerous thing about her is her fanbase's misguided belief that her work contains anything of academic value.

To read quite a few of her supporters one would think it is irrelevant whether or not the article itself is substantive, or whether or not anything she has to say is substantive, she is a woman and a feminist (or not a feminist, apparently depending on who you ask). Because she is a woman, because she talks about women in video games, she has a larger voice than anyone else, and if anyone disagrees with her it's relegated to the same slush pile as her attackers, therefore to disagree is to attack her. Never mind academia, if you disagree with her you're just another attacker.

There's a difference between being reasonably skeptical and flagrantly obtuse and prejudicial, looks more and more like those in agreement with her side to the latter with the same radical fervor as those they accuse of attacking her.

Yes, it is good that the community and hopefully the industry are now thinking about that...

its just sad that Anita gets the credit for it.

She's not a good scholar by any stretch.

Why?

1. She disabled comments on her videos. Say what you will about trolls, this also prevents people from having a reasonable, polite debate with her and those that support her. At least directly. And yes, a well thought-out, civil debate is possible on youtube. It doesn't happen nearly as often as it should, but it does.

2. The only comments that survive on her channel's comment page (which is different from video comments), are those left by sycophants. Any dissent is swiftly removed. How do I know this? Because I attempted to start a polite debate. Simply asked for clarification on a few points, as making my disagreement with some of them known, and of course, asking what her sources for any of this were.

3. Which brings me to my last point, she never cites any of her sources. Not once in the videos, and not in the video's description. That is the territory of plagiarists, and those who arrogantly believe that their own suppositions and opinions are fact. And someone that simply has no idea how to do and show proper research.

4. She presents her opinions as fact. She makes a number of highly contestable claims about various games and, more to the point, what impact art and culture have on us as a whole, as if they were self-evident truths that don't need defending. They ARE highly contestable (just look at some of the better worded, and better researched video responses to her stuff). For example:

There are plenty of people out there that have piece by piece, point for point, offered counterarguments to her presentations, none with hostility, many of them also women, most of those women also gamers, but because they appear to "side" with her detractors, only by virtue of their not siding with her directly, their valid and often reasonable counterpoints are dismissed as hostility.

Probably the most curious of all of this is that when she is given a platform, like this article, whatever she has to say is validated in the eyes of her supporters regardless of whether or not it's factual or subjective. I don't know if that's the point. I realize editorialized articles aren't necessarily intended to be about facts, but it looks like others seem to miss that part entirely and take whatever she and her supporters say at face value and as fact. How do you argue with that kind of mentality? How do you present the rational to the irrational?

I've seen your points mentioned by others in one variation or another repeatedly here and elsewhere, nearly always to closed minds already set to disagree without even considering them. This is by definition prejudice. There's no fighting it.

It's not that I'm saying don't bother, I just don't see the point.

Because it actually is possible to overcome someone's prejudice's?

To take a more extreme example, there have been cases of neo-nazis realizing how wrong they are, and reforming as a result.

And no, I'm not comparing Anita or her supporters to them in any way, shape or form...

but it could be argued that outright bigotry is typically a much stronger, more deeply embedded prejudice than the confirmation bias that Anita is setting up for herself.

The thing is, she doesn't phrase her opinions as if she meant for them to be taken as opinions. She phrases them in a way that seems to indicate that she is stating hard facts.

What do I mean?

Well, not once in any of her videos does she ever make it clear that she is simply giving her own personal opinion on different games/movies/music videos/what have you (yeah, she's been doing this sort of thing a lot longer than the switch to videogames... and from watching a few of her other videos... they're pretty much the same)...

instead, she phrases them in a very absolute way, a way that seems meant to dupe people into thinking she is giving them fact.

She never uses hedge phrases that would indicate opinion like "seems to", "appears to", or "possibly". She just treats her opinion as if they were unalienable truth.

Having graduated from a state University, I can tell you for a fact that any Professor worth their salt would give her videos a big fat F. Though going from the assumption that these are editorials...

even editorials need some fact to back them up. And these facts need to be cited. As such, any honest editor would hand the scripts for Anita's videos back to her, and tell her to cite her sources, and use the kind of hedge phrasing I mentioned earlier.

Even in criminal cases where the evidence is rock-solid that the accused committed the crime, they still use the word "alleged" when talking to or about the accused until the Jury has actually given their verdict.

 

[Megalodon]

She listed dozens at the very least over the course of her first three videos.

Ah OK, I was thinking of when she says things like "DiD appears in many games" or "Double Dragon has been remade dozens of time over the years", specfic lists, which I still maintain would help her argument, showing some research if nothing else.

Therefore an approximation of the percentage of games featuring the DiD trope would have been useful in judging just how endemic this apparently damaging trope is.

But that isn't what she's trying to do. Throwing percents around doesn't help raise awareness in Devs.

I thought her goal was to highlight the extent of sexism the industry, to both ignorant gamers and devs. In that context, I don't see the harm in giving an indication of the overall prevalence of the harmful trope. Again, some level of stats analysis would also be good at deflecting the criticism that all she does is read TV tropes.

She seems to want to treat the entire industry as one gestalt entity,

No. She doesn't. She is trying to raise awareness about harmful tropes so that Devs will avoid them or at least get them to think about these tropes before they use them.

This is what I keep trying to say. She isn't painting the entire industry as anything - which means all this evidence you're looking for is unnecessary.

This may be an issue with her presentation style (giving her the benefit of the doubt), she comes across to me as judgemental, smug and trying to start a fight. The enitire premise of her series is adversarial. Tropes VS Women, it suggest the entire gaming inustry is a problem and immediately places people on one side of a divide. Which I think is counter productive if she is genuine about wanting to improve the industry.

She isn't judging all games based on bad ones - she's using bad games as examples of what to avoid doing.

Again, this may be a problem with her presentation style (or she's malevolent/crap, I don't know), when she sets up her series as her vs video games, it is rather easy to conclude she is judging the entire industry at once. Again, I don't think Anita is necessarily wrong about everything she says, I think she is a bad posterchild for her cause, (assuming she's legitimate, I don't discount the possibility she's cynically exploited the situation for profit, but I don't know one way or the other).

The standard issue of Women's Studies and Feminist Theory is to claim that men are only capable of viewing women as property? I hope I've misunderstood you here.

Feminist Theory believes that our current society is build upon a patriarchal values system, and that women are automatically devalued and seen as property.

There is some historical basis to this - not that long ago, women WERE considered property. Many of the story tropes we use today, like Damsel in Distress, date from a time when women literally were the property of their fathers and husbands.

Thanks for the clarification. I'd have to disagree with the assertion, simply because I don't see it in my day to day life. I know I've had advantages growing up, but that's based purely on the social standing of my parents, not on the gender I was born with.

I agree about the origin of story tropes like DiD, but I disagree that they are as harmful as Anita would claim.

For the later (which is undeniably harder, for both male and female): Carlos (Saints Row 2).

Ah! Excellent example. Well done.

Also, I note that two of your examples were from the Saints Row series, which is known for being gender diverse and inclusive.

Eh, that was from the games I had to hand/are in immediate memorey, a lot of the games I play are srategy games, or lack clear character drama (eg. Total War, Gratuitous Space Battles, FTL, XCOM, Divinity: Dragon Commander). But I do rather like Saints Row. For that category, it was petty hard to think of NPCs killed primarily to piss off the protagonist, male of female. There's normally something else behind vilainous acts in most stories.

Agreed. I never said she was perfect (I disagree with a number of her points). She makes too many assumptions that her audience knows several basic aspects of feminist theory. However, making a honest mistake is no excuse for the sort of abuse and hatred she often receives.

I'm not going to try to claim the shit she got was deserved, but again I question who the intended audience of these videos was. Given her level of education, I am skeptical that her failure to explain her terms is an honest mistake. If the intended audience was people already on her side then her videos make sense. But if she was actually attempting to reach out to the community at large, then she should have explained her terms, explaning why X is demaning to women, so that those of us who haven't studied academic feminism can follow what she is saying. I hope that makes sense, i'm kinda drunk right now.

But it should matter to her, because if both genders are written equally poorly than a strong case can be made that the media isn't sexist, it is just badly written.

But they're badly written in a very specific way. And again, she isn't accusing the games industry - she's trying to educate them and help them do better. Pointing out bad writing is something you do while critiquing a work.

This may be a difference in perspective. To my mind, if both genders are written poorly, then it is a writing issue. Anita seems to be of the viewpoint that badly written female characters are a sexism issue. I think badly written characters are a writng issue, no need to bring gender politics into it, better written characters in games, irrespective of gender, would be a good thing.

"DiD is sexist, demeaning to women and I don't like it", which is not a stance I agree with.

Fine. Then argue about that and not all this other stuff. Discuss and counter her points on that.

Which is difficult, as she never states why portrayl X is particularly bad. This leaves me with little to go on, as I don't see what is so massively damaging about the trope. She just says it's bad, if you're right about feminism theory backing this assertion up (haven't looked into it myself yet, so I don't know about its veracity), this would be a good opportunity for her to bring up sources that support her assertions. References would help convince the skeptics.

Yahtzee isn't trying to claim anything about the nature of the games industry.

Motion controls.

Quick time events.

Yahtzee has specifically claimed to be attempting to convince Devs to stop using both.

The claim he made is that specific game mechanics are stupid, not that a specific character portrayl is wrong/offensive. Again, not to say that Anita is inherently wrong, but she is a different entity from Yathzee. One is primarily concerned with games and gameplay, while the other is concerned with the with social/gender/political nature of games.

Or to put it another way, Yahtzee's beef is with mechanics, not gender portrayl, so comparing him to Anita seems a bit like comaparing apples and oranges.

From that perspective, I would agree that it isn't massively patronising. Personally I get a more confrontational vibe form Anita and her presentation, hence my previous post. I maintain, if her motives are honest, then there are better ways to put forward her points.

Can't her motives be honest and her style stuck in the past? As Movie Bob noted, her style is very similar her Women's Studies background. That discipline tends to be very confrontational. Compared to many Feminist Theorists, Anita actually comes off as fairly mild.

Which as I said in my last post, is kinda scary if Anita is a moderate. I don't discount the possibility that she is honest with a bad style. Although I do feel that some of the recent revealations about her opinion of video games/status as a gamer give the claim that she is a cynical con artist more credence than it had a few months ago. But I don't know her motivations for this series. Frankly

 

[Icehearted]

There are plenty of people out there that have piece by piece, point for point, offered counterarguments to her presentations, none with hostility, many of them also women, most of those women also gamers, but because they appear to "side" with her detractors, only by virtue of their not siding with her directly, their valid and often reasonable counterpoints are dismissed as hostility.

Probably the most curious of all of this is that when she is given a platform, like this article, whatever she has to say is validated in the eyes of her supporters regardless of whether or not it's factual or subjective. I don't know if that's the point. I realize editorialized articles aren't necessarily intended to be about facts, but it looks like others seem to miss that part entirely and take whatever she and her supporters say at face value and as fact. How do you argue with that kind of mentality? How do you present the rational to the irrational?

I've seen your points mentioned by others in one variation or another repeatedly here and elsewhere, nearly always to closed minds already set to disagree without even considering them. This is by definition prejudice. There's no fighting it.

It's not that I'm saying don't bother, I just don't see the point.

Because it actually is possible to overcome someone's prejudice's?

To take a more extreme example, there have been cases of neo-nazis realizing how wrong they are, and reforming as a result.

And no, I'm not comparing Anita or her supporters to them in any way, shape or form...

but it could be argued that outright bigotry is typically a much stronger, more deeply embedded prejudice than the confirmation bias that Anita is setting up for herself.

The thing is, she doesn't phrase her opinions as if she meant for them to be taken as opinions. She phrases them in a way that seems to indicate that she is stating hard facts.

What do I mean?

Well, not once in any of her videos does she ever make it clear that she is simply giving her own personal opinion on different games/movies/music videos/what have you (yeah, she's been doing this sort of thing a lot longer than the switch to videogames... and from watching a few of her other videos... they're pretty much the same)...

instead, she phrases them in a very absolute way, a way that seems meant to dupe people into thinking she is giving them fact.

She never uses hedge phrases that would indicate opinion like "seems to", "appears to", or "possibly". She just treats her opinion as if they were unalienable truth.

Having graduated from a state University, I can tell you for a fact that any Professor worth their salt would give her videos a big fat F. Though going from the assumption that these are editorials...

even editorials need some fact to back them up. And these facts need to be cited. As such, any honest editor would hand the scripts for Anita's videos back to her, and tell her to cite her sources, and use the kind of hedge phrasing I mentioned earlier.

Even in criminal cases where the evidence is rock-solid that the accused committed the crime, they still use the word "alleged" when talking to or about the accused until the Jury has actually given their verdict.

All very sensible approaches, but it takes a measure of faith to believe the discussion is not futile. To the point, prejudice is something one must personally choose to overcome. overcoming it cannot be handed to them like a magic pill, and it has been my experience that doing so for a person with a preconceived idea, motive, or feeling is rare and requires a personalized motivator, or catalyst, for changing their perspective just enough to allow the other voices a modicum of genuine attention. I applaud your optimism, wish you well on this fight, but for my experience, even in this thread alone, it's all pissing in the wind.

Or maybe I'm just exhausted from trying. Either way I certainly hope something better than unheeded or poorly thought out (if not parroted) rhetoric comes of this "discussion".

 

[Worgen]

You're right, my mind is made up, I have yet to see the side against her offer any compelling evidence that shes wrong, pretty much all the angles of attack on her are personal. They all seem to come down to "ohhhhh shes not a real gamer." Video games are not a walled off garden, you don't have to have devoted yourself to them for a life time to understand them or to learn the tropes that are in them. I have spent a life time playing them and that is why I agree with her. The fact that other gamer's on this site agree with what she has to say kinda proves that shes not full of shit, Movie Bob obviously agrees and so does Jim Sterling, if you want some names.

Again, she pretty much said this herself.

Not really sure how anyone agreeing with her proves she's right anymore than someone disagreeing with her is proven right by those that agree with their dissent. Self-aggrandizing web personalities or otherwise.

By that type of reasoning and using your very logic (and wording) I could argue, for example, that the Ku Klux Klan says that Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world and run all the media, the fact that some people agree with what they have to say kinda proves that they're not full of shit, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad obviously agrees and so does Mel Gibson, if you want some names.

See? Logic fallacies really don't hold up either.

Want to stress that I am not in agreement with the KKK, Ahmadinejad, Gibson, or any other racist or racist organization in any way shape or form, I myself the son of a mixed-race couple have experienced a lot of the evil of bigotry first hand. My post was about making a point regarding another user's absurd reasoning and not in support of the views expressed by the persons mentioned about the Jewish community.

Edit: cleaned up the quote box, sorrys.

First of all, what the hell are you talking about? Second of all, it helps her case because even if she isn't a gamer and assuming that videogames are impossible for people to get into unless they have been into them since birth. It means that people who have devoted their lives to games can see the same problems she does.

Your point makes no sense, the only way the whole kkk, ahmadine-jad, gibson thing you brought up would make some sense if they were also all jewish or they got a bunch of jews to agree with them. On its own it doesn't work though.

It makes perfect sense because they have people in agreement with their beliefs; not all that agree with Sarkeesian are gamers, it's a feminist cause that other people agree with. It only wouldn't make sense to someone who's seeing things one-dimensionally. Has nothing to do with being born into anything, she says she doesn't even like video games, and leanred about them for the purpose of making a pro-feminist video with the song "Too Many Dicks (On The Dance Floor)".

I worded things exactly as you did to demonstrate the fallacy of your logic. Since it seemed as ridiculous to you as it did to me, I'd consider that a point taken, even if by your own admission you've made up your mind on the issues and everything everyone has to say about it in advance of all comments posted.

No really, if it was an exclusive matter of gaming that would be one thing, but she's discussed Legos, Movies, Television, Fantasy art, and a plethora of other matters, and last I checked it was "Feminist Frequency" which is broader than "Gamer's Frequency", so you can give the exclusivity argument a rest. She's not just talking to gamers, she's talking to anyone that will listen, on CNN, at expos, wherever they'll give her a mic, to whomever will listen to her.

*bangs head on desk* You're not listening. The only way your example is compatible is if they went to a bunch of Jewish people and got them to agree that the jews did everything you mentioned. Just having someone agree with you means nothing, but if you have some people who are members of the group you are taking about agree with you, then it means something.

Again, by your own fallacy of logic, Bob and Jim are not female gamers. You're ignoring that she isn't just talking about video games, or to gamers, or to women. She is not speaking to any specific demographic. My example stands.

Your example FAIIIIILS. They aren't females, but they are gamers, she clearly is capable if figuring out enough about games so that gamers can see her point and agree with her.

Right, so again, by your mode of logic these people speak to anti-Semites, they aren't politicians or entertainers, but they are anti-Semites, they clearly are capable of figuring out enough about antisemitism so that anti-Semites can see their point and agree with them.

Again, my original example stands.

Listen to me, you are talking about someone who hates jews, being able to convince other people who hate jews. I am talking about someone who might not be a gamer, being able to convince people who are gamers. Its different. ...THis is so stupid, why are we even arguing about this? She was working on her tropes vs woman thing for like a year, even with no prior knowledge of video games she could have played a ton of them and brought herself up to speed.

 

[JellySlimerMan]

Well looks I can finally write this website off, Anita on the front page.

Does anyone know of any websites, Youtube channels or even printed publications that actually talk about this thing we used to like called "videogames", rather than pandering to social terrorists for ad money?

You wish is my command:

 

[MrMan999]

Ms. Sarkeesian's videos are filled with confirmation bias, cherry picking, lack of context, factual errors and the general tone of the videos is that of a teacher lecturing a problem child than any sort of equal debate. She speaks into an echo chamber.

 

[MaximumTheHormone]

So it might be that it wasn't 'the gaming community' that lashed out... although what is that exactly. Given the number of males (and now females) that game, it's not so much the 'gamer community' so much as internet users who are also gamers. It's not like the gaming community is a cohesive entity anyways- I'm a gamer and a moderator on a Starcraft website and I certainly am not flaming her.

But to say "No one actually did anything" is patently not true. Some people did do something even if they weren't the 'gaming community.' It probably speaks more of internet users in general when they have anonymity. But it isn't 'nothing' and she didn't force them to type that stuff.

@MaximumTheHormone
If she did spam 4chan, that is underhanded promotion. But unless it can be proved that was her and not an overzealous fan (or a true troll who wanted to get 4chan on board with this... is it that far fetched to think it was just another 4chan user trolling other 4chan members with a fake account knowing the uprise it would cause?) But unless it can be linked to her, then it is just useless ad hominem with no evidence and not worth bringing up again and again. Also, do the members of 4chan not game? Because if they do, they are also gamers. They might be pariah gamers. Scum of the internet gamers, but gamers nonetheless... unless they don't game.

But I still don't see it as manipulative if she at first had open comments (yes her first videos where pop culture. I remember when the comments were just normal, banal youtube comments), then had moderated comments due to vitriol, closed comments when it became too much, then thought to hell with it, I'll open it up once to collect up all the BS I've been receiving and close it down once she had enough samples.

That's not manipulative, that's not a trick or a trap. That isn't causing hateful comments to appear as she summoned up the worst comments the internet had to offer with her dark powers of feminism. That's simply briefly allowing the floodgates to open to shine a light on the darker results of anonymity on the internet and the sort of backlash one receives from some gamers- even if they are just 4chan gamers.

Well that's a bit of a stretch. I know my implication that Anita in some way provoked the backlash is unfounded, but to attempt to validate her assertions her associating 4chan with gamers is just as unfounded.
While I do believe what happened to Sarkeesian is wrong, her assertion that it was the responsibility of the gamer community and her subsequent self-positioning of fighting 'sexism in gaming/ gaming communities' is manipulative at best and downright fallacious at worst.
Yeh, the internet can be a horrible, sexist, cesspit in some areas, but the internet isn't reflective of the 'gaming community'. The internet is reflective of the internet.

Her direct assertion that the backlash she received was the result of a targeted attack by the 'gaming community' even though she herself has posted evidence that it was not any gaming forum that initiated the assault but the infamous online community 4chan is directly promoting a lie. If sexism in online, anonymous spaces were the issue of discussion then Anita would've been justified in her association, but she deliberately associated her harassment with 'gamers'. While I will accept that some of the raiders may have also been avid gamers, the association is unfounded as no prominent gaming community has ever advocated this hate. No gaming communities were ever found co-ordination this mass campaign of online harassment. If any other comment section on her videos was left open for discussion and 4chan was spammed with links, a similar set of events would have most probably occurred.

So for what reason does she associate her harassment with gamers?
Could it be to provide an example of sexism in the subject fandom of her videos?
Surely she wouldn't be implying that games promote sexist attitudes in players?

The fact is, she was a hated personality on the internet. She had regulated this hate, as well as bragged about its sizability well before her Kickstarter campaign. She then opened up a directly right of reply and links were spammed on 4chan. She screen capped 4chan users vocalizing their intentions, but no online gaming communities were shown to be co-opting (that I have seen) the raid. Most viciously opposed the assault. Almost the entirety of the 'gaming press'have denounced the raid. Yet somehow vicious, sexist gamers were responsible and our communal attitudes advocated it (as she specifically said she was attacked by the 'gamer community' rather than elements of the gamer community or implying any sort of partiality in the attack).

 

[Rebel_Raven]

They may not be violating women's rights, or trying to (aside, maybe the right for women to exist in sensible clothes in their games, or the right to not look like trophy wives. <.<)

If I try really hard do you think it's possible to link telling female characters what they can and can't wear to slut shaming?

If you'll pardon me for saying so, this is a classic mistake you've made. You're assuming I'm saying there's things women shouldn't wear in games. This is not the case.

I'm not saying women can't dress like Ivy valentine in games. I can appreciate the eyecandy every now and then.

What I am saying is it shouldn't be the norm. It shouldn't be standard issue to dress in a way people don't dress outside of special occassions.
You look at women in fashion magazines, you look at the women that you see in your home when you live(ed) with them, or outside walking on the sidewalk, or maybe where you work... then you look at videogames, and realize practically no female protagonists dress in the style you see in real life. Or even in fashion magazines as outlandish as those styles can get. I'll admit that the trend of dressing up in some more modern styles is a little more common like Tomb raider, Beyond 2 souls, TLOU (which I'll count since you briefly play as the girl), and Remember Me, but I'm waiting to see how long it lasts. Just because I can rattle off a few titles doesn't mean it's by far the majority here. They just happen to be more memorable because they -do- dress in a way you'd see an average woman dress IRL.

It's kind of annoying, really, that games rarely ever really emphasize style in customization. We don't see much variety.

 

[MaximumTheHormone]

What a masturbatory article.

"The most dangerous woman in video gaming"? Bullshit.

The people with the money don't care and the people with sense don't take her seriously.

The only dangerous thing about her is her fanbase's misguided belief that her work contains anything of academic value.

The thing she has done well is marketed herself.
Dangerous isn't the right word though, probably 'expoitative' or 'resourceful' are better fits, however Anita stands now as one of the most prominent 'feminist' figures in gaming.

Her 'war against sexism in gaming' has placed her in a massive position of influence among her supporters, and I suspect this will penultimate with her final video, examples of good female charecters.
She has been working with DICE on mirror's edge 2, and if this relationship stays strong you can bet your ass Mirrors edge 1 (and possibly 2 if its out) will be up there in her recommendations.
http://www.destructoid.com/blogs/TheKodu/the-sarkeesian-the-dice-and-the-mirror--235992.phtml
We will have to wait to see how much influence Sarkeesian will get on the actual title, but the fact that she has been co-opted speaks volumes of her reknown.

While anything she despises probably won't see any decrease in popularity, her seal of approval will be a crucial marketing key for finding success among her fans and those she influences. Her first gaming videos have over 1mil+ hits, evidencing her massive reach. If anything she advocates is a passable game, it should decent sales push.

 

[Icehearted]

You're right, my mind is made up, I have yet to see the side against her offer any compelling evidence that shes wrong, pretty much all the angles of attack on her are personal. They all seem to come down to "ohhhhh shes not a real gamer." Video games are not a walled off garden, you don't have to have devoted yourself to them for a life time to understand them or to learn the tropes that are in them. I have spent a life time playing them and that is why I agree with her. The fact that other gamer's on this site agree with what she has to say kinda proves that shes not full of shit, Movie Bob obviously agrees and so does Jim Sterling, if you want some names.

Again, she pretty much said this herself.

Not really sure how anyone agreeing with her proves she's right anymore than someone disagreeing with her is proven right by those that agree with their dissent. Self-aggrandizing web personalities or otherwise.

By that type of reasoning and using your very logic (and wording) I could argue, for example, that the Ku Klux Klan says that Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world and run all the media, the fact that some people agree with what they have to say kinda proves that they're not full of shit, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad obviously agrees and so does Mel Gibson, if you want some names.

See? Logic fallacies really don't hold up either.

Want to stress that I am not in agreement with the KKK, Ahmadinejad, Gibson, or any other racist or racist organization in any way shape or form, I myself the son of a mixed-race couple have experienced a lot of the evil of bigotry first hand. My post was about making a point regarding another user's absurd reasoning and not in support of the views expressed by the persons mentioned about the Jewish community.

Edit: cleaned up the quote box, sorrys.

First of all, what the hell are you talking about? Second of all, it helps her case because even if she isn't a gamer and assuming that videogames are impossible for people to get into unless they have been into them since birth. It means that people who have devoted their lives to games can see the same problems she does.

Your point makes no sense, the only way the whole kkk, ahmadine-jad, gibson thing you brought up would make some sense if they were also all jewish or they got a bunch of jews to agree with them. On its own it doesn't work though.

It makes perfect sense because they have people in agreement with their beliefs; not all that agree with Sarkeesian are gamers, it's a feminist cause that other people agree with. It only wouldn't make sense to someone who's seeing things one-dimensionally. Has nothing to do with being born into anything, she says she doesn't even like video games, and leanred about them for the purpose of making a pro-feminist video with the song "Too Many Dicks (On The Dance Floor)".

I worded things exactly as you did to demonstrate the fallacy of your logic. Since it seemed as ridiculous to you as it did to me, I'd consider that a point taken, even if by your own admission you've made up your mind on the issues and everything everyone has to say about it in advance of all comments posted.

No really, if it was an exclusive matter of gaming that would be one thing, but she's discussed Legos, Movies, Television, Fantasy art, and a plethora of other matters, and last I checked it was "Feminist Frequency" which is broader than "Gamer's Frequency", so you can give the exclusivity argument a rest. She's not just talking to gamers, she's talking to anyone that will listen, on CNN, at expos, wherever they'll give her a mic, to whomever will listen to her.

*bangs head on desk* You're not listening. The only way your example is compatible is if they went to a bunch of Jewish people and got them to agree that the jews did everything you mentioned. Just having someone agree with you means nothing, but if you have some people who are members of the group you are taking about agree with you, then it means something.

Again, by your own fallacy of logic, Bob and Jim are not female gamers. You're ignoring that she isn't just talking about video games, or to gamers, or to women. She is not speaking to any specific demographic. My example stands.

Your example FAIIIIILS. They aren't females, but they are gamers, she clearly is capable if figuring out enough about games so that gamers can see her point and agree with her.

Right, so again, by your mode of logic these people speak to anti-Semites, they aren't politicians or entertainers, but they are anti-Semites, they clearly are capable of figuring out enough about antisemitism so that anti-Semites can see their point and agree with them.

Again, my original example stands.

Listen to me, you are talking about someone who hates jews, being able to convince other people who hate jews. I am talking about someone who might not be a gamer, being able to convince people who are gamers. Its different. ...THis is so stupid, why are we even arguing about this? She was working on her tropes vs woman thing for like a year, even with no prior knowledge of video games she could have played a ton of them and brought herself up to speed.

Actually I was just using your own words to demonstrate a point, again.

This whole thing about Gibson and Ahmadinejad was to demonstrate your fallacy of logic; Anita Sarkeesian is "not full of shit" because some people are mean to her so all that disagree have nothing valid to say, and Chipman and Sterling agree with her views legitimizing her message. I do not believe that an endorsement by either Bob, Jim, or anyone else means something is factual or even correct. You said it does. By this logic that means that as long someone agrees with somehting it is truthful.

Agreeing with an opinion is fine, deciding or delcaring it a fact because someone else agrees with it is a fallacy of logic, which was the whole point to begin with. If you've lost track as to why we're even discussing this I encourage you to return to earlier posts in this thread in which you've done exactly this while quoting me in support of validating an opinion as fact.

Take this video, which I already know you will not watch because you've said you will not, "bringing herself up to speed" was not her point for the purpose of validating her arguments, but rather to support a preexisting idea or message then seeing "evidence" to support these claims.

This woman roundly explains exactly what I mean in the first 60 seconds, without attacking Anita Sarkeesian, without making it personal, simply a perspective on the facts of Anita's message as Anita herself presents them. She also offers a pretty fair perspective in her own right.

 

[MrMan999]

You're right, my mind is made up, I have yet to see the side against her offer any compelling evidence that shes wrong, pretty much all the angles of attack on her are personal. They all seem to come down to "ohhhhh shes not a real gamer." Video games are not a walled off garden, you don't have to have devoted yourself to them for a life time to understand them or to learn the tropes that are in them. I have spent a life time playing them and that is why I agree with her. The fact that other gamer's on this site agree with what she has to say kinda proves that shes not full of shit, Movie Bob obviously agrees and so does Jim Sterling, if you want some names.

Again, she pretty much said this herself.

Not really sure how anyone agreeing with her proves she's right anymore than someone disagreeing with her is proven right by those that agree with their dissent. Self-aggrandizing web personalities or otherwise.

By that type of reasoning and using your very logic (and wording) I could argue, for example, that the Ku Klux Klan says that Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world and run all the media, the fact that some people agree with what they have to say kinda proves that they're not full of shit, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad obviously agrees and so does Mel Gibson, if you want some names.

See? Logic fallacies really don't hold up either.

Want to stress that I am not in agreement with the KKK, Ahmadinejad, Gibson, or any other racist or racist organization in any way shape or form, I myself the son of a mixed-race couple have experienced a lot of the evil of bigotry first hand. My post was about making a point regarding another user's absurd reasoning and not in support of the views expressed by the persons mentioned about the Jewish community.

Edit: cleaned up the quote box, sorrys.

First of all, what the hell are you talking about? Second of all, it helps her case because even if she isn't a gamer and assuming that videogames are impossible for people to get into unless they have been into them since birth. It means that people who have devoted their lives to games can see the same problems she does.

Your point makes no sense, the only way the whole kkk, ahmadine-jad, gibson thing you brought up would make some sense if they were also all jewish or they got a bunch of jews to agree with them. On its own it doesn't work though.

It makes perfect sense because they have people in agreement with their beliefs; not all that agree with Sarkeesian are gamers, it's a feminist cause that other people agree with. It only wouldn't make sense to someone who's seeing things one-dimensionally. Has nothing to do with being born into anything, she says she doesn't even like video games, and leanred about them for the purpose of making a pro-feminist video with the song "Too Many Dicks (On The Dance Floor)".

I worded things exactly as you did to demonstrate the fallacy of your logic. Since it seemed as ridiculous to you as it did to me, I'd consider that a point taken, even if by your own admission you've made up your mind on the issues and everything everyone has to say about it in advance of all comments posted.

No really, if it was an exclusive matter of gaming that would be one thing, but she's discussed Legos, Movies, Television, Fantasy art, and a plethora of other matters, and last I checked it was "Feminist Frequency" which is broader than "Gamer's Frequency", so you can give the exclusivity argument a rest. She's not just talking to gamers, she's talking to anyone that will listen, on CNN, at expos, wherever they'll give her a mic, to whomever will listen to her.

*bangs head on desk* You're not listening. The only way your example is compatible is if they went to a bunch of Jewish people and got them to agree that the jews did everything you mentioned. Just having someone agree with you means nothing, but if you have some people who are members of the group you are taking about agree with you, then it means something.

Again, by your own fallacy of logic, Bob and Jim are not female gamers. You're ignoring that she isn't just talking about video games, or to gamers, or to women. She is not speaking to any specific demographic. My example stands.

Your example FAIIIIILS. They aren't females, but they are gamers, she clearly is capable if figuring out enough about games so that gamers can see her point and agree with her.

Right, so again, by your mode of logic these people speak to anti-Semites, they aren't politicians or entertainers, but they are anti-Semites, they clearly are capable of figuring out enough about antisemitism so that anti-Semites can see their point and agree with them.

Again, my original example stands.

Listen to me, you are talking about someone who hates jews, being able to convince other people who hate jews. I am talking about someone who might not be a gamer, being able to convince people who are gamers. Its different. ...THis is so stupid, why are we even arguing about this? She was working on her tropes vs woman thing for like a year, even with no prior knowledge of video games she could have played a ton of them and brought herself up to speed.

Actually I was just using your own words to demonstrate a point, again.

This whole thing about Gibson and Ahmadinejad was to demonstrate your fallacy of logic; Anita Sarkeesian is "not full of shit" because some people are mean to her so all that disagree have nothing valid to say, and Chipman and Sterling agree with her views legitimizing her message. I do not believe that an endorsement by either Bob, Jim, or anyone else means something is factual or even correct. You said it does. By this logic that means that as long someone agrees with somehting it is truthful.

Agreeing with an opinion is fine, deciding or delcaring it a fact because someone else agrees with it is a fallacy of logic, which was the whole point to begin with. If you've lost track as to why we're even discussing this I encourage you to return to earlier posts in this thread in which you've done exactly this while quoting me in support of validating an opinion as fact.

Take this video, which I already know you will not watch because you've said you will not, "bringing herself up to speed" was not her point for the purpose of validating her arguments, but rather to support a preexisting idea or message then seeing "evidence" to support these claims.

This woman roundly explains exactly what I mean in the first 60 seconds, without attacking Anita Sarkeesian, without making it personal, simply a perspective on the facts of Anita's message as Anita herself presents them. She also offers a pretty fair perspective in her own right.

I really love that video. A genuinely compelling counterargument that does not resort to mudslinging.

 

[JellySlimerMan]

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.

Not even feminists agree with her, so i dont know WHICH Feminism Anita belongs to:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/YMMV/FeministFrequency

The idea behind her argument that Mattie Ross is not a feminist character (because she promotes more socially-accepted "masculine values" of revenge and violence as opposed to "feminine values" of cooperation and peace) is actually a much more contentious one in feminist circles than Sarkeesian makes it seem. While certainly, the idea that promoting "feminine values" is an essential feminist goal has its supporters (most notably, Harvard sociologist Carol Gilligan in her book In A Different Voice), there are other feminists who disagree, with one of the big reasons being this trope. For starters, many would consider Sarkeesian to be denying Mattie's agency by assuming that she a) only has these values to get along in a "man's world" and b) has never questioned them (questioning =/= abandoning). Additionally, many feminists would also say there is a downside to the more "feminine," cooperative values - such as meekness and submission - which result in women who adopt them having less power and influence, which ultimately hurts women more than it helps them. So perhaps it's better for both genders that we simply uncouple values from gender roles entirely.

Dismissing Clarice Starling from Silence of the Lambs because she's overshadowed in the cultural memory of the film by a male character (Hannibal) even though Clarice fits her previously established criteria; she has the most screen time in the film, the story arc revolves around her, we see her make decisions and she is the character that the viewer identifies with in a role that earned Jodie Foster her second Oscar along with Anthony Hopkins for his Hannibal Lecter role. It's virtually impossible to describe the plot in a way that makes Hannibal seem anything like the lead character, but Sarkeesian says the exact opposite of this.

Another example is Sarkeesian's continuous praise of non-violent resolutions and associating them with feminism. As stated above, while values such as cooperation and peace are good, the topic is much more contentious one in feminist circles than she makes it seem, as there are many different opinions amongst feminists on this subject. These values have always been around in male-dominated societies and aren't necessarily associated with feminism. How this becomes unfortunate is that she seems to give a reverse implication of "feminine is good, masculine is bad."

Along the same note she seems to regard female antagonists (and even an dark gray Anti-Hero like the main character of Revenge) as anti-feminist. This leads to the implication that that she may believe woman characters in media must always be presented as Incorruptible Pure Pureness.

http://thelearnedfangirl.com/2013/02/24/im-a-feminist-gamerand-im-over-anita-sarkeesian/

In fact, do the people (i am not asking you only, i am asking ALL of the people here) KNOW how many branches of Feminism there are? http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/RealLife/WeAREStrugglingTogether

"The feminist movement has produced a great many offshoots, not all of them on good terms with each other. The Other Wiki at the moment lists: Black, Chicana, Global, Postcolonial, and Third world feminism; Christian, Jewish, Islamic, and Spiritual (whatever this means in context) feminism; Anarchist, Liberal, Marxist and Socialist feminism, and Ecofeminism; Gender, Lesbian, Pro-life, Sex-positive feminism, and Transfeminism; Amazon, Cultural, Equity, Individualist, New, Postmodern, Radical, Separatist feminism, Fat feminism, and Womanism; and the big divider, Difference and Equality feminism. And there are probably many more not notable enough for Wikipedia. Some of them differ considerably even in their definitions of what makes someone a "woman". "

Was that idea in the minds of the people that supported her in the Kickstarter? or they just generalize ALL feminism as "Equal Rights for Women" or "Men and Women are Equal. Therefore they should have equal rights"? I am willing to bet that its those 2 definitions that people think that Anita belongs too, but her Master Thesis (and her posts that TvTropes pointed out) says different. THIS is what "equality" means to Anita:

"Values for a MORE Feminist Television Landscape" indeed. That is why a woman as LESS positive attributes than men. Not the same amount or even the same attributes, just less. That is what equality means right?

Also i like how the "Emotionally Expressive" is listed as a positive trait, when at the same time bashing Super Princess Peach for doing just THAT in her 3rd video. Sarkeesian lambasts Super Princess Peach for how Peach's powers in that game are "her out-of-control female emotions." However, the actual plot of the game is about Bowser causing everyone's emotions to become super-powered and out-of-control and Peach being the only one capable of controlling her emotions.

Staying consistent to one's own logic is... too mainstream.

I can summ up the reaction to Anita in a more simple way. Observe:

Twilight is The Most Triumphant Example of Literature as an Art Form

That sound you are hearing right now is the agonizing screams of millions of people that were affected by that statement of mine. You know why? because its false and THEY know it. The series doesn't deserve such praise.

Shitty Literature exists by A LOT. As evidenced by this list:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Horrible/Literature

So if shit like this is everywhere and common place, why Twilight is hated SO MUCH? its just another drop in the ocean. Its just a book, right? Well, it is hated because it earns recognition it doesn't deserve for what it has been shown so far, either by money or Oscar nominations:
http://goldderby.latimes.com/awards_goldderby/2008/11/twilight-patt-2.html

How about its distant cousin? Fifty Shades of Grey? Its just a book too, right? its harmless and not art, right? let Katrina Passick Lumsden answer that:
http://katastrophiccuriosity.blogspot.com.ar/2012/08/fifty-shades-of-bad-writing-those-of.html

"No. Sadly, this is no longer "just a book". As much as I (and a lot of others) wish it were, it can never be. Perhaps one day, far, far in the future, mankind will be able to look back and say, "Fifty Shades of what?", but that day isn't today. This has become the pathetic standard for erotic fiction. It is supposedly "revolutionizing" sex, and bored housewives everywhere are schliking to the idea of some high-handed emotional fuckwit like Christian Grey swooping in and pounding their stench trenches into oblivion. This "just a book" is a cultural phenomenon, and it stands to gain even more traction and influence after it's translated into several different languages and foisted upon unsuspecting foreign populations like fecal bombs from a fighter jet. Just a book. Yeah. And Salmonella is just bacteria.

So with ALL that in mind, how does Anita relates to all this? well, if she were JUST another critic in the ocean of Internet Nobodies that don't do research and are there to pander either with topical humor or topical movies/games to cash in, then nobody would give a fuck because its "just another one but with "Feminism" flavor" (Feminism being in quotations because, once again, it doesn't seem like one except In Name Only).

But when people like Bob and the media KEEP saying that she is using "Academic Standards" on her presentation, then the lack of sources and her lack of integrity to allow a conversation to be had (as ANY scholar would tell you) do not help that line of logic. Again, its like saying "X is Art" without backing up such a huge claim. Its recognition it doesn't deserve.

The suspicious circumstances around the spamming of 4Chan (http://archive.foolz.us/v/thread/139813364), the claims of "the harassment was planned" or "It was white males in their basement" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiYRVeGpEG0&feature=g-all-lik), and the claims of her getting Sainthood and compared to Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King and Harvey Milk only makes thing even WORSE as insult to injury.

I hope that helped.

 

[Lady Larunai]

They may not be violating women's rights, or trying to (aside, maybe the right for women to exist in sensible clothes in their games, or the right to not look like trophy wives. <.<)

If I try really hard do you think it's possible to link telling female characters what they can and can't wear to slut shaming?

If you'll pardon me for saying so, this is a classic mistake you've made. You're assuming I'm saying there's things women shouldn't wear in games. This is not the case.

I'm not saying women can't dress like Ivy valentine in games. I can appreciate the eyecandy every now and then.

What I am saying is it shouldn't be the norm. It shouldn't be standard issue to dress in a way people don't dress outside of special occassions.
You look at women in fashion magazines, you look at the women that you see in your home when you live(ed) with them, or outside walking on the sidewalk, or maybe where you work... then you look at videogames, and realize practically no female protagonists dress in the style you see in real life. Or even in fashion magazines as outlandish as those styles can get. I'll admit that the trend of dressing up in some more modern styles is a little more common like Tomb raider, Beyond 2 souls, TLOU (which I'll count since you briefly play as the girl), and Remember Me, but I'm waiting to see how long it lasts. Just because I can rattle off a few titles doesn't mean it's by far the majority here. They just happen to be more memorable because they -do- dress in a way you'd see an average woman dress IRL.

It's kind of annoying, really, that games rarely ever really emphasize style in customization. We don't see much variety.

Mistake? no, Twisted logic joke maybe

Have not played TLOU, Beyond or remember me yet funding has left me gameless for a while, I didn't even get batman

I did get your meaning though I was just being a smartass at 4am after 14 or so pages of text

 

[Something Amyss]

If all of the threats on the internet would always come to life I would have to buy, like, 120 new appartments by now.

You can talk about how internet threats are meaningless, but it misses the point. The people being complete shitheads to her brought attention upon her in a way no marketing can do. People accuse her of manipulating folks for donations, but they forget that if it hadn't been for thousands of manchildren railing against her, this would have all amounted to nothing of consequence.

It'd be nice if people could take responsibility for their actions instead of dishonestly portraying Anita as a con artist because they made her so damn popular.

Other people probably don't have spare 100K lying around.

So it's okay to "steal" from people if you don't have money. Gotcha.

So... do you want people to watch her videos before complaining or not?

Ah, nice attempt at a false dichotomy. Especially since you had to conflate what another poster said with what I said to force such a choice. Actually, given how transparent it is, maybe it's not so nice.

Look, do you actually have a bone to pick with my own words, or are you just going to dishonestly portray someone else's words as my own because you dislike my stance on Anita Sarkeesian? Because if the former, be my guest. It looks like the latter, though.