The Most Dangerous Woman in Videogames - Anita Sarkeesian

[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.

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

Ah. Okay, glad it's cleared up.

I feel your pain. Funds have been short for me for a long time, and I have a very long list of games I really want. And even if I do get them, work eats up so much of my time I barely get to play.
Heck, even with a job, I still find my funds lacking. *Sigh*

 

[Something Amyss]

She argues her points in the same way a creationist argues theirs, by assuming they are correct and including only information that confirms their preexisting bias.

Well, no.

A couple of things wrong with this.

First, this isn't the primary problem with how religious apologists work. Well, the working backwards part does, but they're trying to finesse things like science. The inherent flaw in this comparison is they're trying to make an argument for something that cannot be demonstrated. Unless you're seriously going to deny evidence for gender issues in gaming--in which case, you might not want to toss stones at creationists from your glass house--there's no real basis here.

Supporting a claim by finding evidence for it is fairly boilerplate in criticism. What you're complaining about seems to only be special in the case of Sarkeesian because she's saying something people don't want to hear. Sort of like how the scientific process is acceptable to creationists only as long as it doesn't contradict what they personally want to hear.

You may not agree with her conclusions, but she's not really working backwards. This is an end-run justification to try and undercut someone you don't like.

I'd love to hear moviebob's response to any of those response videos that people list(repzion, genki, the other people i can't remember off the top of my head)

I'd love to see that, too. In part because he's slightly less likely to get shouted down by supporters of those folks than your average YouTuber (I keep forgetting, it's okay to criticise Anita Sarkeesian, but if you criticise her critics you're some evil feminzai or a mangina)

 

[Something Amyss]

BY now, anyone who still defends anita probably haven't watched the response videos and probably won't.

Kind of like how most of her critics haven't watched her videos and probably won't.

 

[Ryan Hughes]

This thread is way too long to read through entirely. I will say though that I was one of her kickstarter backers, but I can't help but feel a bit disappointed in the end product. It is not that I do not like her, it is just that I think her arguments fall flat from time to time and even can be self-defeating.

I've yet to see any well-written article against what she's doing. As far as I know, the only hate comes from the "little people" of the internet.

If there is one, I'd be interested in reading it.

I know Jim Sterling did an episode about it, but I think that focused more on the community and their insults than it did her arguments or agenda.

I could write that article, but I will inevitably be drawn into the foray of simple-minded, knee-jerk reactionaries. So, needless to say I am hesitant. It is not that I disagree per say, but there are a number of issues in her videos that raise questions about her methodology, research, and knowledge base. Questions, mind you, not things that maker her main points irrelevant. And I doubt I am the only person out there holding their tongue in such a manner.

If you want to see a really well-made feminist critique of a cultural phenomenon, check out Sut Jhally's 'Dreamworlds 3.' Now that will knock your socks off.

 

[C.S.Strowbridge]

BY now, anyone who still defends anita probably haven't watched the response videos and probably won't.

I've seen a number of response videos, most of which are utter shite.

Many complain about good female characters that haven't been mentioned yet, despite the fact that it is a mult-part series, one of which is dedicated to strong female characters.

Another main argument is, "It's just a video game." which is an incredibly stupid thing to say. If the media we consume didn't have an effect on us, there would be no advertising.

Thunderf00t attacked her implying she claimed the Dansel in Distress trope was invented by video games, even though she pointed out it existed in classic literature.

People claim it makes sense for video games to be sexist in their portrayal of women, because their target audience is young men. So they attack Anita Sarkeesian, by arguing young men are sexist. Way to go.

They attacked her for "stealing" let's play footage, even though, A.) she has the right to use this footage under Fair Use and B.) Let's Player are breaking copyright laws and are the real thieves.

 

[C.S.Strowbridge]

Because the constant adherence to such norms are restraining the creativity, engagement and representation of women within the biggest entertainment medium on the planet.

There we go, we now have a claim. What is needed next is evidence to support that claim.

That's where many disagree with Anita. She makes claims such as:

media narratives do have a powerful cultivation effect helping to shape cultural attitudes and opinions.

To which people expect evidence to support the claim, but none is provided.

If the media we consumed had no effect on us, then there would be no advertising. Instead, $171.7 billion was spent on advertising in the United States in 2013 alone.

 

[wulf3n]

If the media we consumed had no effect on us, then there would be no advertising. Instead, $171.7 billion was spent on advertising in the United States in 2013 alone.

Or is it the advertising that affects the media we consume?


Anita says:

media narratives do have a powerful cultivation effect helping to shape cultural attitudes and opinions.

I say

cultural attitudes and opinions do have a powerful cultivation effect helping to shape media narratives.

If only I had +100,000 followers willing to argue that I don't have to provide evidence

 

[C.S.Strowbridge]

Anita is a fraud and not a real gamer.

...

So, by taking her work in to account she is a marketing major who saw a market to establish her self in a new medium and make money,

She asked for $6,000. You did know that, right? RIGHT? Six grand is hardly a lot of money, especially if you are planning on making several 10-minute long videos. I've donated to another YouTube channel, Loosely Bolted, who are asking for $5,000 to upgrade their equipment. No one has accused Loosely Bolted of running a scam.

Here is the proof
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcPIu3sDkEw

I've seen this video posted by people dozens of times. It's rather pathetic.

First of all, there are pictures of her as a kid playing video games, so she has at least in the past played games. More importantly, "Gamer" as a label is nebulous, at best. It could mean, "Someone who plays games." to "Someone whose main source of entertainment is video games." When she said she wasn't a gamer, she likely meant she wasn't a hardcore gamer, nothing more. But that won't stop people from lying about the subject.

 

[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.

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.

*bangs head on wall* You aren't listeniiiiiiiing. Your argument doesn't mean shit unless those people went to a bunch of jews and suddenly got some of them to believe that jews are responsible for all the bad shit in the world. Hell, that isn't even what I'm trying to say with my argument, my argument isn't that she suddenly convinced people, its that people already in the know about games see the problem. Which means that her points aren't full of shit.

I've already watched the vid you linked, it was one of the few that wasn't a personal attack but it was still wrong within one minute. Anita says that the problem isn't that the damsel in distress happens, its that it is almost the only way women are portrayed in games. IN the vid you linked, kite says Anita says the formula should be completely retired form use. Really if I remember right, the main point of the vid you linked just addressed Anita's arguments on a very superficial level and was more about how she though the nintendo characters being damseled all the time, wasn't an issue. To me the vid came off more as an easy way to get hits, since its by far her most viewed vid, over 200k while all her others are less than 10k.

 

[C.S.Strowbridge]

Hey cool straw man argument

Thanks for admitting you have no interest in an intellectually honest debate. Or perhaps you have no capability to hold an intellectually honest debate.

No, the good won't be mentioned outside of needless complaining given the record.

I'm 99% sure you never knew there was going to be a section on strong female characters. Now you have to attack it in advance to maintain your religious adherence that she's the bad guy.

Also, this is prof that you haven't watched the videos, because she's already pointed out some strong female characters.

I would go through the rest, but you really are not worth it. You have no interest in an intellectually honest debate.

 

[wulf3n]

Advertising is media. Christ,

media
noun
1.
the main means of mass communication (television, radio, and newspapers) regarded collectively.
"their demands were publicized by the media"
2.
plural form of medium.

advertisement
noun
1.
a notice or announcement in a public medium promoting a product, service, or event or publicizing a job vacancy.

Yup. Totally the same thing

it is painful to talk to you people sometimes.

That's just racist.

Again, advertising. You lose this argument.

You truly are a paragon of debate.

Propaganda. Governments throughout history have used propaganda to sway people's opinions. You lose this argument.

Asking for evidence on this point only makes you look willfully ignorant on the subject.

There's a delicious irony in referencing propaganda a single sentence before you call someone ignorant for wanting evidence.

That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence