The Most Dangerous Woman in Videogames - Anita Sarkeesian

[Quadocky]

Even more saddening is that Anita's videos are pretty much Feminism 101 in terms of content which seems quite a large vocal group simply cannot comprehend. Even worse when people disparage the woman on so many levels, whether it be the sheer fact she has an opinion, the sheer fact that she ran a successful kick-starter, the sheer fact she is the a Feminist, and so on.

This. So much this.

I feel like I'm shouting into the wind. "This is just Women's Studies 101! People have been saying EXACTLY the same thing about books, TV shows, movies - and even games - for decades! Why are you pissed at her for echoing her professors and saying nothing new?"

And everyone keeps screaming "bias, cherry-picking (even though that doesn't apply to a critique), etc."

I've never said anyone had to agree with her. I've spent pages and pages just trying to explain her school of thought - that she didn't come up with all of this in her head, like everyone seems to assume. And I get people screaming at me. It's just sad.

I've found it easier to take smug satisfaction in the idea that I am somehow more of an adult for having a higher degree of empathy and understanding of feminism as a school of thought.

I think the reason why its SUCH a big deal is because Anita is hitting at a crossection of gender privilege and attracting all sorts of awful people to hate on her. Basically since all the MRAs, angry nerds, pseudo-intellectual youtubers, Atheists, and spiteful dorks like to play video games ANY commentary by her essentially invokes their many layers of self-imposed scorn for women and feminism (because its not "REAL" science).

In totality amounting to "[Smugwhine] Women can't be oppressed in our superior bountiful western society! Anita is just a trouble maker! AND women have all the advantages in society because they are the gatekeepers of sex! WHAT ABOUT THE MEN! Don't you know I am oppressed daily by the fact I cannot have sex whenever I want and that wanking off to simulated women is the last bastion of male entertainment because DAMN women are ugly and all the pretty ones don't want to date me ;_; ALL WOMEN ARE TERRIBLE AND EVIL Unless they are submissive asian chicks, NOW THOSE are real women (no fatties though that is teh icky).[/Smugwhine]"

Or something like that :v

Its pretty much one of those situations where you pretty much either can't change their mind or they are dead set in making themselves out to be big jerks. So I think its for the best to just laugh at em behind their backs.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

When I think of Anita as cherrypicking examples from games I look at it as her ignoring the greater context of the fictional setting itself.

But that isn't her point. She's not analyzing whether or not the fictional setting is sexist. She's saying that these tropes are. So she only focuses on that.

That is still not cherry picking by any definition of the phrase presented here. That's her talking about a different topic than the topic you'd prefer she talks about.

She is guilty of doing this in her Damsels in Distress video by cutting the length of game play clips and robbing them of prior dialogue, without showing what the greater story is or how the characters being described have arrived at they point they have.

She isn't robbing anyone or anything. She's presenting examples. Nothing that is said in "prior dialogue" would change the events going on in the video at the moment she is showing it.

She's talking about single images in some cases and the effect they have on the viewer. What came before or after doesn't matter to the point she's making about that moment in the game. The vacuum she's talking about is the view perceptions, not the story of the game.

Again, if she was writing on a different topic, then you might be right. But she isn't. She's critiquing the use of certain outdated, sexist tropes. No matter how justified the trope is in the story, that doesn't change that the tropes involved are outdated and sexist - which is all she's trying to show.

blanket claims of misogyny

There you go. Right there. She isn't making blanket claims of misogyny. She's making specific claims of misogyny - and often accidental misogyny at that. She isn't suggesting that all games are misogynistic, or that their creators are misogynists. She's saying that these tropes have an inherent misogyny that the average person is unaware of, so she hopes to make game Devs aware of this so they will avoid them in the future.

It is a nitpick. A critique. She is showing Devs problem areas so that they will pay attention to them in the future.

And if she makes some additional claims, I will guarantee you 100% that those claims are lifted directly from Women's Studies 101 and that she is simply repeating them out of academic habit because they're associated with some of the analysis she's using.

 

[KillMeOnceMore]

9. She'll turn gaming into focus-tested, homogenized crap, instead of the vibrant bastion of unbridled creativity we have now.

This made me laugh on the inside.

Its always creepy to me though to see that people think making games more inclusive will somehow make them worse. Or that very very creepy idea that video games are somehow the "Noble, proud, last bastion of politically conservative entertainment (thus manly by proxy)" Or that video games are SUPPOSE to be misogynistic, or something along those lines.

I'm just surprised someone thinks video games are made with unbridled creativity right now. How many game covers look identical? What Call of Duty are we on now? How many reviews did I see saying the latest Assassins Creed 4 is really just 3.5? Also, AS3's ending was suspiciously like Mass Effect 3's ending, and Deus Ex's ending, and the Matrix ending and ultimately, they were all the same old, over used, Jesus Christ symbolism we've been seeing in everything for decades in pretty much all forms of entertainment.

Oh yeah, the Video Game industry is just bursting with new, original things all the time.

I'm pretty sure the original poster was being the very definition of ironic with his hilarious point number 9. His point being that what we're fearing is already here and we're the ones blindly defending it rather than Anita driving us towards it.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

In totality amounting to "[Smugwhine] Women can't be oppressed in our superior bountiful western society! Anita is just a trouble maker! AND women have all the advantages in society because they are the gatekeepers of sex! WHAT ABOUT THE MEN! Don't you know I am oppressed daily by the fact I cannot have sex whenever I want and that wanking off to simulated women is the last bastion of male entertainment because DAMN women are ugly and all the pretty ones don't want to date me ;_; ALL WOMEN ARE TERRIBLE AND EVIL Unless they are submissive asian chicks, NOW THOSE are real women (no fatties though that is teh icky).[/Smugwhine]"

Or something like that :v

**amused snort**

Its pretty much one of those situations where you pretty much either can't change their mind or they are dead set in making themselves out to be big jerks. So I think its for the best to just laugh at em behind their backs.

Fair enough.

I think part of my problem is that I always thought that community on the Escapist was better than, well, that. Ever since Anita became a thing, I've been repeatedly proven wrong in my rosy view. **sigh**

 

[kurupt87]

As long as games don't end up like TV I don't mind, if they do then books are the last bastion.

Last bastion of what, exactly?

Entertainment aimed at specific groups, rather than mass appeal sanitised bullshit that nobody likes.

You mean: games aimed at just one group, aka pandering just to the group you belong to.

Yeah, well, some of us like a little bit more from our entertainment. Or rather, want it to entertain us, too.

Man, some people sure do get tetchy if you suggest for even ONE SECOND that not everything pander only to them. And I'm not talking about "feminists."

Of course I want games, or any entertainment, catered to me. I'd be some flagellating, self sacrificing weirdo if I didn't. There's a difference between pandering and catering too, I suggest you bear that in mind.

At no point though did I say I didn't want games to cater to other groups too, I just won't play the bloody things.

 

[castlewise]

Over 500 posts huh. MovieBob does know how to bring the boys to the yard

For my part, the only thing that stuck out at me was the implication that film and tv had somehow solved their objectification "issues". TV and film is more diverse, so its easier to find things which don't offend, but claiming that there aren't any problems with how women get portrayed in (many, but not all) movies and such is a tough sell.

Thank you for your post. I agree completely. The more I read about Anita the more I realize that she is just like those FOX news correspondents -- looking to rile up a base and troll. How about going after real issues in games like ensuring equitable wages between the genders, and demanding that PSN and xbox live do a better job of banning more people for sexist and racist remarks and helping people to press charges against them. Guess what, if you fix these issues then more women and minorities will want to be in the game industry and thus more diverse narratives will be seen games. This woman arguments are not well reasoned, ignore elements that disprove it, and tend to contradict itself. But when someone wants to call her out on it they get lumped up with the sexists and people who do not believe gender issues do not exist in games.

Eh, you assume that Anita (and the FOX news correspondents) don't believe in their causes. I'm not sure if it comforting or scary, but I think most of them genuinely do.

 

[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.

 

[UberPubert]

But that isn't her point. She's not analyzing whether or not the fictional setting is sexist. She's saying that these tropes are. So she only focuses on that. That is still not cherry picking by any definition of the phrase presented here. That's her talking about a different topic than the topic you'd prefer she talks about.

But if she's using those tropes to define female characters and failing to explain who those characters are or why they exist then it's still incorrect to label them as belonging to that archetype because it's ignoring who they really are. In essence, she's dismissing these characters without ever actually understanding them. It'd be like a critic dismissing a movie after just seeing the poster or a trailer, it's dishonest.

She isn't robbing anyone or anything. She's presenting examples. Nothing that is said in "prior dialogue" would change the events going on in the video at the moment she is showing it. She's talking about single images in some cases and the effect they have on the viewer. What came before or after doesn't matter to the point she's making about that moment in the game. The vacuum she's talking about is the view perceptions, not the story of the game.

What she's presenting is single images and seconds long clips of things that happen in many hour long games. You don't think, during the entire rest of the game, there isn't a single explanation explaining the current situation better than Anita's basic, sentence long definition? It's not fair to the game developers (artist, writer, designer what have you) to completely disregard the rest of the effort they've put into the game by singling out a single piece, no legitimate critic of any medium does this, why is it excusable for Anita?

Again, if she was writing on a different topic, then you might be right. But she isn't. She's critiquing the use of certain outdated, sexist tropes. No matter how justified the trope is in the story, that doesn't change that the tropes involved are outdated and sexist - which is all she's trying to show.

But in many cases it's only sexist in only the most banal definition of the word possible, in that the game discriminates between genders as a matter of fact. The problem with Anita's assessment is that she assumes every portrayal of a woman comes with misogynist baggage without ever presenting evidence as to why that is.

There you go. Right there. She isn't making blanket claims of misogyny. She's making specific claims of misogyny - and often accidental misogyny at that. She isn't suggesting that all games are misogynistic, or that their creators are misogynists. She's saying that these tropes have an inherent misogyny that the average person is unaware of, so she hopes to make game Devs aware of this so they will avoid them in the future.

It is a nitpick. A critique. She is showing Devs problem areas so that they will pay attention to them in the future.

And if she makes some additional claims, I will guarantee you 100% that those claims are lifted directly from Women's Studies 101 and that she is simply repeating them out of academic habit because they're associated with some of the analysis she's using.

She's already made blanket claims of misogyny in her kickstarter video, remember? "Have you ever noticed that, with a few notable exceptions, basically all female characters in video games fall into a small handful of clichés and stereotypes?", "Unfortunately in addition to all of these benefits, many games tend to reinforce and amplify sexist and downright misogynist ideas about women.", "I?m not just looking at a handful on games, or just the worst offenders, but at hundreds of games and at hundreds of different characters across all genres."

Look at the language, "basically all", "many games", "hundreds of games". She accused all these things of misogyny before the project was even funded. She makes it absolutely clear that these are not "nitpicks", they are to her, the majority.

And if she really is parroting the claims of women's studies then I take issue with either A.) Her usage or B.) The claim, and I will not accept either as fact through simple association. It is not an excuse or a crutch to rely on, "Well that's what my teacher told me!" is a childish misdirection tactic and doesn't address the actual point.

 

[Something Amyss]

1. She asked for some money, got a huge amount more that was freely donated, and THAT OFFENDS ME

Don't forget she got it because people were threatening to kill and rape her, so she totally manipulated us!

2. She got a detail wrong on my favorite videogame. This invalidates her whole point.

It also proves she's a liar who deliberately got it wrong to prove her agenda, AND she's ignorant and lazy and didn't do the research. Both at once.

3. I like how everything is now, which means everything's fine, so she should shut up.

also, everyone already knows about this problem, which isn't a problem, so there's no point in bringing up this problem, which isn't a problem.

5. She wants to wipe out any video game that's sexist, which she totally said, outright, in the video that I totally watched, really I did.

In fairness, this one's totally true. She also writes detailed articles in the weekly Feminist World Order newsletter which detail her plans to emasculate all of mankind.

6. She has an agenda, which automatically makes everything she said invalid. Here's Thunderfoot to back me up, who totally does not have an axe to grind at all.

...Okay, I don't have anything snarky to add. This one is pure win.

8. This doesn't count BECAUSE REASONS!

I think you mean BECAUSE PONIES!

9. She'll turn gaming into focus-tested, homogenized crap, instead of the vibrant bastion of unbridled creativity we have now.

And if we allow women into focus groups, they might spread their cooties!

10. She's infringing on freedom of expression by exercising her freedom of expression, and she should shut up.

Freedom of speech means freedom from criticism!

11. She stole the same YouTube footage everyone steals. But it's BAD when she does it, because REASONS.

and it's okay when my criticsm of her steals the same footage, because other reasons!

13. I don't wanna hear it, so she should shut up.

And she should stop forcing me to watch her videos!

Okay, I think I'm convinced now. She's the most horrible person of all time. For I was blind, and now I see!

Amen, brother!

I'm pretty sure the original poster was being the very definition of ironic with his hilarious point number 9. His point being that what we're fearing is already here and we're the ones blindly defending it rather than Anita driving us towards it.

Indeed. We already have focus groups and design by committee and the notion that nobody will buy games if not targeted at one specific demographic. that's what made it so delicious.

There's a difference between pandering and catering too, I suggest you bear that in mind.

Indeed. Catering is what happens to me. Pandering is what happens to others.

 

[Nigh Invulnerable]

I find it highly suspect when people criticise Miss Sarkeesian based on her methodology (because hey, there are no popular video series out there based solely on the author's opinion, or using flawed methodology), or the perception that the Kickstarter campaign was a "cash grab" (because no frivolous kickstarter campaigns had existed prior or since).

It feels as much of an evasion as the very typical "I don't like her but..." phrase preceding many comments on this very thread.

In my opinion, Miss Sarkeesian has hit the nail on the head, and made a lot of people feel threatened. It's like someone having their secret porn stash discovered: Suddenly they are faced with the moral implications of that thing they used to enjoy shamelessly, and that leads to shame and guilt, something no one likes to feel.

Videogames have been exceedingly shameless about objectification (in every sense) for a very long time, to the point that publishers have openly claimed that inclusiveness is not profitable, even resorting to banning content such as, for example, female protagonists that don't tickle heterosexual-young-white-male sensitivities.

This is a reality, and many of our cherised memories (like Princess Peach) are very very flawed, they always were, we just keep trying to convince ourselves they aren't to avoid admitting to ourselves that we've liked morally questionable content for so long.


The internet can try to rationalize their aversion to Miss Sarkeesian all they want, but in the end it all comes as an attempt to evade the shame and guilt brought up by her pointing at the aforementioned moral implications.


For my part, I'm male, white and middle class (Thus incredibly privileged as far as the majority of the planet is concerned). I do enjoy shameless content, yet recognize the moral implications and my personal responsibility. I sincerely agree with Miss Sarkeesian's purpose, and I did support her Kickstarter.


And I think it's about time people start talking about what she's trying to talk about, instead of focusing on how she's talking about it.


But hey, I'm a little person who doesn't scream loudly enough to ever be listened. Maybe I should do a kickstarter.

While I agree that female characters in video games don't have a very positive history, the part I put in bold is why I'm quoting you. People don't object to someone, Anita, creating videos that present their opinions on a subject, but what we do object to is her supposed claims of "objectivity" and intent to remain "academic" in her discussions. Anita has proven reliably terrible at citing her references in a professional manner, which is part of why I don't find her videos appealing. Additionally, for me, she's really not saying anything new in her attempts to fight the "patriarchy" by bringing up sexism in portrayals of women in games. I do agree that most female characters in games tend towards the "weak and helpless" sort of stereotypes, and the fact that marketing/business types tend to shoot down anything that doesn't fit into their perceived audiences' expectations and desires keeps this in place (unfortunately) is a regrettable circumstance. However, I feel that people like Anita might be better received if they were also attempting to make or at least promote games that do fi their ideals instead of simply taking critical potshots at games they find objectionable.

Basically, I just want Anita to actually back up her points with citations of her sources and to present examples of what she would prefer in games.

 

[Megalodon]

I feel like I'm shouting into the wind. "This is just Women's Studies 101! People have been saying EXACTLY the same thing about books, TV shows, movies - and even games - for decades! Why are you pissed at her for echoing her professors and saying nothing new?"

And everyone keeps screaming "bias, cherry-picking (even though that doesn't apply to a critique), etc."

I've never said anyone had to agree with her. I've spent pages and pages just trying to explain her school of thought - that she didn't come up with all of this in her head, like everyone seems to assume. And I get people screaming at me. It's just sad.

Here we go, I hope you don't think I'm screaming at you with this post, that's not the intention.

She claims to be doing a critique of the entire video game industry. Therefore her only mentioning games she takes exception to is a poor critique. Even if she's 100% right about all the games she mentions, without some acknowledging of the prevalence/influence of the Damsel in Distress in the wider gaming environment, then it's a poor critique. If the trope is rare, then it is unlikely to have the influence the attributes to it.

The thing that bothers me the most about her though is her ignorance or willful neglect when it comes to the context of the events she criticises. This come in several flavours. She talks about Dante's Inferno using cheap emotional hooks, while neglecting to mention that the game was poorly recieved. She criticises Duke Nukem Forever for being distasteful, a widely held criticism of the game. She seems to want to paint the entire gaming industry with the same brush, ignoring the varying quality and success of the titles she mentions. She also presents examples of "objectification/disempowerment" without any of the ingame context for the events, even going so far as to claim that the context is irrelevant, the situation is demeaning to women because she says it is. The example of this that really stuck in my throat was Jenny's death in The Darkness (probably because it's the game I know best from her array of example).

Spoiler: Darkness spoilers just in case

The game goes to great lengths establishing that Jenny the the best/only good thing in Jackie's life. This does not disempower Jenny as a character. Her execution by Paulie is meant to hurt Jackie true (hence the "now I take form you" line), and it could be argued that she is an object from Paulie's perspective. She could be a dog, cat or computer, what matters to him is hurting Jackie. But he's the villain, we're not supposed to view his position and morality as being correct. But she's not an object to Jackie or the audience, she's the only person Jackie loves. This leaves revenge as the only this Jackie has left, especially as the Darkness continues to mess with him.

Anita's claim that avenging a slain loved one is only undertaken to repair the damage to the male ego is suggesting that men are only capable of thinking of women as property. An assertion that I find insulting as a man and can believe a woman could find equally insulting.

She also seems to often be not be arguing the issues she claims to be. Claiming female charcters are poorly written without comapring them to the male charcters in the same game (i think it was Bastion that she most famoulsy pulled this with). Or in her first video, when she's talkig about how male characters often escape on thier own when captured. She glosses over the fact that these male charcters tend to be the protagonists of the game in question, so it makes sense that they escape by themselves. The reason women rarely do this is because they are rarely the protagonist. But Anita was not discussing the lack of female protagonists in that video, if she had been I would have agreed with her that more female protagonists is a good idea. What she did was compare the bahaviour of protagonists and supporting characters and claim the difference in behaviour these two character types exhibit is sexist and demeaning to women.

She is claiming industry-wide trends based on a few example with no indication of the greater context across the whole industry. She Her opinion is presented as gospel without any references or explanation as to why we should agree with her assertion. She makes unsubstantiated claims about violence against women in games influencing real world domestic abuse. If it's such a massive problem,where is the evidence? As has been said before, this is Jack Thompson level bullshit, but for some reason many people don't seem to be willing to call her on it.

If this really is "Women's Studies 101", then I'm afraid it doesn't paint the field in a particularly good light.

She's talking about single images in some cases and the effect they have on the viewer. What came before or after doesn't matter to the point she's making about that moment in the game. The vacuum she's talking about is the view perceptions, not the story of the game.

But the person playing the game does not only experience that specific scence, their reaction is influenced by the preceding events, the context in which the event is presented. See my point bout the Darkness above

She's making specific claims of misogyny - and often accidental misogyny at that.

This line of argument always strikes me as rather patronising. "Well it's not your fault you made this misogynist thing, but have no fear, I am more empathic than you, I have studied women's issues and will now educate about how wrong you've been." Now I'm not saying here that it's necessarily wrong, but if you genuinely want to change poeple's minds on an issue like this then tact is required. The confrontational, combative approach Anita uses is not the way forward, it just hardens the battlelines and makes dialogue harder.

The problem with Anita's assessment is that she assumes every portrayal of a woman comes with misogynist baggage without ever presenting evidence as to why that is.

Well said.

She's already made blanket claims of misogyny in her kickstarter video, remember? "Have you ever noticed that, with a few notable exceptions, basically all female characters in video games fall into a small handful of clichés and stereotypes?", "Unfortunately in addition to all of these benefits, many games tend to reinforce and amplify sexist and downright misogynist ideas about women.", "I?m not just looking at a handful on games, or just the worst offenders, but at hundreds of games and at hundreds of different characters across all genres."

Look at the language, "basically all", "many games", "hundreds of games". She accused all these things of misogyny before the project was even funded. She makes it absolutely clear that these are not "nitpicks", they are to her, the majority.

And if she really is parroting the claims of women's studies then I take issue with either A.) Her usage or B.) The claim, and I will not accept either as fact through simple association. It is not an excuse or a crutch to rely on, "Well that's what my teacher told me!" is a childish misdirection tactic and doesn't address the actual point.

You've done a couple of excellent posts here. It's kind of annoying, you managed to convey most of what I was going for far more quickly and concisely than I did.

 

[Rabidkitten]

How is she dangerous?

"able or likely to cause harm or injury."

Bad title imo.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

But if she's using those tropes to define female characters and failing to explain who those characters are or why they exist

Why would it matter? If they represent a trope, they represent a trope. Of course they have in character reasons for being that trope - that's how tropes work.

Trope: Bitter old man.
You: "But you didn't explain why he's bitter or old!"
Me: "Of course not - that's the point of a trope. Everyone knows the "bitter old man" character. Because he's a trope. Yes, you can have a well developed bitter old man (like the one from Up, for instance), but he still falls into the trope.

Anita is using the characters as examples of the trope. It is the trope - the meta aspect - that she's attacking.

What she's presenting is single images and seconds long clips of things that happen in many hour long games. You don't think, during the entire rest of the game, there isn't a single explanation explaining the current situation better than Anita's basic, sentence long definition? It's not fair to the game developers (artist, writer, designer what have you) to completely disregard the rest of the effort they've put into the game by singling out a single piece, no legitimate critic of any medium does this, why is it excusable for Anita?

....

Have you ever watched an episode of Zero Punctuation?

Have you ever read a game review?

ALL of these forms of writing use a few seconds of clip or summary to encompass many-hour-long games. Are you suggesting that a review of a game should be as long as the game itself?

This entire paragraph is ludicrous. You claim that no critic does this when all critics do this.

But in many cases it's only sexist in only the most banal definition of the word possible, in that the game discriminates between genders as a matter of fact. The problem with Anita's assessment is that she assumes every portrayal of a woman comes with misogynist baggage without ever presenting evidence as to why that is.

Well, first of all... have you ever taken a Women's Studies class? What you just said pretty much describes that entire field of study, except that they write entire books backing it up. Which, I am sure, Anita has read. She is coming at this from that stand point.

If you disagree with that stand point, fine. But that isn't Anita's fault. That's just the school of thought - one that's been around for 50 years - that she learned.

She's already made blanket claims of misogyny in her kickstarter video, remember? "Have you ever noticed that, with a few notable exceptions, basically all female characters in video games fall into a small handful of clichés and stereotypes?", "Unfortunately in addition to all of these benefits, many games tend to reinforce and amplify sexist and downright misogynist ideas about women.", "I?m not just looking at a handful on games, or just the worst offenders, but at hundreds of games and at hundreds of different characters across all genres."

Look at the language, "basically all", "many games", "hundreds of games". She accused all these things of misogyny before the project was even funded. She makes it absolutely clear that these are not "nitpicks", they are to her, the majority.

She's saying that basically all games contain sexist tropes and elements.

That's like saying that "basically all" cars come with cup holders. The entire car isn't filled with cup holders, but it will have a few. Some cars have more cup holders than others, but almost no cars have none.

She never said that each game was nothing but sexism, just that each game contains at least a little. Some have more or less, but almost every game has at least a little.

NOTE: I'm not even saying that she's right. I'm just saying that she isn't attacking entire games - just small elements of each. The context behind the small elements doesn't matter to her (or to the point she is making) so claiming that she's wrong because of that is equally wrong.

Feel free to disagree with her. However, the insanely angry attacks on her methodology or philosophy are just that - insane. She's no genius, but she has some good points. She may be wrong sometimes. That doesn't mean she's wrong all times. And she may be a bit too sensitive about certain things - that doesn't mean she isn't picking up on some real problems. Problems demonstrated all the more by the intensity of people's reactions to her.

Anita is a critic. Just like Movie Bob and Yahtzee. If you think she's missing some larger picture because she's nitpicking, then yeah, she probably is. But that doesn't mean that everything she says is invalid, nor does it mean that she doesn't have good points to make about the nits that she picks. People accuse Movie Bob and Yahtzee of bias and not getting the full context all the time. That's the trouble with being a critic - you only have time to be so indepth. And people are going to disagree with you. All I'm asking is that you treat the female critic the same as you would a male critic.

 

[grumpymooselion]

Why are you still giving this woman attention? Give some women and actual feminists, actually interesting in gaming this sort of attention. This woman is clearly only out for herself, to make herself money, and is using a guise of feminism to do it, threaded with obvious goads to cause knee jerk angry reactions to create the word of mouth necessary to make her more money.

We've already been presented with the physical, video proof that this woman doesn't give a damn about gaming, never did, and that her attempts to make us think otherwise have all been staged or bought in mass. Holding a bunch of video games up in a picture doesn't undo the fact we have you on video, in college, saying you never liked video games, and all manner of damning evidence all packed into one highly popular youtube video that you like to ignore the existence of. Her speech, in college, going on about how she never really played them, and always hated them - contrasted against more recent statements where she tries to convince us that she always was into games, and grew up with them.

One of these things she is saying is a lie. Either way, she's a liar.

Just look at the women on youtube with video responses to her actual videos. The reaction videos to Anita's videos "from women" just put into light how at odds her goading and and manipulation of feminism to her own profit are with women, and actual feminists that are "actually" interested in games, and have grown up playing and loving them despite their flaws.

It's not that Anita never brings up a good point. It's "why" she's bringing them up, when you could bring forth all manner of women, men and feminists to bring these things (very real flaws in video games) to light for reasons that aren't entirely selfish and greed fueled.

I want much of what she's saying to be said. I just want it said by someone that isn't a liar.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

How is she dangerous?

"able or likely to cause harm or injury."

Bad title imo.

I think Bob meant "most dangerous woman to the people that don't like her".

 

[Miroluck]

1. She asked for some money, got a huge amount more that was freely donated, and THAT OFFENDS ME

Don't forget she got it because people were threatening to kill and rape her, so she totally manipulated us!

If all of the threats on the internet would always come to life I would have to buy, like, 120 new appartments by now. Appartments that I would pay for with tons of money my mom would make by having sex with hundreds of lonely misogynistic neckbeards and 7th graders every day. I would not be afraid of people breaking into my house to get that cash, since I was already murdered 10000 times. Alas, immortality would not save me from dozens of sexual assaults.

11. She stole the same YouTube footage everyone steals. But it's BAD when she does it, because REASONS.

and it's okay when my criticsm of her steals the same footage, because other reasons!

Other people probably don't have spare 100K lying around.
I mean, I understand. Recreational drugs and a new car won't pay for themselves. (Yeah I know that she don't do drugs and don't have a new car).

5. She wants to wipe out any video game that's sexist, which she totally said, outright, in the video that I totally watched, really I did.

snip

13. snip

And she should stop forcing me to watch her videos!

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

 

[Megalodon]

She's already made blanket claims of misogyny in her kickstarter video, remember? "Have you ever noticed that, with a few notable exceptions, basically all female characters in video games fall into a small handful of clichés and stereotypes?", "Unfortunately in addition to all of these benefits, many games tend to reinforce and amplify sexist and downright misogynist ideas about women.", "I?m not just looking at a handful on games, or just the worst offenders, but at hundreds of games and at hundreds of different characters across all genres."

Look at the language, "basically all", "many games", "hundreds of games". She accused all these things of misogyny before the project was even funded. She makes it absolutely clear that these are not "nitpicks", they are to her, the majority.

She's saying that basically all games contain sexist tropes and elements.

That's like saying that "basically all" cars come with cup holders. The entire car isn't filled with cup holders, but it will have a few. Some cars have more cup holders than others, but almost no cars have none.

Here's the thing, while she's right that "with a few notable exceptions, basically all female characters in video games fall into a small handful of clichés and stereotypes". Similar statements can be made about male characters in video games. It's only a sexism issue if the women are notably more on dimesnsional/poorly writen than the men. Games don't need to be somehow less sexist, they need better writers and more female protagonists.

NOTE: I'm not even saying that she's right. I'm just saying that she isn't attacking entire games - just small elements of each. The context behind the small elements doesn't matter to her (or to the point she is making) so claiming that she's wrong because of that is equally wrong.

She is wrong because she ignores all context. To take the example I gave earlier from The Darkness, it could be argued that the villian is sexist and viewing a woman as an object. However, he's the villian, so it is (in my opionion) acceptable for this instance of sexism to be in the game, because the villian is not meant to be a nice person. Whereas if the protagonist also went around treating women like property, it probably is objectionable. Although the right setting and context can change that, a satirical or comedic context for example.

For a non-sexist example of context mattering, take the use of the word ******. In a film like Blazing Saddles, it is acceptable to use the word because of the setting, plus the comedic nature of the film means that little in it should be taken seriously. Die Hard 3 has Samuel L Jackson repeatedly using the word, because it makes sense in context, but Bruce Willis does not casually call people ****** in the film, because for him it would be racist, thanks to his character and the setting of the film.

Context matters.

 

[UberPubert]

Why would it matter? If they represent a trope, they represent a trope. Of course they have in character reasons for being that trope - that's how tropes work.



Anita is using the characters as examples of the trope. It is the trope - the meta aspect - that she's attacking.

But that's not what Anita's videos have done. Anita describes the trope, lists many, many videogames, (usually in a video clip) and then doesn't explain how the characters depicted in them actually fit into the trope. You've misinterpreted the issue, but I'll respond in a similar manner:

Anita: These characters are examples of tropes.
Me: How?
You: That's not the point, the archetype exists.
Me: Saying that an archetype exists is not proof that a character fits into it, nor is it proof that the archetype itself exists or that it exists for the reasons or in the quantity that Anita suggests.

Have you ever watched an episode of Zero Punctuation?
Have you ever read a game review?
ALL of these forms of writing use a few seconds of clip or summary to encompass many-hour-long games. Are you suggesting that a review of a game should be as long as the game itself?
This entire paragraph is ludicrous. You claim that no critic does this when all critics do this.

Yahtzee's Zero Puncuation reviews are humorous in tone and objective. They're not in any way a professional or academic criticism of a game and are not meant to be taken as such. The same goes for many popular reviewers (Angry Joe, off the top of my head) who write their reviews for entertainment purposes (or to give a consumer opinion) rather than any kind of deep analysis. Giving these kinds of shallow opinions has never been Anita's spoken goal, she has stated from the beginning she intends to publish these videos as classroom curriculum, and by that standard they have failed miserably.

What's more, Anita uses literally seconds of any videogame for her tropes vs women videos, she doesn't even grant the novelty few minutes that these other reviewers do - her judgement is the equivalent of "Blank in five seconds" videos that are almost entirely jokes.

Well, first of all... have you ever taken a Women's Studies class? What you just said pretty much describes that entire field of study, except that they write entire books backing it up. Which, I am sure, Anita has read. She is coming at this from that stand point.

If you disagree with that stand point, fine. But that isn't Anita's fault. That's just the school of thought - one that's been around for 50 years - that she learned.

No, and that isn't relevant here. She's talking about videogames, even listing specific ones, not debating topics of feminism. She has compiled this list of tropes with videogames in mind, they are not mere extensions of Women's Studies ideas and I don't accept that as a defense if I'm able to conclude that in a particular instance she is objectively wrong about what a game is actually depicting.

She's saying that basically all games contain sexist tropes and elements.

That's like saying that "basically all" cars come with cup holders. The entire car isn't filled with cup holders, but it will have a few. Some cars have more cup holders than others, but almost no cars have none.

She never said that each game was nothing but sexism, just that each game contains at least a little. Some have more or less, but almost every game has at least a little.

NOTE: I'm not even saying that she's right. I'm just saying that she isn't attacking entire games - just small elements of each. The context behind the small elements doesn't matter to her (or to the point she is making) so claiming that she's wrong because of that is equally wrong.

Feel free to disagree with her. However, the insanely angry attacks on her methodology or philosophy are just that - insane. She's no genius, but she has some good points. She may be wrong sometimes. That doesn't mean she's wrong all times. And she may be a bit too sensitive about certain things - that doesn't mean she isn't picking up on some real problems. Problems demonstrated all the more by the intensity of people's reactions to her.

Anita is a critic. Just like Movie Bob and Yahtzee. If you think she's missing some larger picture because she's nitpicking, then yeah, she probably is. But that doesn't mean that everything she says is invalid, nor does it mean that she doesn't have good points to make about the nits that she picks. People accuse Movie Bob and Yahtzee of bias and not getting the full context all the time. That's the trouble with being a critic - you only have time to be so indepth. And people are going to disagree with you. All I'm asking is that you treat the female critic the same as you would a male critic.

But we're not debating cupholders. A blanket claim of cupholders is only going to make for a momentary confusion of a car buyer with very strange things in mind about automotive vehicles, a blanket claim about tropes, sexism and misogyny paints creators of such content as at best lazy and unprofessional and at worst as people with morally reprehensible beliefs and in many examples of Anita's I'd argue against both.

I don't care what other people's opinions of Anita are, I take her arguments at their own merits and disagree with them on a point by point basis. The difference between Anita's tropes vs women videos and bob's escape to the movies or yahtzee's zero punctuation is that those contributions are humorous, if somewhat flawed, and presented entirely as opinion pieces. Anita has always asserted her beliefs being presented in these videos as fact, she calls them "research" and uses her status as self-designated pop culture critic and feminist as some kind of mark of credibility, but she fails to use sources or make any kind of in-depth analysis of the characters and games she lists and then writes them off.

This is infuriating, not because of claims of misogyny, not because of who she is or where she comes from, but because she asserts her opinion as fact and doesn't actually bother to explain it, then refuses to debate the point with anyone.