Thoughts on Anita Sarkeesian's videos?

[Garuss Vakarian]

I will not touch upon her feminism. I will not touch upon her beliefs. To each his or her own. I do not agree with her beliefs, (In fact. Third wave feminism, is quite offensive towards men in general. I am a rapist for looking at a naked picture? Becouse she did not give me personal, expressed permission to do so? Ya, rape culture is bogus. Never mind the fact both men and women are raped, it is a womens problem, and all men are rapists.) But, and please put that random blurb of disagreement aside. I will respect her beliefs. Here in this post, I bring to light the key issue, with her. Besides for the obvious red flag, of disabling the comment section of her videos. (There by silencing those with differing opinion.)

She doesn't play the games she critiques, as well, she uses controlled methods to bring to light non existent issues. Putting things out of context, or even down right twisting scenes to fit her agenda, and her core audiences expectations. As an example, when she talks about Hitman Absolution. She spins it as though, the player is supposed to kill strippers (In the only strip club scene, in the entire game.) Saying we are supposed to find a perverse pleasure from desecrating them, by pulling their corpses around. When the game down right penalizes you for killing inocents/targets that ARE NOT YOUR MARK. Dismissing the key goal, avoid detection, and kill the boss in the other room. Or, look at her views of Fallout New Vegases, Guermerta casino. She said it advocates female slavery, and tells the players women are objects to be bought or sold. Dismissing the fact that every quest there in the casino, is primarily meant for the player to have the option to free the girls. The casinos ethics is displayed as vile, and evil. (As it should be.) The developers down right informing the player. "Hey look, you can be a dick. But these dicks, need to go. So this time, don't be so much a dick."

How about Watchdogs? She said the game developers, are advocating the sex trade. But in this one point in the game, the players are saving these girls from it. (She could have went into a Damsel in distress rant, but instead chose to twist the game so it is not noble. But vile.)

Look at her comments on beyonetta! A sexually open, and expressive women. Whom is strong, and a mother no less. (Anita Logic:Actual character development? Ya, lets keep that out. And slut shame her. *Goes on Twitter.* Remember not to slut shame this Halloween! Dress however you want!) Anita paints her as a symbol created by men for men, in order to sexually oppress women, to continue the patriarichal plan to have men view women as objects. When in reality, Beyonettas creator is a women!

Then Anita is Saying that, Beyonettas character gets nude with this special move, and this is WRONG! (Dismissing the key factor: That as a witch, her powers were mirrored behind actual folk lore. Her power coming from her hair. Nor does anita understand, that in canon her clothes is part of her hair, and that she is nude because her hair is making a "Fuck You!" Dragon.... :( I want a fuck you dragon.) 

These tropes vs women things? They are bogus for one main reason. All her twists, and ignorance towards gaming aside. (And she calls her self a "Pop culture critic." Ha.) The underline problem is, that the tropes are not bad. To view them as bad is jaded, and inherently bad. Is it wrong to save a women you love? Does it really undermine women to have your art (Yes, games are art.) Say "If you love some one, save her!" Does it undermine a women to be weak? Does it to do so when she is sexualy open, and expressive? (Like beyonetta.) No, it is not. Men can be weak, women strong, women weak, and men strong. Same principle with any other trait. Art expresses a wide arrangement of characters. Much like men and women in the real world are varied, so should the characters in our art. Art mirrors art, wich is why the tropes are in games (Taking from movies. Which took from plays. Which took from books. Which took from greek mythos, and other such legends. As well as folklore.... Come on. Imitation is the ultimate form of flattery! Also... The easiest..) But art also mirrors reality. Because a story being relatable, is key to arts success, and no matter how ungrounded in reality the story or art is, it should still feel real. Art, should mirror reality.  So Pumpkin, when you say.

Instead the writers are cheaply writing a character that their male dominated audience will relate to and then find stimulating to look upon.

It actually... Undermines a lot of the progress our art has made in character development. I know you do not intend this, and by no means do I mean to undermine you. In fact, I believe your sincere in saying you do not think such characters damage women. But it is an incorrect statement, im sorry... It just is. To say characters like ripley, should not be heralded as progressive examples of women in the genre. Is wrong, I gurantee you a women like Ripley exists. And not even that, characters like riply could very well be looked up to. And rightly so, characters in art often inspire. As well, this is a statement that undermines the directors craft. And... To undermine the directors craft as something made to please the masses, demeans his art. (Trust me, directors take their craft seriously. They may consider what you like, but in general a self respecting director of any kind makes what they want first and for most. And keep what you want, in mind, but ultimately make it to describe something they wish to show you. It is in the end For the art, they consider art. Be they game directors, play directors, or movie directors.)

Though you may be right on par with the companies in charge. The actual creative minds involved, I gurantee did not think like this. The thing is. There are strong women out there. Female marines, and female astronuats. Female miners, female mechanics, and female everything. I know you already know this. I just reiterate this knowledge, to remind you that a strong female character. Is just that. And not a man, with boobs.

As I said, there are strong characters, and weak ones. Both men and women. This is accurate, not sexist. And I think on that, we can whole heartedly agree. So, please don't feel I was bashing you pumpkin, I was merely making an opinion on the comment.

I will end this off with this. To all nay sayers, whom think games oppress women. Whom think gaming culture, is a boys club. (In spite of the 48 percent women, to 52 percent male ratio.) And to all those, whom actually say there is not enough, proper female characters. Pick up a controller, and have fun. Don't take my word for it, take this guys as he breaks into song and dance. ^_^

Women in gaming song, debunking a myth: 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXMoLCA3GQ4


EDIT: By the way Sabby. That was an interesting view point on mobas. I don't particularly follow Tottal Biscuit, due part to me leaning more towards Angry Joes style of review. But, I do like him, he is quit the intellectual when he wants to be. (Angry joe has his moments. :P But none like the Cynical Brit.)

[Caehlim]

To all nay sayers, whom think games oppress women.

They don't, but some games don't really examine or consider the way in which female characters are used that can potentially promote oppressive values.

Whom think gaming culture, is a boys club. (In spite of the 48 percent women, to 52 percent male ratio.)

I don't believe that anecdote is the same as data, but my personal experience doesn't agree with this. I run a small gaming server which at any given time has a couple of hundred players on it. Unfortunately I continually have to ban players for breaking our code of conduct by sexually harassing either female players or people playing female characters. Our staff expend a lot of effort making sure that it is a safe place for people to game and thankfully we can keep these events fairly rare and try to intervene quickly, however it does make it seem like a boy's club to me when women face this kind of harassment in attempting to play there.

And to all those, whom actually say there is not enough, proper female characters.

I've never been able to find many good ones, there are some but I really would like to see more.

Pick up a controller, and have fun.

I do. I have a lot of fun with games. However I also try to lend my voice towards encouraging more popular representation within games. These are not mutually exclusive concepts.

[Garuss Vakarian]

I wont say there is not harassment in enteractive gaming, there is plenty. (Though I argue such biggots are the minority in our culture) nor can I argue your opinion on a ratio that is by defualt, speculation. And the video, well the amount of good characters is an opinion. One which is different for everyone. My closing words were meant for humor, (the vid being a punchline) which often is taken more literal. I will however say, due part to massive inexperiance debating, That every facet of my reply was based on her poor ability to propperly make her point without deciet. I wished to be fair and humble, leaving my own social views (for the most part) out. Aside from the ocasional joke meant to keep the disscussion progressively light. (or making my stance on modern feminism clear.)

If I failed in any of these regards, I apologize.

[Caehlim]

I wont say there is not harassment in enteractive gaming, there is plenty. (Though I argue such biggots are the minority in our culture)

Oh I agree. At least from my own experience. We have plenty of fantastic and wonderful members of the community who never engage in that sort of harassment, we also have others who have engaged in that sort of harassment reflexively because it's been encouraged in other environments in the past who learned quickly to change their behaviour when they discovered that we didn't accept it on our server. Unfortunately it only takes one to ruin someone's day, and the way you keep running into them just becomes a steady drain in the long run.

My closing words were meant for humor

I'm sorry, I didn't catch the humour so I responded to it as though it were serious.

[Garuss Vakarian]

I get what your saying. I myself do not play in communities often. But have seen herassing behavior. (In particular, heres a tale. An old clan of mine was torn apart over seeking a female members attention. The girl however is no longer a friend. Due to her admitting to me she liked the attention, and in fact fanned it when ever aplicable. :\ as you can imagine I face walled. (when ones own palm is no where near enough to contain the epic fail.)



Oh, its fine. I love using humor, but understand the risks involved. Especialy in text. I have no offense, no need to apologize.

[consortium11]

I don't believe that anecdote is the same as data, but my personal experience doesn't agree with this. I run a small gaming server which at any given time has a couple of hundred players on it. Unfortunately I continually have to ban players for breaking our code of conduct by sexually harassing either female players or people playing female characters. Our staff expend a lot of effort making sure that it is a safe place for people to game and thankfully we can keep these events fairly rare and try to intervene quickly, however it does make it seem like a boy's club to me when women face this kind of harassment in attempting to play there.

We do actually have recent data on this though.

In short when it comes to online abuse and harassment men are seemingly more likely to receive it (44% of men compared to 37% of women) but women take it more seriously then men do. Women are more likely to receive harassment on social media but men were more likely to receive it while gaming. Women are significantly more likely to be stalked and sexually harassed but men are more likely to be physically threatened.

The end result of the study is that online gaming (where there are relatively few examples of stalking from online to the real world) is actually one of the safer spaces online for women; it's social media where they're more at risk.

[Garuss Vakarian]

Well, I did once completely bitch out a guy online for calling my ten year old nephew a whiny bean bag. ( I think? I just mainly remember his threats and bullying involving the fact he had a squarely voice). I mean, normally id tell the kid not to listen, and would ignore it since in a real world conversation I am no where near as thought out. (Needing to take time to analyse what I say, and make sure it fits my point.) But when a guy is making it his mission to harass a kid of all things. I cant help but go into full on dick head mode. (SUPER ULTRA ASHOLE MEGA AWESOME POWERS ACTIVATE!)

I can easily get into what one may call a tantrum towards those, being childish and rude to some one I care about. An admittedly childish flaw of mine. However, I have a brother whom is essentialy always saying this. And keeping me calmed down.



Edit: Case in point being, it is common enough for males to be aggressive towards each other since I will admit to having bouts verbally online with them. Not debates, just arguing. T_T I sadly need time to think. And in a conversation, IRL, I find it hard. Not to say im a prick, im just bad at conversing. Arguing included.

[Caehlim]

We do actually have recent data on this though.

Interesting data. Thankyou for the link.

[Assassini]

We do actually have recent data on this though.

In short when it comes to online abuse and harassment men are seemingly more likely to receive it (44% of men compared to 37% of women) but women take it more seriously then men do. Women are more likely to receive harassment on social media but men were more likely to receive it while gaming. Women are significantly more likely to be stalked and sexually harassed but men are more likely to be physically threatened.

The end result of the study is that online gaming (where there are relatively few examples of stalking from online to the real world) is actually one of the safer spaces online for women; it's social media where they're more at risk.

See this is one of the problems with the current culture and attitude towards games (one of many I think). I recently saw some screencapped post on an image board (from Tumblr or Twitter or something) from some SJW complaining about how much abuse woman receive in video games (I believe the game in question was Team Fortress 2) and how it is completely unacceptable that they get insulted and railed at by other players.

What s/he didn't even stop to consider was that these women were not getting "abused" (and I rely heavily on my quotation marks there) because they were women. No, they were being "abused" in the same way any other newbie playing a multiplayer game like LoL/DotA/TF2 gets abused. They received it because they sucked at the game. The difference being that here this is suddenly unacceptable because apparently this is actually misogyny, these players were targeting these women because they were women and not because they were just bad at the game.

Now I'm not saying I support the abuse of newbies (they need to be nurtured carefully in order to become productive members of the community), but this seems to be very much along the same lines of Anita Sarkeesian's arguments. An argument that doesn't present the whole story, that cherry picks information and is designed around professional victims.

[Garuss Vakarian]

I agree. We must cherish our newbs. Lol. Who else can remind us were better?

Joking aside, yes harassment is mainly competitive attitudes coliding. A fair point.

As well, Anita has mastered profesional victim hood. How else can she desguise her obvious intents on being money grubbing. Aside from the fact her own threats may be fabricated. ( qoate from a event about her internet abuse aka proffesional victimhood: "I am also acused of fabricating my own threats, or having a feminist possey do it for me. So, where is that posse now?" *audiance whoops and hollars, giving an appluase. Anita smiles and continues* end qoate.) I wont diss miss her claims, but from that audiance reaction I surely doubt the authenticity of them. Not to mention her publically canceling an event, and publically being out raged on a threat that was prooven to be a bluff. As well as her publically anouncing the threat being strictly against the fbi's public warnings on threats in general. Dont anounce it or feed their ego. (she just needed to feed her own victimhood. A shield that hopefully shatters amoung main stream media. Colbairt however leaves a lot to be desird in this regard.

[consortium11]

See this is one of the problems with the current culture and attitude towards games (one of many I think). I recently saw some screencapped post on an image board (from Tumblr or Twitter or something) from some SJW complaining about how much abuse woman receive in video games (I believe the game in question was Team Fortress 2) and how it is completely unacceptable that they get insulted and railed at by other players.

What s/he didn't even stop to consider was that these women were not getting "abused" (and I rely heavily on my quotation marks there) because they were women. No, they were being "abused" in the same way any other newbie playing a multiplayer game like LoL/DotA/TF2 gets abused. They received it because they sucked at the game. The difference being that here this is suddenly unacceptable because apparently this is actually misogyny, these players were targeting these women because they were women and not because they were just bad at the game.

Now I'm not saying I support the abuse of newbies (they need to be nurtured carefully in order to become productive members of the community), but this seems to be very much along the same lines of Anita Sarkeesian's arguments. An argument that doesn't present the whole story, that cherry picks information and is designed around professional victims.

I largely agree.

1) Certain multiplayer scenes are basically abusive/toxic... FPS and MOBA's are probably the most infamous for this. Pretty much everyone gets insulted (especially if they do something badly), players trash talk freely and far too often that trash talk ends up being simply spraying profanity rather than anything that is at least somewhat interesting or inventive. There's a reason people like General Minus get so many views for trolling games like CoD until they make people rage... the trolling isn't that funny, the reactions he gets can be.

2) Undoubtedly female gamers will get misogynistic insults. But does that make the people who spew them or the scene itself misogynistic? I don't think so. The nature of insults is that people tend to go for obvious targets and what they think will hurt someone. Play one of those games and drop hints that you're English... chances are you'll get abused about the collapse of the Empire, the American War of Independence or any stereotypes about Brits currently popular in the US (ones about rotten teeth were popular a year or two back). Say you're a Muslim and you can imagine the sort of "terrorist!" insults you'll get. Homosexual... the same. From Texas? Redneck comments. From San Francisco? Gay, liberal, hipster. Chinese? A whole load of chin jokes. Etc etc. Anything you use to identify yourself will be used to insult you... that's the nature of the beast. Now, I don't like it... I hate the "trash talking" element of these games because it isn't really trash talking it's just abuse... but in the same way I don't think a large part of the gamer population is anti-English I also don't think it's misogynistic... they're just reaching for the first insult that comes to mind.

I'm still surprised that more people don't challenge Sarkeesian for the fact she frequently repeats Jack Thompson's arguments and, as mentioned earlier in this thread, the fact that some of her positions seem pretty transphobic to me; I can understand arguing that gender roles are an artificial creation by society but gender itself? Isn't that invalidating the existence of any trans person?

[Melusine]

2) Undoubtedly female gamers will get misogynistic insults. But does that make the people who spew them or the scene itself misogynistic? I don't think so. The nature of insults is that people tend to go for obvious targets and what they think will hurt someone.

Come on, consortium. If somebody uses racist insults, they are racist. If they use homophobic insults, they're homophobic. And if they are using misogynist insults, they're misogynist. You can insult someone without being a total twat and using their sexuality/race/gender as a weapon. If you choose to do so, you can't blame people for calling you a bigot afterwards.

[kylie]

         Just repeating that I'm not following Sarkeesian directly...  But some of these arguments strike me as questionable to weak on the face of it.

See this is one of the problems with the current culture and attitude towards games (one of many I think). I recently saw some screencapped post on an image board (from Tumblr or Twitter or something) from some SJW complaining about how much abuse woman receive in video games (I believe the game in question was Team Fortress 2) and how it is completely unacceptable that they get insulted and railed at by other players.  What s/he didn't even stop to consider was that these women were not getting "abused" (and I rely heavily on my quotation marks there) because they were women. No, they were being "abused" in the same way any other newbie playing a multiplayer game like LoL/DotA/TF2 gets abused. They received it because they sucked at the game.

And then some of us prefer a climate where you can suck at a game without people constantly tossing names, vitriol and often enough badly tuned sexual innuendo while you play.  There are lots of guilds and circles I would never join, and even certain games I just suspect are engineered more to cater to such an "in your face" mentality -- for these same reasons.  After a certain preponderance of games or players seem obsessed with making everything about "in your face," it starts to get old and I start to think it's a cultural trend too. 

         But then, I also do think making the employment world increasingly dog eat dog in day to day life, and insisting that "maturity" in America must somehow be equated with "owning" and "dominating" if not outright "raping" everything, is a related problem.  Though I suppose lots of people just think those things are normal and natural and just the latest expression of how people, or at least how Americans (?) have always been and tough shit if one doesn't just eat that vibe all up to the absolute max for entertainment too.

         If you read the Pew summary page (the first page of it) that Consortium linked to, then we can also say: Here you are not taking into consideration that generally people who have experienced threats of violence or actual physical violence somewhere, tend to be much less happy with this sort of rhetoric online.  And who are the people who generally do experience a very high frequency of such threats or violence in the culture at large? Women.  Which is more the heart of the problem for those feminists who tend to busy themselves with picking over things like what sorts of stories we have involving women, or where women can communicate and represent themselves more or less comfortably.  As a group, this isn't just over video games; it's part of a bigger picture people are trying to deal with one way or another. 

[kylie]

As well, Anita has mastered profesional victim hood. How else can she desguise her obvious intents on being money grubbing.

You really seem to enjoy tossing the words "professional victim" around, but what are the criteria or evidence here?  If it's simply wanting to make some money, have you looked at the costs of having a university education or publishing?  Is there some reason people should not make a certain level of income for something they consider to be good politics too?  And can you show how she makes more money by not speaking at Utah, than she might have gained had she been able to do the talk?

Aside from the fact her own threats may be fabricated.

I believe this has been disputed by others above.  Again, if you have some specific evidence for those of us who are learning as we go...

( qoate from a event about her internet abuse aka proffesional victimhood: "I am also acused of fabricating my own threats, or having a feminist possey do it for me. So, where is that posse now?" *audiance whoops and hollars, giving an appluase. Anita smiles and continues* end qoate.)

So she has some following.  What does that prove?  Martin Luther King marched on Washington with a huge following.  Did that mean he should be derided as a 'professional victim' too?

Not to mention her publically canceling an event, and publically being out raged on a threat that was prooven to be a bluff. As well as her publically anouncing the threat being strictly against the fbi's public warnings on threats in general. Dont anounce it or feed their ego.

When you have committed to speak about representations of gender and violence, and what you're cancelling over is that sort of threat -- and also the maintenance of an environment in some states where it's extremely easy for the merest suggestion of terrorism to force a private speaker to cancel (bluff or not is totally irrelevant to that happening)...  It seems quite consistent to me that she would have something to say about that.  Yes this is data for her too.  And so are the huge frequency and intensity of threats of violence, and often actual violence, against women day in and day out across the country.  But oh, you seem to suggest, no one should reify the situation or feed the perpetrators' egos by discussing just how often these things occur?  We should keep them all hush hush?  That's more like how domestic violence (and sometimes stalking) usually is kept quiet, below the radar, and also rarely prosecuted seriously.

[consortium11]

Come on, consortium. If somebody uses racist insults, they are racist. If they use homophobic insults, they're homophobic. And if they are using misogynist insults, they're misogynist. You can insult someone without being a total twat and using their sexuality/race/gender as a weapon. If you choose to do so, you can't blame people for calling you a bigot afterwards.

No it doesn't, it just means they used racist/homophobic/misogynistic insults. The use of one term no more makes someone a racist than someone having a black friend means they aren't. Of course repeated use of the terms is a strong indicator that someone may be an 'ist/'phobic of some description but in-and-of-itself? No.

Ever called someone an idiot? Well, if you have that makes you an ableist by such a viewpoint, idiot being one of the oldest and most established insults to those suffering from mental defects.

[Slywyn]

... yes. That is actually exactly what it means.

If you use racist/sexist/homophobic insults, you are a racist/sexist/homophobe.

[Assassini]

Come on, consortium. If somebody uses racist insults, they are racist. If they use homophobic insults, they're homophobic. And if they are using misogynist insults, they're misogynist. You can insult someone without being a total twat and using their sexuality/race/gender as a weapon. If you choose to do so, you can't blame people for calling you a bigot afterwards.

... yes. That is actually exactly what it means.

If you use racist/sexist/homophobic insults, you are a racist/sexist/homophobe.

I'm sorry but I'm with Consortium here. I would argue that it is the motivation behind the insult and not the word itself.

[Slywyn]

... that is not how it works. You cannot use a word and divorce yourself from what the word means if you're using that word as an insult.

[Avis habilis]

I'm sorry but I'm with Consortium here. I would argue that it is the motivation behind the insult and not the word itself.

Not just wrong, but the very definition of magical intent.

[Oniya]

If I know that someone is a member of a certain group, and I use a term that I know is specifically derogatory to that group, I've made a conscious choice to do so.

[Avis habilis]

It's merely an unpleasant word ...

Because the person using it is conflating the state of being gay with the state of being inadequate, distasteful, objectionable or otherwise a failure. Using it in that manner is per se homophobic.

[Slywyn]

Not just wrong, but the very definition of magical intent.

What sir Habilis said. You don't get to be protected by your 'intent' or lack of.

Hateful and harmful language is hateful and harmful NO MATTER YOUR INTENT.

If you're using them as an insult you are in fact being racist/sexist/homophobic/etc.

[consortium11]

What sir Habilis said. You don't get to be protected by your 'intent' or lack of.

Hateful and harmful language is hateful and harmful NO MATTER YOUR INTENT.

If you're using them as an insult you are in fact being racist/sexist/homophobic/etc.

Not just wrong, but the very definition of magical intent.

Not it isn't. It's actually the exact opposite of magical intent.

Magical intent is basically arguing that you never intended for the other person to feel insulted/oppressed/abused/humiliated etc and as such you shouldn't be blamed for your words/actions.

What I (and presumably Assassini) are saying is that in the cases we're talking about the intent was always to make the other person feel insulted/oppressed/abused/humiliated and the words used were chosen exactly because of that. When insulting someone people frequently go for the wording that will hurt the other person the most.

[Avis habilis]

When insulting someone people frequently go for the wording that will hurt the other person the most.

Oh, so the insinuation of homosexuality is intended to be insulting. Well, that's much better.

[Slywyn]

Not it isn't. It's actually the exact opposite of magical intent.

Magical intent is basically arguing that you never intended for the other person to feel insulted/oppressed/abused/humiliated etc and as such you shouldn't be blamed for your words/actions.

What I (and presumably Assassini) are saying is that in the cases we're talking about the intent was always to make the other person feel insulted/oppressed/abused/humiliated and the words used were chosen exactly because of that. When insulting someone people frequently go for the wording that will hurt the other person the most.

You don't get to pick and choose when racist/sexist/homophobic words are those things.

If you're using them, you're being a racist/sexist/homophobe. End of story. There is no getting around it.