Anita Sarkeesian "I'm not a fan of gaming" leaked 2010 video reveals

[Vegosiux]

Internet teenagers... stop hating on Sarkeesian. Every time you do, you prove her a little more right by the ineptitude of your bumbling attacks

So, is she then proving the developers and publishers right every time she hates on them...? I mean, seeing as whatever she says is put against those still pulling massive profits from the status quo, so there's obviously something they must be doing right, and by attacking what appear to be successful practices without putting a dent into them (i.e. "bumbling attacks"), she's proving those practices right? That's laughable, isn't it? So this "If you disagree with/hate on what X is saying/doing, you're proving them right" logic is not only rather juvenile, it also doesn't make a lick of sense.

Now, this was all addressing your statement, and did not relate to my opinion about AS or female representation in videogames. I hope you understand that, so that you won't jump at my throat and than have to have me re-state that I actually do want more variety on the AAA scene (while I think the indie scene already offers huge amounts of variety), and that she's simply wrong in attacking the medium of videogames as a whole just because one aspect of it (the AAA scene) seems to be suffering testosterone poisoning.

Oh, and that she's made some serious errors in her videos so far (Talking about Bastion, for example.). Oh and also, that her second and third videos were definite improvements over their predecessors. But that with the amount of money she's received, she really could do a lot more, and create more interesting content (such as, actual two-party discussions with guests, more common updates).

 

[newwiseman]

This makes a surprising amount of sense.

I've always viewed her videos as having formed an opinion before hand and then she finds evidence to support it, as opposed to look at all the facts and draw a conclusion later... you know the worst kind of science, because you ignore everything contrary to your initial opinion.

Either way, I don't care. Not that the core of her message doesn't deserve thought, it just doesn't deliver any information that I'm not already aware of. To be frank, I all but completely forget that she exists until a new complaint about her makes the rounds, but I guess she does need the publicity.

 

[ellieallegro]

I have to hand it to Anita she might or might not know video games but she sure does know how to market herself. I don't really see why people care if she is a fraud or not since the only power she has is the attention people give her which seems to be alot. Good on her, I say for taking advantage of the situation and using it to her benefit.

 

[Pink Gregory]

What is a fan?

What is a fan?

A miserable little pile of secrets. Now, have at you!






...Sorry...

 

[Atmos Duality]

You can go in circles all day about the (in)validity of that ad-hominem attack, but ultimately, nothing will undermine the strength of her argument more than Anita's cherry picking of criticism and abject refusal to refute counter-arguments.

And if the matter is "just her opinion", then why should I care? Why should anyone care?
Why take her seriously?

 

[DrOswald]

"Anita is not an expert, this is why..." is not ad hominem.

How on earth would you establish someone's credentials as an "expert" in video games? What if she took it up in 2010? As I asked earlier in the thread, how many games does one need to play before they qualify as a "gamer"? Which types of games?

I don't know. And I don't really care. I never said that she isn't an expert and I don't really care if she isn't. I only said it is not an ad hominem to attack her legitimacy as an expert.

I mean, I've been gaming for a long goddam time. Does that make me an "expert" in the field? If I speak on the subject, should everyone listen, or take my word as gospel?

If you have played games for a very long time then yes, I would say you are more expert than someone who has not played games. But I never said that an expert opinion should be taken as gospel or that everyone should always listen to the expert. But a level of expertise does give greater legitimacy to a claim as those claims relate to the field of expertise, especially under circumstances in which a judgement call is made.

I'd say given the nature of her critiques, its her background in feminist theory that should be under the microscope. The things she's critiquing are pretty bog standard narrative devices. I'd think anyone with even a mild history of reading or watching films could easily make the same critiques and have them more or less be on the nose. It's not like gaming doesn't borrow liberally from both when establishing narrative structure.

I disagree. While there are significant differences between video games and other narrative forms, this isn't the actual issue.

The entire story of Mario is one sentence: "A man saves a woman from danger." I don't think we can say that absolutely every case of a man saving a woman is sexism at work but if many examples of this happen it can point to a trend of sexism. Anita uses Mario saving Peach as an example of a trend of sexism in games. And that is the key right there: a trend. In order to identify trends a level of expertise is required. We are essentially taking her word that she is sufficiently familiar with video games, she is sufficiently expert, to have taken in a huge body of data and analysed it in order to identified trends of sexism running through all of the video game industry.

I can point to a dozen examples off the top of my head of main character women saving men in video games. Just pointing to any 3 of those examples does not mean that men are portrayed as weak in gaming. It is only by an analysis of the medium as a whole than anything meaningful can be said. And that can only be done by an expert because a point by point analysis is logistically impossible with such a huge body of data.

If she'd made a bunch of videos about game play mechanics and how and why they should be changed, then her "gaming expertise" would be more relevant, although I still have no idea how anyone is meant to establish "gaming expertise" outside of being a developer. And most gamers are quick enough to throw THEM under the bus as well when they try to weigh in on how games should be designed.

The difficulty of establishing expertise is always a problem. How can anyone establish expertise as a wine taster? or a movie critic? or expert in anything? And it is even more difficult to claim in a highly subjective fields like art. Basically an expert is determined to be an expert by other experts. But if the established experts are biased an expert may not be recognized. But this does not mean expertise does not exist.

It is a difficult problem. Fortunately, it is not my problem. I am not trying to make any claims about anyone's expertise in anything.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

The entire story of Mario is one sentence: "A man saves a woman from danger." I don't think we can say that absolutely every case of a man saving a woman is sexism at work but if many examples of this happen it can point to a trend of sexism. Anita uses Mario saving Peach as an example of a trend of sexism in games. And that is the key right there: a trend. In order to identify trends a level of expertise is required. We are essentially taking her word that she is sufficiently familiar with video games, she is sufficiently expert, to have taken in a huge body of data and analysed it in order to identified trends of sexism running through all of the video game industry.

I really have to disagree that you require any kind of gaming expertise or even a gaming background to identify a trend in gaming narratives. It's like suggesting that to illustrate a point about a "sexist" car commercial you need to have a degree in auto mechanics.

The only argument I could see is that if the narrative structure of "woman in peril, man saves the day" turned out to be essential for some underlying game mechanics reason that required a rudimentary background in gaming to understand. Off the top of my head, I cannot comprehend how this would be the case, but if someone has an example I'm open to hearing it.

 

[Ipsen]

OT: I'm not a "gamer" either. You know why? Because the gaming community is full of the exact type of people that we constantly ***** about being stereotyped as by the general public. Because people are currently losing their shit over the fact that Grand Theft Auto V isn't getting absolutely perfect reviews from every reviewing outlet. Because people will swear off companies forever after that company offered them free games, but "they weren't the free games I wanted". Because people throw fits over the smallest promotional material up to a year before a game is actually released, based on nothing more than supposition.

Because every time I see another thread about Anita Sarkeesian, more than half of the comments in it amount to little more than grown men throwing temper tantrums over somebody trying to talk about a subject relevant to their hobbies. Somebody who, I would like to point out, had no sway on the industry in the first place and is only becoming more relevant the more everyone complains and whines about her.

I don't even care about Sarkeesian. I haven't watched any of her videos, and I don't intend to. But seriously, everyone who bitches about her because of reasons? Realize that you're only giving her more power and legitimizing the concerns that she has brought up about sexism in the industry/community.

With you there, shrekfan.

My thoughts on it, 'gamers' don't have much to be constructive about. This is an entertainment medium that, on one hand has us buy games at $60 prime time despite quality, and on the other hand has a falling, but still pretty high barrier of entry when it comes to creating video games (and I think most, if not all fans think of creating a game at some point). So 'gamers' tend to have their own opinions about games, but don't often have an accurate perspective of game design, if at all. Not that this it's wrong to have your own opinion about games, but a lack of the creator's possible perspective SHOULD give you a bit of pause before you blaze that rage-filled trail.

I'm of the perspective that Sarkeesian is in the same boat as gamers. Separate boat, but same make and model. From what I've seen of her main projects, she applies feminist theory directly to game story. That's okay, but as serious as the problems feminism strives to solve, Sarkeesian isn't going to find the root of gender inequality problems by looking at game story, which is pretty heavily influenced by OTHER entertainment mediums (books, movies, etc.). If game story had a trend of consistent novelty, she might have a leg to stand on. But even with a better leg to stand on, she applies her opinions to the games themselves. What does she know about how games are made (especially important since she has an important reason to have a problem over)? She comes off as just another person with an opinion, and I find it a bit disrespectful to not just the craft and art of games, but to even gender inequality issues as well, for the red herring she'd have some chase.

Edit:
So yea, I think (and it is getting easier these days), as uppity as we get about games these days, we really need to know more about how games are developed to better inform ourselves. We get all the news in the world, but this is one area that often seems shrouded in mystery.

 

[frizzlebyte]

You do not necessarily have to LOVE a subject to speak about it.

True, I agree that a lot can change in three years (a common argument for why this doesn't matter). I'm living proof of that. I used to hate writing, but in my late teens (read: not forever) I started a slow transformation, and now I want to make a career of writing. When talking to people about this, I do not say "I have always loved writing, and it was a natural fit to want that as a career." I tell them what a great process of transformation it was and how it filled a hole in my life, because I have always loved reading (which is true) and eventually found that I was good at telling stories.


So, answer this: why does she portray herself as always having loved video games, when that isn't the case? I agree with many of her points, but instead of telling the truth about her experiences, including the fact that she now loves games after having studied them for so long (which is an idea I would buy), she seems to be bending the facts to give herself more credibility.

If I walked in to an accounting office and claimed to have an accounting degree to get a job, even if I had done my job with flying colors for five years before they discovered I had been lying, I would be out on my ear.

That's not an ad hominem attack, that's catching someone's false claims and calling them out for it.

Again, I do not think her arguments are invalid. I think some of them most definitely are. I just think Sarkeesian needs to tell the truth about herself, because lying *does* hurt her credibility.

 

[Kaendris]

Off-Topic: I would like to give a long, slow clap, to everyone that said they were sick of the topic, and yet posted in it 3-4 times. Sick of this topic? Oh no you are not, you are thriving on it. You say you are sick of it but I think it is rather clear that statement is made to make you seem "above the rabble". If you are "sick" of something, find it's purpose useless, you ignore it. You do not run up to it and grind your face on it. Stop posturing, have your argument and be done with it.

On topic: Let's try to make this simple. Does this revelation call her history and individual credibility into question. It can, if you choose to see it that way. Some people will be understanding of the possible reasons for stating that she disliked video games. Some people won't care. Others will.

However, does this make any of her points invalid. No. The only thing that can do that is sound, logical arguments showing evidence to support the counter point. Which from what I understand many feel these have been made. This "thing", by itself, does not dismiss her work. As I stated previously, we may not always enjoy the source of our information. Sometimes we find them distasteful, but if after critical analysis we find their points to be true, the information is still valid.

 

[Tony2077]

there is a difference between pointing out flaws and making them up

 

[EtherealBeaver]

I see no real change in anything with that bad excuse of a decent human being. She claims to make academicly viable research, yet her bias is loud, proud and screaming, she is guilty of manipulating the viewer by showing characters from games she doesnt adress (but who actually work as a counter argument for her very own arguments) just beause they look "scary and manly" and how she has also been caught in a lie. Or another lie, if you consider manipulating the viewer and grossly misrepresenting her material a lie as well.

Not only that, but she has also now been proven to have a strong bias against video games as a whole so it was clearly not objective as she claims it was - yet another lie. Not that that one matters either. She is a fake and it is pretty clear to mostly everyone by now.

Just stop discussing her and she will go away.

BUT, if you really think that there is no problem in the way female characters are portrayed in gaming then you're either blind or know jackshit about characterization.
If all that ruckus will result in increased awareness and developers putting more effort and thought into the female characterization then we all will be better off!
That's it.

There are plenty of games which portray women in different ways - some demeaning some as a hero and the very same can be said for male characters. It is primarily not a matter of companies view on women - it is a matter of what sells. Since costumers buy what they want, and seemingly using what some call sexist portrayal of women, that is what is being made because it sells. If people stopped buying said games, companies would stop making them and publishers would stop funding them.

There are loads of great games out there with strong female proterganists and you are free to play those if you want. The fact that others enjoy something which affects no one else is hardly a concern of you since it doesnt affect you in any way, shape or form - not anymore than what people want to do in their bedroom and unless it is illigal, that is of no-one else´s concern either.

It is a matter of supply and demand as the companies see it. The closest thing you will come to "right or wrong" here is that if companies realise they can get a better public image by doing things in a certain way, they are willing to do it like that to get more costumers or a different clientel with more spending power - or so that they do not have to compete with others in their special branch. This is marketing 010 and Im suprised it doesnt get brought up more often to be frank.

So TL;DR: Dont like it? Dont buy it. It is the only way to get producers to see that some people dont like it and therefore make something else instead - if it is indeed true that it is not just a very vocal minority of course. Personally, I agree that there are more male heroes but I also agree that it is sexist as such because most enemies you kill will also be male so in the greater picture I think it evens out somewhat (not counting those despicaple rapey games of course. Personally I find them sick and that is why I wont support them - because lucky me, then I dont have to play them or look at them. Hurray for consumerism)

 

[zombiejoe]

Alright, I don't have much to say on this topic, as many others have said the exact same things that I would probably say. But I'm just going to throw one thing out there, and don't take this the wrong way, I'm simply trying to add to conversation...but...

If we can dismiss Roger Ebert's argument that video games aren't art because he himself wasn't a "fan of gaming", why is it not the same with Anita?

 

[Kaendris]

I see no real change in anything with that bad excuse of a decent human being. She claims to make academicly viable research, yet her bias is loud, proud and screaming, she is guilty of manipulating the viewer by showing characters from games she doesnt adress (but who actually work as a counter argument for her very own arguments) just beause they look "scary and manly" and how she has also been caught in a lie. Or another lie, if you consider manipulating the viewer and grossly misrepresenting her material a lie as well.

Not only that, but she has also now been proven to have a strong bias against video games as a whole so it was clearly not objective as she claims it was - yet another lie. Not that that one matters either. She is a fake and it is pretty clear to mostly everyone by now.

Just stop discussing her and she will go away.

I will admit, from my point of view, she does seem to be suffering from a significant case of confirmation bias.

I had this issue early in my grad school years. It is a bit harder to spot than people realize as the thought is, "well, I need to support my thesis, so of course that is where my research is going." It can be incredibly unnerving to give a research presentation to a review board and have them shred it with backed counter points that you have never seen.

It was an a very powerful lesson for me, one I am glad I learned, and one I question if Anita has encountered. If I go looking for demons, I will see them.

 

[kaioshade]

You do not necessarily have to LOVE a subject to speak about it.

True, I agree that a lot can change in three years (a common argument for why this doesn't matter). I'm living proof of that. I used to hate writing, but in my late teens (read: not forever) I started a slow transformation, and now I want to make a career of writing. When talking to people about this, I do not say "I have always loved writing, and it was a natural fit to want that as a career." I tell them what a great process of transformation it was and how it filled a hole in my life, because I have always loved reading (which is true) and eventually found that I was good at telling stories.


So, answer this: why does she portray herself as always having loved video games, when that isn't the case? I agree with many of her points, but instead of telling the truth about her experiences, including the fact that she now loves games after having studied them for so long (which is an idea I would buy), she seems to be bending the facts to give herself more credibility.

If I walked in to an accounting office and claimed to have an accounting degree to get a job, even if I had done my job with flying colors for five years before they discovered I had been lying, I would be out on my ear.

That's not an ad hominem attack, that's catching someone's false claims and calling them out for it.

Again, I do not think her arguments are invalid. I think some of them most definitely are. I just think Sarkeesian needs to tell the truth about herself, because lying *does* hurt her credibility.

Well said. I do agree with your assessment of why she claimed the things she has.

Perhaps she sis now see it as outright lying though. I am obviously not in her head, but who knows.

 

[grey_space]

We've already had this thread twice. Both times mods locked them. Its a bullshit argument, and it saddens me that people keep feeling the need to parrot it.

That's a shame. The video itself claims that it's not attempting to incite hatred merely trying to make a point as to her lack of a gamer past.

Doesn't make her points any more or less valid.

 

[EtherealBeaver]

I will admit, from my point of view, she does seem to be suffering from a significant case of confirmation bias.

I had this issue early in my grad school years. It is a bit harder to spot than people realize as the thought is, "well, I need to support my thesis, so of course that is where my research is going." It can be incredibly unnerving to give a research presentation to a review board and have them shred it with backed counter points that you have never seen.

It was an a very powerful lesson for me, one I am glad I learned, and one I question if Anita has encountered. If I go looking for demons, I will see them.

I agree, but that also gives a very real sensation of how important actual academic approach is in these kinds of cases. She clearly has a very strong information bias, she has set her own very real agenda with these videos, she apparantly lied to get more money which in academia is a direct kick out the door, she works from very specifically selected evience but her approach to video editing shows that she is clearly aware of the counterevidence to her thesis, yet she is deciding not to present the counter arguments like a real scholar would do. And she is presenting oppinions instead of facts and numbers. Oh so many oppinions. The problem is that her main viewer base, I think at least, are people without knowledge of scientific approach or knowledge of consumer businss so of course they will be more easily swayed by her emotional language. Unfortunately, her arguments are paper thin and covered in bias and oppinions.

And here comes the rage.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

That's a shame. The video itself claims that it's not attempting to incite hatred merely trying to make a point as to her lack of a gamer past.

Oh I call bullshit on that. The video is MOST DEFINITELY a smear piece. The language throughout is openly hostile. The addition of that sad little disclaimer does nothing to change that. It's like the classic "I don't wanna sound like a racist, but...".

...raveled in bias and oppinions.

Raveled?

 

[EtherealBeaver]

Doesn't make her points any more or less valid.

No that would be the lack of hard data, information bias, lack of credible sources and complete lack of peer review. Those are the things which make her arguments completely invalid.

Raveled?

"Covered in" - as in, the opposite of unraveled