Anita Sarkeesian + Hitman Absolution = Epic Fail

[WindKnight]

Thats a Character, as in a fictiona

aparently now a character cant be performed by a person or based on a person

tell me, what is this

Spoiler

its incredible how hard it is to communicate even the most simple idea to you, i have to use pictures and examples

A character, as in a fictional created character. It is played by Ozzy Osbourne, based on Ozzy Ozbourne but is Not Actually Ozzy osbourne... I mean, I never once saw him doing drugs or biting heads off bats, and I doubt Ozzy likes to hang out in the land of metal all day doling out upgrades to Eddie Riggs.

excellent now, listen:

imagine a game where there is a villain character based around that cosplayer i showed you, this female character looks just like her, she is of course incredibly attractive by herself, regardless of outfits

got that? good

now i have to kill this character, as in the ingame avatar i control has to kill her, she is the villain and she did some bad stuff and such, since i find her attractive, is that "sexualized" violence?

That depends on why the character looks the way they do. Obviously the hypothetical game developers made the character to look a certain way, why did they make her look like that? If there was some kind of valuable artistic reason to sexualize the character then I would totally stand behind their decision to do so. If not then I would have to ask what other reasons they might have for making the character look that way, and if the only reason is they wanted to kill a hot girl character then yes I would call that sexualized violence.

why?

just because a villain is attractive doesnt mean the game is sexist

Attractive is not sexualised. There's more to sexualisaton than a pretty face.

then you better work more on your definitions, before saying stuff like

Sexualised violence (a mistyping from my original post I must admit... sexual violence is a very different thing, and I had intended sexualised) is violence where the victim is sexualised - presented in a manner that's sexually attractive and potentially arousing to the veiwer.

I dont really see a contradiction as I was invoking stuff like nudity and sexualised outfits, and we were talking about the kind of stuff in game prostitutes get put in.

last I checked just having a pretty face wasn't the sole factor in provoking arousal, though if you think you have your victory, feel free to celebrate it.

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

Thats a Character, as in a fictiona

aparently now a character cant be performed by a person or based on a person

tell me, what is this

Spoiler

its incredible how hard it is to communicate even the most simple idea to you, i have to use pictures and examples

A character, as in a fictional created character. It is played by Ozzy Osbourne, based on Ozzy Ozbourne but is Not Actually Ozzy osbourne... I mean, I never once saw him doing drugs or biting heads off bats, and I doubt Ozzy likes to hang out in the land of metal all day doling out upgrades to Eddie Riggs.

excellent now, listen:

imagine a game where there is a villain character based around that cosplayer i showed you, this female character looks just like her, she is of course incredibly attractive by herself, regardless of outfits

got that? good

now i have to kill this character, as in the ingame avatar i control has to kill her, she is the villain and she did some bad stuff and such, since i find her attractive, is that "sexualized" violence?

That depends on why the character looks the way they do. Obviously the hypothetical game developers made the character to look a certain way, why did they make her look like that? If there was some kind of valuable artistic reason to sexualize the character then I would totally stand behind their decision to do so. If not then I would have to ask what other reasons they might have for making the character look that way, and if the only reason is they wanted to kill a hot girl character then yes I would call that sexualized violence.

why?

just because a villain is attractive doesnt mean the game is sexist

Attractive is not sexualised. There's more to sexualisaton than a pretty face.

then you better work more on your definitions, before saying stuff like

Sexualised violence (a mistyping from my original post I must admit... sexual violence is a very different thing, and I had intended sexualised) is violence where the victim is sexualised - presented in a manner that's sexually attractive and potentially arousing to the veiwer.

I dont really see a contradiction as I was invoking stuff like nudity and sexualised outfits, and we were talking about the kind of stuff in game prostitutes get put in.

last I checked just having a pretty face wasn't the sole factor in provoking arousal, though if you think you have your victory, feel free to celebrate it.

how about you take a look at what Azure23 wrote

I suppose I'd classify it as sexualized violence if the killing was presented in a certain way. Like have you ever seen high school of the dead? I heard zombie anime and got excited, anyway I watched the first few episodes (gotta give it a proper chance after all) and came away pretty thoroughly grossed out. It has panty shots of girls being disembowled and eaten, at one point the camera lingers on a huge breasted torso, just a torso. It's not great. Or there's a part in Hellsing Ultimate (I watched plenty of anime when I was a bit younger) where Alucard is slowly impaling a woman with the barrel of her long rifle, the scene goes on forever, her cheeks are flushed as if she's blushing, and she's moaning like she's getting off. These are both examples where the violence is meant to be sexually titillating, and specifically because it's happening to attractive women (although personally I think Hellsing character designs are waaaay to lanky). I have no problems with attractive characters getting killed or otherwise brutalized, the world can be a cruel place and good looks can make you a target more often than not, just don't present it in such a way that you (not you obv) expect me to be getting off to it.

this i could rightfully call sexualized violence, is violence that is literally meant to invoke sexual arousal, it is NOT an instance of violence being inflicted on a character that is presented in a sexually arousing or attractive way

all sexy characters would have plot shield then and that would be completely stupid

 

[WindKnight]

Thats a Character, as in a fictiona

aparently now a character cant be performed by a person or based on a person

tell me, what is this

Spoiler

its incredible how hard it is to communicate even the most simple idea to you, i have to use pictures and examples

A character, as in a fictional created character. It is played by Ozzy Osbourne, based on Ozzy Ozbourne but is Not Actually Ozzy osbourne... I mean, I never once saw him doing drugs or biting heads off bats, and I doubt Ozzy likes to hang out in the land of metal all day doling out upgrades to Eddie Riggs.

excellent now, listen:

imagine a game where there is a villain character based around that cosplayer i showed you, this female character looks just like her, she is of course incredibly attractive by herself, regardless of outfits

got that? good

now i have to kill this character, as in the ingame avatar i control has to kill her, she is the villain and she did some bad stuff and such, since i find her attractive, is that "sexualized" violence?

That depends on why the character looks the way they do. Obviously the hypothetical game developers made the character to look a certain way, why did they make her look like that? If there was some kind of valuable artistic reason to sexualize the character then I would totally stand behind their decision to do so. If not then I would have to ask what other reasons they might have for making the character look that way, and if the only reason is they wanted to kill a hot girl character then yes I would call that sexualized violence.

why?

just because a villain is attractive doesnt mean the game is sexist

Attractive is not sexualised. There's more to sexualisaton than a pretty face.

then you better work more on your definitions, before saying stuff like

Sexualised violence (a mistyping from my original post I must admit... sexual violence is a very different thing, and I had intended sexualised) is violence where the victim is sexualised - presented in a manner that's sexually attractive and potentially arousing to the veiwer.

I dont really see a contradiction as I was invoking stuff like nudity and sexualised outfits, and we were talking about the kind of stuff in game prostitutes get put in.

last I checked just having a pretty face wasn't the sole factor in provoking arousal, though if you think you have your victory, feel free to celebrate it.

how about you take a look at what Azure23 wrote

I suppose I'd classify it as sexualized violence if the killing was presented in a certain way. Like have you ever seen high school of the dead? I heard zombie anime and got excited, anyway I watched the first few episodes (gotta give it a proper chance after all) and came away pretty thoroughly grossed out. It has panty shots of girls being disembowled and eaten, at one point the camera lingers on a huge breasted torso, just a torso. It's not great. Or there's a part in Hellsing Ultimate (I watched plenty of anime when I was a bit younger) where Alucard is slowly impaling a woman with the barrel of her long rifle, the scene goes on forever, her cheeks are flushed as if she's blushing, and she's moaning like she's getting off. These are both examples where the violence is meant to be sexually titillating, and specifically because it's happening to attractive women (although personally I think Hellsing character designs are waaaay to lanky). I have no problems with attractive characters getting killed or otherwise brutalized, the world can be a cruel place and good looks can make you a target more often than not, just don't present it in such a way that you (not you obv) expect me to be getting off to it.

this i could rightfully call sexualized violence, is violence that is literally meant to invoke sexual arousal, it is NOT an instance of violence being inflicted on a character that is presented in a sexually arousing or attractive way

all sexy characters would have plot shield then and that would be completely stupid

And? Does that definition negate or eliminate mine? Not really. Both are an inappropriate combination of sexualisation and violence. Is this what this discussion going to be now, you splitting hairs and acting like you've found ultimate victory and rightness?

 

[jacob idstrom]

Thats a Character, as in a fictiona

aparently now a character cant be performed by a person or based on a person

tell me, what is this

Spoiler

its incredible how hard it is to communicate even the most simple idea to you, i have to use pictures and examples

A character, as in a fictional created character. It is played by Ozzy Osbourne, based on Ozzy Ozbourne but is Not Actually Ozzy osbourne... I mean, I never once saw him doing drugs or biting heads off bats, and I doubt Ozzy likes to hang out in the land of metal all day doling out upgrades to Eddie Riggs.

excellent now, listen:

imagine a game where there is a villain character based around that cosplayer i showed you, this female character looks just like her, she is of course incredibly attractive by herself, regardless of outfits

got that? good

now i have to kill this character, as in the ingame avatar i control has to kill her, she is the villain and she did some bad stuff and such, since i find her attractive, is that "sexualized" violence?

That depends on why the character looks the way they do. Obviously the hypothetical game developers made the character to look a certain way, why did they make her look like that? If there was some kind of valuable artistic reason to sexualize the character then I would totally stand behind their decision to do so. If not then I would have to ask what other reasons they might have for making the character look that way, and if the only reason is they wanted to kill a hot girl character then yes I would call that sexualized violence.

why?

just because a villain is attractive doesnt mean the game is sexist

Of course not, but there is a difference between sexualized and attractive. The example you gave is difficult to talk about because their is no context given. If you look at a story and the story doesn't seem to have very much respect for women, then the fact that the villain is an absurdly dressed, sexually designed character would come off as a troubling choice on the developers part.

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

Thats a Character, as in a fictiona

aparently now a character cant be performed by a person or based on a person

tell me, what is this

Spoiler

its incredible how hard it is to communicate even the most simple idea to you, i have to use pictures and examples

A character, as in a fictional created character. It is played by Ozzy Osbourne, based on Ozzy Ozbourne but is Not Actually Ozzy osbourne... I mean, I never once saw him doing drugs or biting heads off bats, and I doubt Ozzy likes to hang out in the land of metal all day doling out upgrades to Eddie Riggs.

excellent now, listen:

imagine a game where there is a villain character based around that cosplayer i showed you, this female character looks just like her, she is of course incredibly attractive by herself, regardless of outfits

got that? good

now i have to kill this character, as in the ingame avatar i control has to kill her, she is the villain and she did some bad stuff and such, since i find her attractive, is that "sexualized" violence?

That depends on why the character looks the way they do. Obviously the hypothetical game developers made the character to look a certain way, why did they make her look like that? If there was some kind of valuable artistic reason to sexualize the character then I would totally stand behind their decision to do so. If not then I would have to ask what other reasons they might have for making the character look that way, and if the only reason is they wanted to kill a hot girl character then yes I would call that sexualized violence.

why?

just because a villain is attractive doesnt mean the game is sexist

Attractive is not sexualised. There's more to sexualisaton than a pretty face.

then you better work more on your definitions, before saying stuff like

Sexualised violence (a mistyping from my original post I must admit... sexual violence is a very different thing, and I had intended sexualised) is violence where the victim is sexualised - presented in a manner that's sexually attractive and potentially arousing to the veiwer.

I dont really see a contradiction as I was invoking stuff like nudity and sexualised outfits, and we were talking about the kind of stuff in game prostitutes get put in.

last I checked just having a pretty face wasn't the sole factor in provoking arousal, though if you think you have your victory, feel free to celebrate it.

how about you take a look at what Azure23 wrote

I suppose I'd classify it as sexualized violence if the killing was presented in a certain way. Like have you ever seen high school of the dead? I heard zombie anime and got excited, anyway I watched the first few episodes (gotta give it a proper chance after all) and came away pretty thoroughly grossed out. It has panty shots of girls being disembowled and eaten, at one point the camera lingers on a huge breasted torso, just a torso. It's not great. Or there's a part in Hellsing Ultimate (I watched plenty of anime when I was a bit younger) where Alucard is slowly impaling a woman with the barrel of her long rifle, the scene goes on forever, her cheeks are flushed as if she's blushing, and she's moaning like she's getting off. These are both examples where the violence is meant to be sexually titillating, and specifically because it's happening to attractive women (although personally I think Hellsing character designs are waaaay to lanky). I have no problems with attractive characters getting killed or otherwise brutalized, the world can be a cruel place and good looks can make you a target more often than not, just don't present it in such a way that you (not you obv) expect me to be getting off to it.

this i could rightfully call sexualized violence, is violence that is literally meant to invoke sexual arousal, it is NOT an instance of violence being inflicted on a character that is presented in a sexually arousing or attractive way

all sexy characters would have plot shield then and that would be completely stupid

And? Does that definition negate or eliminate mine? Not really. Both are an inappropriate combination of sexualisation and violence. Is this what this discussion going to be now, you splitting hairs and acting like you've found ultimate victory and rightness?

yes it does, if a character is attractive/arousing and has violence inflicted upon it, it doesnt mean its sexualized violence, at best you can argue its violence inflicted upon a sexualized character, is not the same thing and theres nothing wrong about it as long as this sexualized character is treated like any other character in the game

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

Thats a Character, as in a fictiona

aparently now a character cant be performed by a person or based on a person

tell me, what is this

Spoiler

its incredible how hard it is to communicate even the most simple idea to you, i have to use pictures and examples

A character, as in a fictional created character. It is played by Ozzy Osbourne, based on Ozzy Ozbourne but is Not Actually Ozzy osbourne... I mean, I never once saw him doing drugs or biting heads off bats, and I doubt Ozzy likes to hang out in the land of metal all day doling out upgrades to Eddie Riggs.

excellent now, listen:

imagine a game where there is a villain character based around that cosplayer i showed you, this female character looks just like her, she is of course incredibly attractive by herself, regardless of outfits

got that? good

now i have to kill this character, as in the ingame avatar i control has to kill her, she is the villain and she did some bad stuff and such, since i find her attractive, is that "sexualized" violence?

That depends on why the character looks the way they do. Obviously the hypothetical game developers made the character to look a certain way, why did they make her look like that? If there was some kind of valuable artistic reason to sexualize the character then I would totally stand behind their decision to do so. If not then I would have to ask what other reasons they might have for making the character look that way, and if the only reason is they wanted to kill a hot girl character then yes I would call that sexualized violence.

why?

just because a villain is attractive doesnt mean the game is sexist

Of course not, but there is a difference between sexualized and attractive. The example you gave is difficult to talk about because their is no context given. If you look at a story and the story doesn't seem to have very much respect for women, then the fact that the villain is an absurdly dressed, sexually designed character would come off as a troubling choice on the developers part.

maybe, youd kind of have a point there i guess

 

[WindKnight]

And? Does that definition negate or eliminate mine? Not really. Both are an inappropriate combination of sexualisation and violence. Is this what this discussion going to be now, you splitting hairs and acting like you've found ultimate victory and rightness?

yes it does, if a character is attractive/arousing and has violence inflicted upon it, it doesnt mean its sexualized violence, at best you can argue its violence inflicted upon a sexualized character, is not the same thing and theres nothing wrong about it as long as this sexualized character is treated like any other character in the game

Whatever dude, keep splitting those hairs like it makes a difference.

 

[Azure23]

As Jacob pointed out if a story has no respect for any of the female characters within it, then at some point that starts to imply the developer's opinion of women in general (whether this is actually accurate or just the result of bad writing becomes irrelevant) which turns what is otherwise an completely fantastical and non real situation ( the games scenario, and any violence visited upon the characters) into some sort of creepy wish fulfillment or condemnation of women in general, and sexy women in particular. And that's just doing no one any favors.

I would argue that character design is less important than the character herself (or himself, for the rare über sexualized male character). Overtly sexual people do exist, people who like to dress in skimpy or tight clothing exist (I'm proud of this body, I wear tight t-shirts). And seriously, though this may come as a shock to some of you, a lot of women will dress sexy not because they're hoping to impress anyone, but for themselves, because looking in the mirror and liking what you see is a powerful thing. There's no problem with reflecting that in our videogames. And ummm . . .where was I going with this? Are people still arguing? We were originally talking about hitman right? Oh yeah.

Basically (for me anyway): the strip club level does not equal sexualized violence or an endorsement of violence against women. Rather it's an oddly realistic look at the rape and human trafficking endemic in such businesses. Once again sexual violence does not equal sexualized violence, the club owners actions are harshly condemned and he pays for his disgusting actions with his worthless life. The saints trailer however (and level, to some extent), are good examples of sexualized violence and I can't help but wonder what they were thinking. But again, my problem is less with what the saints were wearing, but more with the way their actual deaths were sexualized via gratuitous slow motion blood bukakkes.

 

[Azure23]

And? Does that definition negate or eliminate mine? Not really. Both are an inappropriate combination of sexualisation and violence. Is this what this discussion going to be now, you splitting hairs and acting like you've found ultimate victory and rightness?

yes it does, if a character is attractive/arousing and has violence inflicted upon it, it doesnt mean its sexualized violence, at best you can argue its violence inflicted upon a sexualized character, is not the same thing and theres nothing wrong about it as long as this sexualized character is treated like any other character in the game

Whatever dude, keep splitting those hairs like it makes a difference.

What's with his splitting hairs thing? Aren't you two saying the same thing at this point? Unless you actually mean that all violence inflicted on a sexy character has to be (and is) sexualized then aren't you two finally in agreement?

 

[WhiteNachos]

There is that spot in absolution where you have to use the body of a dead stripper to distract some guards. Well I guess you don't have to have to, but it is about the only way you can do that segment without getting shot at. You are kind of right in a factual way. The game dose punish you killing people, but I can't bring myself to defend the game on this ground. Taken as a whole, the game is very squick. Like I am thinking back to playing it and am feeling kind of sick about some of the content.


It is kind of possible to give every character a little bit of back story/personality. Games do it all the time with idle chat. It's not a lot, but when spent well it can lead to some neat characterizations. Oh and then watchdogs did that clever thing with the profiler. The kind of problem is that the idle chat for a stripper, or prostitute is all about them inviting you to be perverse. You know the stripper in GTA 5 even a fair amount of dialog. It's just all their dialog is about sex, so there is opportunity to give them character or a back story. They just don't.

This, pretty much.


And also, let's not forget that delightfully sexist trailer for the saints in that very same game. I understand they are relatively minor characters in the final product, but they pretty much fit the criticism, especially considered their main character trait lies in their sexualization. Haven't seen the episode, but if anything, she just chose the wrong footage to illustrate her point:

That trailer is sexist how? It shows a man killing off a bunch of women in sexy nun outfits in self defense. Where's the sexism? Where's the statement that women are inferior, where's the statement that women fit a certain stereotype? I can't find it. All I see is a fight between 47 and a bunch of people dressed in pointless costumes.

But that's besides the point you were saying that the trailer would've proved her point and it doesn't.

For starters none of that is in game footage, that's not even a cutscene from the game, that footage is nowhere to be found in the actual game. In fact that's not even how the event goes down in the game. They hit your apartment with a rocket launcher you escape and pick them off one by one, and this isn't confined to a single level. You do not fight them all in the parking lot and be done with it. It's just footage made exclusively for game trailers which isn't unheard of.

Now for the saints themselves. The players are meant to enjoy killing them just like every other target in the game. There's never an implication that you should enjoy this more because they're sexy.

It certainly does not prove her point that murdering sexy woman is encouraged in the game, it does not prove her point that "Players are meant to derive a perverse pleasure from desecrating the bodies of unsuspecting virtual female characters."

 

[WhiteNachos]

That trailer is sexist how? It shows a man killing off a bunch of women in sexy nun outfits in self defense. Where's the sexism? Where's the statement that women are inferior, where's the statement that women fit a certain stereotype? I can't find it. All I see is a fight between 47 and a bunch of people dressed in pointless costumes.

But that's besides the point you were saying that the trailer would've proved her point and it doesn't.

For starters none of that is in game footage, that's not even a cutscene from the game, that footage is nowhere to be found in the actual game. In fact that's not even how the event goes down in the game. They hit your apartment with a rocket launcher you escape and pick them off one by one, and this isn't confined to a single level. You do not fight them all in the parking lot and be done with it. It's just footage made exclusively for game trailers which isn't unheard of.

Now for the saints themselves. The players are meant to enjoy killing them just like every other target in the game. There's never an implication that you should enjoy this more because they're sexy.

It certainly does not prove her point that murdering sexy woman is encouraged in the game, it does not prove her point that "Players are meant to derive a perverse pleasure from desecrating the bodies of unsuspecting virtual female characters."

The level of irrationality and just plain lack of basic understanding of what the word "sexist" means makes it very hard to reply to this in my own words; doing so would no doubt earn me a warning. Though tempting, my judgment deemed it not worthy of a blemish in my record.

But so that your ignorance does not go unanswered, here are a stripper's own words on why the trailer above is sexist as fuck.

I think it?s an excuse to show violence against women by making them the initiators of violence. It?s as if the makers of this video game are saying, ?Hey, these women asked for it. It?s okay to kill them and beat them up because they?re the ?dregs of society.?? It?s as if [the game is saying] they are subhuman and deserve to die. But that?s not who they are, it?s what they do for a living; stripping is a job, not an identity.

First off one woman's opinion does not make it so. Secondly they aren't strippers, they are contract killers. And I swear she's pulling the dregs of society interpretation out of thin air. Although even if this were anti-stripper somehow, that'd be different from being anti women (there are male strippers you know and not every woman is a stripper.

Anything to say about this clip not proving Anita's point?

Edit: should not have said also, they never are shown being strippers.

 

[Tanis]

A.S. says another retarded thing.

This is nothing new.

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

I think people just need to stop giving any regard to Anita Sarkeesian at all. Her arguments, taken as a whole, as very poor and her conclusions especially in this video and blatantly faulty . I think those who don't foam at the mouth with hate but still want to express that we don't think her work is helpful or meaningful need some kind of stock responce every time someone starts confusing disliking her pretty false assertions with being some kind of abusive hate-monger.

"Anita Sarkeesian's work is based on faulty assumptions and in numerous ways is founded on a base of half-truths and manipulation. As a person i can, without degrading her as a person, take issue with the myriad flasehoods and faulty assertions weaved throughout her series. She advocates a position that games inspire real-world problems and actions, a position held by the more vehement critics and prospective censors of games. This is a matter of public record.

You can separate her work from her as a person. Saying "You are just a hateful sexist" does not validate her work or make her conclusions any less false. Any line of discussion that assumes those who find fault in her series are merely hateful will not be given regard. Analyze her work first and form your own opinion rather than merely reacting. This is not a battle of 'sides' only an attempt to critique and shine a light on the problems of the work of an individual"

hallelujah!

gotta copy paste that from now on each time someone throws ye olde "you are just sexist" comeback

 

[Therumancer]

Well, let's look a bit broader. Why don't we start with the fact that there IS a strip club level in the first place. The game does not need to have a strip club level for the plot to progress, and women are the only ones ever in such a situation. The intent to willingly code in a level based around a sexy club which features sexy women dressed - or undressed - sexually, almost certainly to appeal to the male player, is not exactly benign. And need I remind us all the other sexism charges this game faced? *coughkungfulatexnunscough*

Obviously, Sarkeesian is taking things too far. But any game where you would not have to go out of your way to beat up female strippers is asking to be called out.

P.S.: To prove I'm trying to take the middle ground here, I leave you with a Bro Team quote:

(shoots stripper) THIS IS SEXIST.
(shoots guy) THIS IS ACCEPTABLE.

I find it hard to believe you're taking the middle ground when you're advocating that elements of the game's tone is worthy of criticism. Hitman has always had seedy underground sex-ridden locations, the same that are depicted in films and are present in reality.

Obviously, Sarkeesian is taking things too far. But any game where you would not have to go out of your way to beat up female strippers is asking to be called out.

So any game where you can kill women?

Just because they have done similar things in the past, that does not mean it's okay. And yes, strip clubs do exist in reality. So does child pornography. Neither make a game more classy for their inclusion.

And no, not any game where you can kill women. Not all women are strippers. That comment has some unfortunate implications.

It's important to note that games like "Hitman", "Grand Theft Auto", and others use places like strip and sex clubs, red light districts, etc... largely because they aren't classy. Typically this is done in order to set a dark tone and/or say something about the people involved in the given scene.

It's sort of like how in the recent TV show True Detective (very mild spoilers) the character played by Woody Harrelson is a womanizer who cheats on his wife. Both the character and his partner are DEEPLY flawed individuals, but part of the point is that it doesn't prevent them from ultimately being the good guys in the end, indeed it's part of their journey.

The deeply flawed hero (a little different from anti-heroes and dark heroes which can also apply) is a trademark of certain kinds of fiction, detective/spy/crime fiction in particular, where your typical hard boiled detective (private or police) is usually a piece of garbage except when it comes to professional ethics, and oftentimes the quintessential story tends to be about that once case that helps him get a little piece of his soul back. Bruce Willis sort of made a career out of playing roles like this ("The Last Boyscout", "Last Man Standing", etc...).

When it comes to something like "Hitman" it should be noted that half the point of the character is that the main character was specifically created/trained to be a sociopathic murder machine. In the end though he winds up trying to regain his humanity, and turn a lot of those skills on very bad people. He's not supposed to be your "white knight" type. The guys he takes out in strip clubs, S&M parlours, etc... are intended to be in part characterized by the environment (since many of them are otherwise given little development). As far as "47" himself being willing to things like kill strippers and use the dead bodies as decoys and the like, part of the story between the lines (and later you being beaten over the head with it) is that he himself grapples with doing things like that, they come easily to him as a matter of "programming" and he knows he's pretty much not a part of normal society because he can do that, the way he's wired he can sort of just choose to use his skills for the right reasons. He's more of an 'anti-hero' because of it. The places where he goes to meet clients? Well, he's wiping out scumbags for other scumbags a lot of the time. When it comes to Agent 47 in particular, he's more of an "anything for the mission" type of dispassionate killer whose emotions are pretty much rendered meaningless. He doesn't go out and kill women because they are women or anything like that, rather he'll literally kill anyone and do any messed up thing needed to complete his mission. As the story progresses though he does sort of "go soft" which is part of the theme of the game though he can easily suppress himself into "murder machine" mode when he needs to.

That said, not every type of game or genera is for everyone. "Star Wars" and "Blade Runner" are both science fiction, but have entirely different styles, stories, and environments. As a general rule "dark future" and other niche genera like "Cyberpunk" have never been particularly mainstream because of the fairly nihilistic world view, and how even the good guys tend to be every bit as messed up in the own way as the world they live in.

As a general rule (exceptions always exist) I do not see much in the way of misogynistic behavior in games, and my opinions of Anita are well documented on this site. For the most part where really bad things happen to women, it's presented in the context of really bad things happening in general.

I'll also point out that role reversal doesn't always work out. When people say decry strip clubs, or various meathead characters like Duke Nukem or some portrayals of Conan (in the books Conan is not a total meathead, which is part of the point) and say it's unfair, they tend not to think of what it looks like if you spin the gender spectrum (and it's happened to some extent). For example let's say we reverse Duke Nukem, we take this physically perfect dude who shows off his massive guns (pun intended), and replace him with a physically perfect lady who shows off her massive guns (pun also intended). This lady runs around Chippendales clubs making unsubtle slutty sexual comments, and treating the dudes like pieces of meat, which they actually seem to enjoy. In the meantime she runs around and saves dudes from various forms of bondage, while making it clear she's going to bang all of them later if she can, in between all of this you get monologue of her reminding you of how great and sexy she is. Instead of say slappable wall breasts, we have wall testicles she can fondle as she walks past. The female Conan doing the same stuff Conan does just with the genders reversed (few other changes) would come out similarly, although it wouldn't be proudly wearing it's own ridiculousness the same way.... the point here is that when you do this kind of thing people will ALSO call it misogynistic in reverse, by claiming that "She-Duke" is actually an embodiment of male fantasy, also being a sex object because after all she's a walking lust bomb who is pretty much out to bang everyone, which makes it a "male empowerment fantasy" even if the actual dudes in the story aren't all that empowered...

The point I'm getting at here is that the whole "Anita Sarkeesian" type of argument isn't even worth having because it can be argued "women are under attack" no matter which way you spin it, which is the beauty of her "position". It's even easy to do when your between those two extremes (as we see since most things are). On a lot of levels the only way to win is not to play, to remove all references to sex and gender, especially any kind of sex related humor, etc... a sort of version of the "Comics Code" aimed at video games. You can pretty much give up on having any kind of "M" rated game for adults (and let's be honest, I feel the label "Mature" is inaccurate, the point of games in many cases is escapism and to let your hair down, basically for people capable of maturity to be immature in the context of the game, due to being able to understand it's only a game and has no meaning beyond that).

As a general rule I feel that people who are deeply concerned about moral issues probably shouldn't be buying "M" rated games that define themselves as being "dark". Especially if the back tells you "this game is about sociopathic criminals" or it has a title like "Hitman". By definition your dealing with anti-social behavior.

To be honest, I have sort of wondered what it would be like if they tried to actually make "Grand Theft Auto" or "Saint's Row" where the protagonists are designed to be good role models. Drive safely everywhere to your 9-5 job, press X to be polite, press Y to turn the other cheek, beat the timed mini-game to help little Billy with his homework! Missions? Well someone has to safely drive loads of soda across town to the little league game..... Maybe a project for a modder with a lot of time and a sense of humor. Instead of Grand Theft Auto, it could be called "Car Payment On Time".

 

[NemotheElvenPanda]

It's pretty clear now, abundantly, that Anita has no idea on what she's taking about, once again.

This isn't to say that sexism doesn't exist in video games, or that objectification doesn't exist (Dead or Alive Beach Volleyball anyone?). However, there are far more qualified people to comment and explore this than Anita. Hell, TV Tropes does a better job than her when it comes to pointing out sexist mechanics and elements in games; they also do a good job on how it affects both sexes. People need to stop giving her attention.

 

[JayRPG]

This is the problem I have always had with Anita, she misrepresents everything, she might have a valid case for some of her points if she did some actual work.

But instead she constantly takes something and acts like the same exact thing can't be done to male characters.

For the Hitman stuff, she basically presented her argument to her audience to make them believe that the things you can do to the Female characters cannot be done to anyone else in the game, which is just not true, you can kill any NPC in the game, male or female, and you are actively discouraged for killing any NPC, regardless of gender, if they are not your target.

She is trying to mislead people with the argument that you can do this only to females, you aren't discouraged and they were put there so you would do horrible things to them, and it is just not true.

Then she acts like Female characters are the only ones used as "background decorations" or characters, as if there aren't just as many (or more) Male background characters that serve the same purpose.

At the very best she is being extremely misleading, at the worst she is an outright liar with no remorse.

TL;DR She acts as if the things that can be done to Female characters can't also be done to Male characters, and lies through her teeth about there being no discouragement.

 

[Therumancer]

To be honest, I have sort of wondered what it would be like if they tried to actually make "Grand Theft Auto" or "Saint's Row" where the protagonists are designed to be good role models. Drive safely everywhere to your 9-5 job, press X to be polite, press Y to turn the other cheek, beat the timed mini-game to help little Billy with his homework! Missions? Well someone has to safely drive loads of soda across town to the little league game..... Maybe a project for a modder with a lot of time and a sense of humor. Instead of Grand Theft Auto, it could be called "Car Payment On Time".

I'd just like to refer people to a little game made originally made under the guidance of Pen and Teller giving the idea.

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.tueidj.DesertBus&hl=en_GB

It's the ultimate non violent game about just doing your job.

Part of the issue I should point out that keep coming up about violence.

One of the core beliefs of new age 2nd wave feminism based on original 2nd wave feminism is "Non violent action is the true method of change" which has been corrupted by the new wave and or extremists into "Violence is un feminist" which in turns has been interpreted as follows.
Violence is un feminist
Not supporting feminist beliefs is considered to be against them.
Why wouldn't some-one support feminism unless they are sexist.
Therefore as violence doesn't support it then violence itself is inherently sexist.

The problem mainly comes from line 3 which fails to acknowledge the possibility of the statement presented being objectively wrong or merely a subjective interpretation.

Anita herself has posted a link supporting a number of statements about how to help feminism as a cause. One of the points raised was

"If a woman tells you something is sexist then it is."

To that end I was once told I was sexist while playing the MMO The Secret World because of the reasons in the following story.


The person was on the same mission as me but working independently and not grouped but there is overlap in missions. If you screw up one of the puzzles it summons a boss monster. I had fought two due to my own failings then she summoned one. Knowing how tough the boss was and knowing the person (female avatar but that's no indication of gender really)was geared compared to me I thought I'd distract it while she unloaded on it and I could survive. I drew the the attention and she turned and ran off. I soloed the boss, so I've fought 3 at this point so I'm a bit low. She messes up and another boss comes. I turn and run away leaving her (she tried to run too but drew aggro) to fight it because hey she was full health I was at 10%. I went back after healing up to see she had just managed to kill it solo. I screw up and get another boss. and get this

Her "Apologise to me"
Her "respond"
*Repeat "respond" 50 times as I'm fighting a boss solo again*
Me "Can it wait I'm a little busy here with this boss in case you didn't notice"
Her "No you sexist pig I demand an apology for your actions"
*I kill the boss solo*
Me "Excuse me, my actions ?"
Her "Yes your actions you sexist pig, you left me to die on that boss"
Me "You left me to die on one you summoned earlier"
Her "So?"
Me "So I was nearly dead, I was happy to help you fight before but I'm not soloing the boss you summoned but I'd have died fighting that next one"
Her "OMG you only refused to help me because you know I'm a girl you sexist pig, I thought here it would be different, I thought here people would be nice to me but no I run into a sexist pig like you"
Me "I didn't know you were female and how does that make me not dying to the boss you were meant to fight anyway a sexist act."
Her "It does because you're meant to treat girls well and help them out, you're meant to give me stuff to help me out and want to kill the bosses for me"
Me "What ?"
Her "Yeh if you're not sexist give me your [names two of my very rare weapons which are worth a good chunk of money]"
Me "No, I'm not meant to give you things and there's no obligation to help you, especially after when I tried to help you refused to help me with it and placed the entire problem on me"
Her "No-one Raid with Kodu he's a huge sexist pig"
Me "Seriously ?"
Her "I'm going to have you ostracised by the community here for being a sexist pig to me and not helping or giving me stuff"

I won't go on but I will say another girl stepped in and defended my actions, pointed out the other person was an idiot and the person was giving girl gamers a bad name and that if anyone should be ostracised it should be her for attacking me verbally in general chat. This caused the original girl to go off on one claiming the other person wasn't a girl because they'd know that's how girls are meant to act they're meant to be helped and given stuff in games and they were just a jealous neckbeard then some of the second girls guild got involved and backed up that she was female and they could confirm it knowing her IRL. The first person popped up later in general attacking another person only for the second girl to pop up again and defend them too because it was becoming a pattern of claiming to be the victim etc.


This is why almost anything that part of the branch of feminism Anita represents finds they collectively dislike can be labelled as sexist because Feminism isn't wrong.

Which is why I'm glad plenty of 3rd wave feminists are challenging them on topics that seem to be about personal taste because it then means that it's feminist theory vs feminist theory instead of being able to brush off objections as sexist opposition regardless of validity of the argument.

What Anita is very good at is portraying the opposition as nothing bunch of assholes thinking she's here to kill off video games. She's using "the man covered in shit" technique to discredit any counter arguments.

I mean look at her responses to criticism and then see how many are her attacking a nutter or simply claiming the criticism is invalid because her point is right because the evidence supports it and as such the evidence isn't flawed because it supports her point which is right. She isn't open to discussing the points. Heck I wonder if in the next video she'll use prostituted women or if she'll take on board that Sex Worker is the preferred term by industry workers.

Well, the thing is Anita has put herself into a perfect position to cause trouble and get attention, it's about the fight, the platform, and the attention, not any particular message, that is why she cannot be reasoned with, she is not looking for reason, or even trying to defend a position she's reasoned out. This was sort of my point about the whole "let's reverse the gender roles" thing and pointing out that if you do it, say making Duke Nuke'em into a woman and having her act the same way with all the women in the game being replaced by men, it would still be considered sexist. Basically she can take the position of insisting something is offensively sexist, be given what she claims to want, and then turn around and claim it's still sexist. This is why a lot of people go after her for attacking video games because really, with the contradictory stances she's taken, the only way you could possibly "do the right thing" and maintain any integrity in the creative process at all would be to not have any video games, or to make only video games that work on non-gendered concepts. Basically by Anita's logic you might still be able to have something like "Defender" as long as it's never divulged whether it's a guy or a girl in the ship (so to speak).

That said, I also play "The Secret World" though it's been getting rougher to do so since I have developing arthritis and some problems with tendonitis. I go on binges here and there, and while I've done all the basic content, I've sort of taken a break from the Nightmare grind and trying to do Tokyo (which requires a lot of evasion) yet again though I was involved with it again not too long ago.

If your story is accurate, I wouldn't take that as an example of feminist anything, it seems like someone messing with you intentionally, especially if they decided to state the whole "I am a girl" thing as a point out loud along with any kind of expectations. I've never seen anyone I know is a girl try and pull that. It's probably some bored person who has done all the story content through a few times, has at least one Panoptican in their character list (never got there myself) and has nothing to do but mess with people. I'd guess they were intentionally trying to train the boss onto you. I can almost guarantee anyone with the juice to actually get you in trouble with any portion of the community wouldn't tell you that was what they planned to do, and frankly you only tend to get that well known and respected by being fun to hang out/group with, not someone who is going to get in other people's faces with world content.

A lot of the people who do stuff like this do it with Dragon alts, and then if ever pinned down by people claim "hey, I'm RPing, it's my job as a Dragon to spread chaos".

The Secret World generally has a very friendly and welcoming community though... until you hit nightmare level, then it's still friendly, but you slam into the elitist factor since everyone wants to speed run and nobody wants to deal with newer players or those who aren't as well geared and experienced.

I'll also say, even if it seems slightly contradictory with the above, that I don't think TSW has very many actual newbies. It's fairly obscure, and has never been especially well marketed, and while it's art style is okay, it doesn't exactly have mind-blowing technology that tends to draw people in, not to mention the whole "modern conspiracy/horror" bit is a niche genera. I'm sure new players do show up from time to time, but the odds are anyone working on a general quest is probably someone whose been around a while, or an alt.

I like TSW as it is, and hope it doesn't change much (though I do loathe everything about this Aegis system), but it's likely to never see a serious explosion of players unless they act to make it a lot more casual friendly, which would also drive a lot of the current players away.

That said last time I was on I heard some comments that they were planning on doing a re-launch of the game and a new promotional campaign, though I'm not sure what that entails if it's even likely to happen. Consider that I also head in the same chats (this a long time ago) that Funcom was dropping all it's MMO projects and re-directing it's attention to making games based on lego minifigures... which apparently did not happen. That one was the rumor going around right after their stock tanked when TSW didn't turn out to be a major success (which anyone could have told them, even when I was in beta and praising it, I did it from the perspective that it was a niche game and thought they understood that).

I'm rambling, but the point is I wouldn't take an experience like that seriously. I'd be even more messed up if I stopped to really think about half of the bizzare stuff/people I've run into in MMOs.

 

[nomotog_v1legacy]

I think people just need to stop giving any regard to Anita Sarkeesian at all. Her arguments, taken as a whole, as very poor and her conclusions especially in this video and blatantly faulty . I think those who don't foam at the mouth with hate but still want to express that we don't think her work is helpful or meaningful need some kind of stock responce every time someone starts confusing disliking her pretty false assertions with being some kind of abusive hate-monger.

"Anita Sarkeesian's work is based on faulty assumptions and in numerous ways is founded on a base of half-truths and manipulation. As a person i can, without degrading her as a person, take issue with the myriad flasehoods and faulty assertions weaved throughout her series. She advocates a position that games inspire real-world problems and actions, a position held by the more vehement critics and prospective censors of games. This is a matter of public record.

You can separate her work from her as a person. Saying "You are just a hateful sexist" does not validate her work or make her conclusions any less false. Any line of discussion that assumes those who find fault in her series are merely hateful will not be given regard. Analyze her work first and form your own opinion rather than merely reacting. This is not a battle of 'sides' only an attempt to critique and shine a light on the problems of the work of an individual"

You know in a strange way I don't even think her arguments matter as much as some people like to talk about them. It's kind of like the old adage missing the forest from the trees. It's a weird thing to say no doubt. It is just that, I don't think many people watch the videos, stroke their chin, and go "well that was a very goo/bad argument". It's more they watch the video see something they kind of didn't notice before and "go oh I never noticed that before what is up with that?" It's a little like reading TV tropes and having all the tropes pointed out for you. (Hench the name for the series.)

 

[bishopzz]

I'm pretty sure all the violent things done to women in that episode can also be done to men in those games. I mean should you not be allowed to attack women in games? That strikes as even more sexist. Should a window pop up and say "YOU SICK FUCK HOW DARE YOU ATTEMPT TO HARM A FEMALE VIDEO GAME CHARACTER!"? One thing she kept mentioning was how she felt those games treated women like they are disposable. I could make better argument that men are treated like they are disposable, That would explain why around 85% of the video games characters I've killed are men.

 

[CpT_x_Killsteal]

i think everyone with the slightest knowledge of video games knows shes full of shit by this point, that last episode simply made it all even more obvious.

Ding Ding Ding, we have a winner! While she may make a few (very few) decent points about older games, that was then, and this is now. Western society has evolved, and it is always evolving. If the modern "feminists" (insert coughing heavy coughing around "feminists") actually realised this, they'd see racism and sexism were on a much lower level than they claim.

Or maybe they do see it, but they just want to whine for attention.