Thoughts on Anita Sarkeesian's videos?

[Sethala]

I wasn't really referring back to what you'd written. It's just a line of reasoning you'll often come across in discussions on the topic. Or, that I've come across, I should say; I don't know how common it is.

It's pretty common, from what I've seen.  There are definitely examples I could look for of men being objectified - not necessarily in games, but there are one or two commercials I've seen as examples of a guy being objectified for the benefit of girls watching him - but I agree that saying Kratos, at least, is a female sexual fantasy is wrong.  Dante (the original white-haired pretty boy Devil May Cry Dante, not the emo one from the DMC reboot or the Dante's Inferno one) I could easily see as a female sexual fantasy as well, though I wouldn't say he's objectified or that he's not a male power fantasy.

[Hemingway]

It's pretty common, from what I've seen.  There are definitely examples I could look for of men being objectified - not necessarily in games, but there are one or two commercials I've seen as examples of a guy being objectified for the benefit of girls watching him - but I agree that saying Kratos, at least, is a female sexual fantasy is wrong.  Dante (the original white-haired pretty boy Devil May Cry Dante, not the emo one from the DMC reboot or the Dante's Inferno one) I could easily see as a female sexual fantasy as well, though I wouldn't say he's objectified or that he's not a male power fantasy.

I suspect you're right about Dante -- who's a character in a Japanese game. It isn't very common, at least in my own experiences, to see those types of characters in western games. All the examples I can think of off the top of my head, are from Japanese games.

[Sethala]

By the way, Steampunkette, a question:

If the Bayonetta games were changed so that her attitude was entirely intact, but her poses were changed to be less sexual, her clothing didn't vanish on her, and the camera never panned over her body, but everything else about the game was completely unchanged, would you say that she's no longer objectified?  One concept I've had a bit of trouble grasping is that, to my understanding, a character can be objectified but not necessarily sexually objectified, so with that line of thought it would be reasonable to assume that a sexually objectified character is still objectified, just not sexually, if everything sexy about her is removed.  Judging from your previous post though, it seems that you don't agree this is the case.

[Steampunkette]

A character who is depicted as sexy is just sexy.

A character who is depicted as an object (Like Princess Peach in the original Super Mario games) is an object.

A character that is depicted as a sexual object (like Bayonetta) is being objectified on the basis of their sex but is not always and object within the narrative function.

Think of objectification like this: Could the character's role be filled by an object?

If you weren't rescuing Peach from "A Different Castle" but were instead getting back the stolen crown jewels, for example, would it make just as much sense? And in this case the answer is, of course, yes. Peach is a Macguffin within the narrative. She's not sexually objectified with lewd poses or scant clothing, but she is nothing more than an object within the story and literally any object could play the same narrative part.

That is the difference between objectification and sexual objectification. To be an object in a narrative versus being an object for the viewer's sexual gratification.

[Sethala]

Ok, so sexual objectification and just objectification are two entirely different things; the former has to do with how the audience perceives the character, the latter has to do with how the character is treated in the story, and the two terms don't have a whole lot in common with each other.  My assumption was that "sexual objectification" was a subset of "objectification"; that if a character was sexually objectified, she would also by definition be objectified.

However, it seems that now the definition of "sexually objectified" is pretty much the same as the definition of "sexualized", which makes me wonder why we don't simply use that term.  Again, am I missing some nuance to your argument?

[Sethala]

I suspect you're right about Dante -- who's a character in a Japanese game. It isn't very common, at least in my own experiences, to see those types of characters in western games. All the examples I can think of off the top of my head, are from Japanese games.

Probably has something to do with Japanese culture being more open about sexualized characters, there's a quick video about it on Youtube from Gaijin Goombah that I found somewhat informative though I can't seem to find it now.

Regardless, do you think that Dante (and other characters like him) could fit the role of both "male power fantasy" and "female sexual fantasy" without any problems?

[Hemingway]

Probably has something to do with Japanese culture being more open about sexualized characters, there's a quick video about it on Youtube from Gaijin Goombah that I found somewhat informative though I can't seem to find it now.

It's part of the reason I like them. While, yes, they do have some incredibly sexualized female characters - they make an effort to do the same with the male characters. Instead of trying to eliminate it, they try to give equal time. Which I find it very difficult to object to.

Regardless, do you think that Dante (and other characters like him) could fit the role of both "male power fantasy" and "female sexual fantasy" without any problems?

I'm nothing like qualified to answer that question. I mean, I'm inclined to say yes, easily. I don't want to extrapolate that to also apply to female characters, though. Because I suspect there may be some differences in what's considered 'sexy' and 'powerful' in a male character, compared to a female one. Though I really don't know.

[Steampunkette]

The difference between Sexualized and Sexually Objectified is a matter of debate... but let's look at Tera Online for the answer. This character is a full grown adult Elin.

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

Sexualized.



Sexually Objectified.

In the first image the character is dressed and posed with certain obvious assumptions meant to be drawn about her attitudes. In the second image, the woman is an object to be acted on, sexually, by the man.

Does that make sense?

[Sethala]

Yeah, I kind of thought about it a bit more as well, and I think perhaps a better way for me to describe it would be that a character can be sexualized or objectified, or both which is when both happen at once, but there's also a difference between objectified by the narrative and objectified by the audience, though the latter usually only happens if the character is sexually objectified.  Is that about right?

Tying this back to Bayonetta however, I still don't see how she would be any more objectified than the Elin you posted.  Yes, there are a handful of scenes, that are few and far between, that show her as sexualized and objectify her to the audience.  Personally, I find their presentation in the game pushes them more into satire, but YMMV.  For the majority of the game though, assuming I have the definitions correct, I feel she is sexualized but not objectified by the audience, and she is never objectified by the narrative.

[Shjade]

It's probably fair to say Bayonetta's both, at varying points during the game.

Quick point on "undue attention" to moral/social/non-gameplay elements in game reviews: is it not fair to assume that if an issue is significant enough to a reviewer to spend that much time describing it, the issue will be of equal important to a significant portion of their readership? What, then, is the problem? If their style and values do not suit yours, you may be better off reading a different review of the game to inform your purchasing decisions; that is not the same as saying their review is bad, wrong or misguided.

As for characters who are sexually empowered, perhaps Steampunkette will disagree with me, but as I was thinking about this a couple of days ago one character immediately came to mind. And then refused to let me think about anyone else without addressing her first. Ahem. Yes, ma'am. >.>;

Motoko Kusanagi, aka: The Major, from Ghost in the Shell.

This is a gal who wears the body she's chosen for herself and presents it in a manner that invites attention, but she sure as fuck does not pander for that attention. She's not flashing passersby while kicking ass; she's doing her fucking job. Depending on the story/series she's a little more flashy than others (that unitard thing through most of the Stand Alone Complex series, ehhh...), but in terms of how the character presents herself, how she acts, how she relates to other characters? She's confident, she's effective, but she's not just "the man" in a woman's body. She relates to her unit in a businesslike fashion on the job, but she has a more sensitive relationship with Batou to the extent she is willing to let it go (despite his clearly wanting something more), in the comics she dates and has a side business (that is sexual objectification in its purest form in the uncensored release of the comic - more on that in a minute) and generally has a life. She's a whole character, not just a few simple characteristics slapped together.

That said? Hell yes she's sexually objectified, my god, she's literally a sex toy in that scene I mentioned above. And I do mean literally. Her friends are using her body's sensors to heighten their own stimulus input and blah blah sci-fi talk that means they're playing with her to get themselves off. In terms of empowered females in fiction, not the finest moment...which is made that much more obvious by how it contrasts with how she is the rest of the time in that book.

Other books/stories/series with Motoko portray her more/less "empowered" vs "objectified," but I'd say in at least the original book (minus that one very obvious exception) and throughout SAC (if you can get past the questionable fashion choice by the artists), that's my character to offer as a comparison vs Bayonetta's rather one-dimensional appearance as a character basically created to titillate the player.


Edit: addendum regarding the comparison of Bayo 2 vs Dragon's Crown reviews, it's worth noting that you can't avoid playing Bayonetta in Bayonetta 2, so if you have issues with her presentation, you're stuck with them the whole game. You can choose not to play the more "deformed" characters in Dragon's Crown if you don't like their art, so it isn't quite as big an issue to the game if you don't like them. For instance, I only play the Elf in Dragon's Crown because seriously the Amazon and Sorceress are just...what the fuck. I can't stand how they run. Gah. Burns my eyes.

Edit#2: from the Dragon's Crown review's comments - "The art style of Dragon’s Crown in objectively well done."
Fucking LOL forever. Who taught so many people that "objective" means "in my opinion?"

[SouvlakiSpaceStation]

I think I went through the five stages of grief while reading this thread.

I have a lot of things to say because due to the nature of my studies in college, this is extremely relevant to my interests and all of the topics are ones I debate and write about on a scholarly level. But I think it's better that I just shake my head and walk away.  :P

[Vorian]

To contrast, I'll give you of an example of a character who is presented as being sexually empowered: Tali'Zorah vas'Normandy.

In the first game she does not make herself available to the player for romantic or sexual involvement, though other characters do. In the second game she is available, but does not pursue the player or anyone else in a romantic fashion. She is presented as making the choice to accept Shepard's advances and will flatly decline a female Shepard. In the third game, however, she is presented as actively choosing Garrus unless the player makes his interest in her known. None of the other Mass Effect women do anything like that.

My recollection is that Jack flatly rejects FemShep, with Tali FemShep can't even ask despite Tali showing the exact same signs of interest in FemShep and she does in MaleShep. That in particular felt more like rubbing salt in the wound of how bi and gay unfriendly the series was prior to Mass Effect 3 than any sort of sexual empowerment for either woman. That is a good point about Tali and Garrus though, that was a nice touch. I'd actually point to Edi in Mass Effect 3 as well - I may be misremembering something by my recollection is that she took the lead in her relationship with Joker as well.

[Steampunkette]

She did, actually, yes!

EDI is another fairly good example of sexually empowered women in games.

Though I think Aveline is, perhaps, the best example. You can actively pursue her and get rejected completely because of her relationship with the NPC. I think the player response to being shot down by Aveline was also something magnificent to behold, if anyone cruised comment sections in 2011.

Lots of "Why can't I have -her- she's the only one who isn't terrible... to stick my dick in to!" Followed by statements of how ugly she is and how you wouldn't want an animated sex scene with "That" and arguments about how much of a bitch she is for turning down the player, male or female...

It's some pretty gross entitlement, all things considered, that really mirrors the real world reactions to women refusing men in a lot of cases. I wonder what would have happened if Bioware had given the player the option to attack her after she turned the player down. Like, physically, I mean.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rf2UDnXzIfs

There's actually plenty of them, here, under the Youtube upload.

Still didn't stop people from "Improving" Aveline by making her follow classic beauty standards with model swaps.

[consortium11]

I'm not sure why Aveline is an example of empowerment.

Yes, she turns the PC down. Because she has to.

Romantically (with regards to the PC) she's the equivalent of a Disney animatronic display... you press a button, she does a song and dance pre-designed and pre-programmed. As the game shows she can find romance after the death of her first husband; the reason it can't be with the PC is *because*. It's little different to an NPC who is required by the plot to fall in love with the PC; there is little reactive or organic about it. Hell, even the romance she can have with another NPC isn't exactly an example of her being empowered; it's up to the PC if she falls in love with the NPC or not, not her.

On a side note while I'm sure there's some "forbidden fruit" aspect to why people want to romance her (likewise with Samara in ME... although Bioware eventually caved to pressure there) I also wouldn't set aside completely how bad the romance options in DA2 are; you're choices are pretty much all awful with an angsty anime standin being the best. Considering the emphasis put on the relationship sim aspect of RPGs (especially Bioware ones) over recent years I still find it disappointing that Baldur's Gate 2 almost certainly had the best.



On the Anita topic (although not directly related to her videos), she's just set out her list of "cyber civil rights" needed to prevent (or at least reduce) harassment online.

The issue?

Pretty much all of them are already covered by US law. The only one that isn't directly is the point about leaked/hacked photographs... but in civil terms that's already covered by civil law and may well constitute a criminal act (or at least part of one) already, albeit not as a specific offence.

I don't want to claim she's being disingenuous here but it does seem to fall into the category lots of the criticism of her videos points out; she makes a point without looking at the context around it.

[Shjade]

And, like her videos, the immediate response is to nitpick details around the list's nature to avoid addressing the point being made.

Hunh.

[consortium11]

And, like her videos, the immediate response is to nitpick details around the list's nature to avoid addressing the point being made.

Hunh.

Surely the point is that she wants new laws that cover the things she described?

It's hardly nitpicking to point out that those laws currently exist...

If someone was suggesting a new law which made it illegal to kill other people with malice aforethought would it be nitpicking to mention that "murder" is currently on the books?

[Ephiral]

Point 1: To the extent that it is a law, it's pretty much unenforced. I don't see the problem with pointing out that a) it's not law everywhere, and b) policy changes need to happen even in the places that it is.

Point 2: You've already conceded.

Point 3: Either this isn't law, or isn't enforced; I'm honestly not sure which. Gendered threats aren't taken any more seriously than non-gendered ones - and in fact are very often dismissed. Either way, again, policy needs to change.

Point 4: Is this actually a thing? I've never heard of it happening in the US; if you've got some examples, I'd be interested to see them.

[Sethala]

Point 4: Is this actually a thing? I've never heard of it happening in the US; if you've got some examples, I'd be interested to see them.

The 6th amendment actually says that you have a right to know who your accusers are.  I could see allowing the accuser to remain anonymous, but I definitely don't agree with letting witnesses remain anonymous from the accused, which would pretty much mean the accuser wouldn't be able to be a witness.  Though, if everyone involved only knows each other through online communication and not in the real world, I could see the trial itself being held using text communication, with the accused knowing the screen name of the witnesses but no other details.  Would be tricky to enforce...

[consortium11]

Point 1: To the extent that it is a law, it's pretty much unenforced. I don't see the problem with pointing out that a) it's not law everywhere, and b) policy changes need to happen even in the places that it is.

It's a law in all 50 states (and Guam): a link to the relevant laws here. As for enforcement, stats are somewhat difficult to discover but by 2009 North Carolina had charged over 1,000 people under their cyberstalking laws.

Point 2: You've already conceded.

I've conceded to the extent there isn't a specific criminal law relating to non-consensual publishing and distribution of intimate photos. Civilly it can be covered by existing IP laws while in criminal terms there are a host of options it may fall under, most notably (conspiracy to commit) copyright infringement; which as mentioned below could well be elevated to a hate crime if it became clear the participants gender was one of the reasons it occurred.

Point 3: Either this isn't law, or isn't enforced; I'm honestly not sure which. Gendered threats aren't taken any more seriously than non-gendered ones - and in fact are very often dismissed. Either way, again, policy needs to change.

It's the law: threats are covered under existing harassment and assault laws while under the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act any crime which is based on a victim's actual or perceived gender (as well as sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability) can become a federal hate crime. Charges for hate crimes and convictions for hate crimes have both increased by around 50%

Point 4: Is this actually a thing? I've never heard of it happening in the US; if you've got some examples, I'd be interested to see them.

The most famous example may also be one of the most famous court cases in US history; in Roe v Wade Jane Roe was a pseudonym. One can read Sealed Plaintiff vs Sealed Defendant for not just an overview of previous cases but also see a list of things the court will consider when deciding if a plaintiff should be kept anonymous (which include whether the case involves matters of a “highly sensitive and [of a] personal nature” and whether identification risks retaliatory harm to the plaintiff or to "innocent non-parties”). To just quote New York cases you could look at Doe v. New York University, Doe v. Merck & Co., Inc, Doe v. Daily News, Doe v. Roe, Anonymous v. Anonymous, Doe v. Bellmore-Merrick Cent High School Dist, John Doe No. 6 v. Yeshiva & Mesivta Torah Temimah, Doe v. City of New York and a whole host of Doe vs Doe cases.

[Ephiral]

It's a law in all 50 states (and Guam): a link to the relevant laws here. As for enforcement, stats are somewhat difficult to discover but by 2009 North Carolina had charged over 1,000 people under their cyberstalking laws.

And yet, we have so many high-profile examples that are actively rejected without any sort of investigation by law enforcement, even as a mountain of incidents present themselves. Clearly there's a policy disconnect somewhere in there, and this needs to be addressed somehow.

I've conceded to the extent there isn't a specific criminal law relating to non-consensual publishing and distribution of intimate photos. Civilly it can be covered by existing IP laws while in criminal terms there are a host of options it may fall under, most notably (conspiracy to commit) copyright infringement; which as mentioned below could well be elevated to a hate crime if it became clear the participants gender was one of the reasons it occurred.

And you don't think that calling it copyright infringement and covering it under property law minimizes the fact that it is a sexual violation?

It's the law: threats are covered under existing harassment and assault laws while under the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act any crime which is based on a victim's actual or perceived gender (as well as sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability) can become a federal hate crime. Charges for hate crimes and convictions for hate crimes have both increased by around 50%

And yet, women and trans* people are still victims in hugely disproportionate numbers. Of crimes centered entirely around their gender. Again, existing policy is clearly not enough, and this needs to be addressed.

The most famous example may also be one of the most famous court cases in US history; in Roe v Wade Jane Roe was a pseudonym. One can read Sealed Plaintiff vs Sealed Defendant for not just an overview of previous cases but also see a list of things the court will consider when deciding if a plaintiff should be kept anonymous (which include whether the case involves matters of a “highly sensitive and [of a] personal nature” and whether identification risks retaliatory harm to the plaintiff or to "innocent non-parties”). To just quote New York cases you could look at Doe v. New York University, Doe v. Merck & Co., Inc, Doe v. Daily News, Doe v. Roe, Anonymous v. Anonymous, Doe v. Bellmore-Merrick Cent High School Dist, John Doe No. 6 v. Yeshiva & Mesivta Torah Temimah, Doe v. City of New York and a whole host of Doe vs Doe cases.

This point, then, I've got no dispute on.

[Steampunkette]

I'm not sure why Aveline is an example of empowerment.

Yes, she turns the PC down. Because she has to.

Romantically (with regards to the PC) she's the equivalent of a Disney animatronic display... you press a button, she does a song and dance pre-designed and pre-programmed. As the game shows she can find romance after the death of her first husband; the reason it can't be with the PC is *because*. It's little different to an NPC who is required by the plot to fall in love with the PC; there is little reactive or organic about it. Hell, even the romance she can have with another NPC isn't exactly an example of her being empowered; it's up to the PC if she falls in love with the NPC or not, not her.

On a side note while I'm sure there's some "forbidden fruit" aspect to why people want to romance her (likewise with Samara in ME... although Bioware eventually caved to pressure there) I also wouldn't set aside completely how bad the romance options in DA2 are; you're choices are pretty much all awful with an angsty anime standin being the best. Considering the emphasis put on the relationship sim aspect of RPGs (especially Bioware ones) over recent years I still find it disappointing that Baldur's Gate 2 almost certainly had the best.

Every character in every video game is pixels rather than consciousness. They are not people and cannot be empowered. This is not a Woman/Pipe. I actually specifically remarked on this, earlier, to describe how no character in any medium (including character portrayed by real actors) can be empowered. They're written.

They can, however, REPRESENT things. Aveline represents a woman with her own romantic and sexual agenda, separate from the PC's regardless of the PC's intent.

Is it just a set of pre-generated lines and the matrix required to categorize them to play in a specific order based on input? Yes. Of course it is. But within the context of the narrative she represents a member of Hawke's party with her own romantic goals separate from the player. The only other character who does have that sort of thing going for them is Isabella and she's played for laughs as the party slut which kind of undermines her narrative impact on romantic interaction.

And if you seriously think the list of things she's written is being enforced to ANY degree you haven't been on the internet long enough. Or you have, but under a gender that isn't specifically targeted for harassment.

[Inari]

I am going to give my two cents on her. I haven't read everything in this thread so sorry if I repeat anything said.

The major problem with Anita Sarkeesian's approaches is that they are clearly biased while being presented as professional due to her "qualifications." She goes out of her way to find things that are just nitpicky and makes the issues more blown up than they are, while neglecting to present other counter points. What bothers me the most is that she is selling all of this as fact and as if this is academic when it is all clearly biased and not academic at all. If anything I would use her and her videos as an example of poor academic practice.

As an Egalitarian and student of Psychology, Philosophy, Politics, Sociology, Literature and History, I find her to be a horrible academic and flawed representative of Feminism.   

Anyone who goes on about there not being good females protagonists in video games; I counter and say there are plenty. Here is a small list:

Nilin - Remember Me:



===

Lara Croft - Tomb Raider 2013



===


Jody -  Beyond Two Souls



===


Madison Page - Heavy Rain



====


I will stop there because I could go on for ages.


I follow Thunderf00t who has counted every one of her nit picking videos and approaches. Here is one of the many videos he has done:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJeX6F-Q63I

He has managed to make valid points and even use her own methods against her points, which shows just how badly flawed and pointless her videos are. Do you want to know what her response was? Getting her followers to report his Twitter for abuse while he was away. He got banned from Twitter and had to appeal to get his account reinstated, which took him two weeks.

I will stop there for now. >.>

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Honestly, the first three minutes of this video sort of shows how he is no more interested in researching his own points or coming from an unbiased perspective than he claims she does.  Extending that to four minutes just really drives home the point this person has very little to offer the discussion.

Also of the four characters put forward, 3 are less than 2 years old.  Of those three that are less than two years old at least two are wrapped up in various scandal and problems.  The reaction to Lara Croft's breast reduction and more athletic figure construction lead to threats of rape against female game developers and Jody's shower scene debacle was a horrible slap to women.  Four characters from the history of gaming is not a short list, it's an anomaly. 

[Kythia]

Long time no see, Pumpkin Seeds.  Welcome back.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Thanks!