Feminist Frequency Removes Fan Art From Tropes Vs. Women Banner

[Gindil]

Her third video is about how "men are the default," which puts it as a rehash of her opinion from the Bechdel test.

What does that video say about the Bechdel test? Is she claiming she's rehashing the Bechdel test, or are you doing that? If you're the one doing it, then what is your basis for doing so?

The men are default thing is from her Bechdel test and she reused it for Damsel 3. She reuses her old work for each argument. It's not my doing, I'm just pointing out where she got the argument. It doesn't explain her double standard on gender.

Instead of answering the question of how the rescue plot is only sexist when men do it, she sidesteps the issue as indicated by her third video.

And how does she sidestep?

With the whole "men are the default protagonist" of the third video, ignoring any female protagonists and not actually answering the question she presents.

The running to the press for more exposure of her Kickstarter?

Wait, you have proof that she is the one who approached the press and said, "I have a story for you," rather than the press approaching the story?

Yes. That was her approach and it's actually been well documented that she manipulated dissent against her with her staggered launch of her Kickstarter video with her spamming of 4chan. She'd had 1000 backers before she went complaining to the press to get the 7000 followers she got in the end. But this [http://www.feministfrequency.com/2012/06/harassment-misogyny-and-silencing-on-youtube/] was where she started dismissing comments as trolling even though they only made up ~20% of the comments.

The need to hide behind her followers for support?

You have proof she has ever asked, directly or indirectly, her followers to do anything?

Too bad Escapist erased the thread but...

Asking her backers to do her research [http://i.imgur.com/xxr3j.jpg]

The kickstarter "Best/Worst" survey [http://i.imgur.com/e4RgW.jpg]

She hasn't even stood up for her own arguments, opting to pull out a troll comment instead of explain her actions for the past two years.

Is this sentence a reference to some event, and if so, which one?

How she plays the victim card instead of respond to criticism.

Hell, even her apology to Cowkitty was weak when you consider what she was doing with her photo without her permission.

I do not care. I don't believe Cowkitty is particularly owed an explanation even if the use of her image was deliberate; no matter who drew it, it is still an image of Princess Daphne as the video games community perceives her.

And Anita could have thrown CK under the bus with her actions. I don't care if you care. She took a year off from the project and should have crossed the I's and dotted the T's or commissioned a work she owned instead of performing a Google search, stripping the signature and making someone liable for damages if the IP holder came knocking. It was rude, inconsiderate, and unethical. That's the point.

There is a strong chance that Dan Bluth could condemn the photo, leaving Cowkitty as the artist liable for damages since all she wanted to do was create fanart.

I am unaware of any legal basis for what you just said. If you know something I don't, then please point me to the statute you're referring to.

Cowkitty merely wanted to have people enjoy her fanart and yet Anita rudely took off the mark and used it without permission.

You have proof of this?

Look at her posts.

There's no validity to her "nine seconds a woman is beaten" claim.

Why not? Is her source untrustworthy? Did it use faulty methodology to arrive at its conclusion?

First of all, this is the same as Hillary Clinton claiming that video games cause violence.

So what Anita Sarkeesian said is untrue because someone who is not Anita Sarkeesian said something completely different that is not proven to be true? Crap.

The hell you going on about? She's making the same argument as politician Hillary Clinton without evidence to support it. There's no correlation of violence in the real world and violence in media yet Anita makes that point. That's what's crap.

Look at her version of Zelda and Link. Ignore this article and look at the first picture [http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/games/blogs/screenplay/tuesday-newsday-feminist-gamers-and-failed-kickstarters-20130312-2fww8.html].

"Ignore the content of the argument and look at the picture" is an extremely literal translation of "Don't read the book, just look at the cover and agree with me that the book is therefore bad." No, thank you.

I don't care if you read the article or not. My point was about the picture in question which shows Zelda and Toadstool. If you want to read it, read it. It's irrelevant to the picture that I found of what I wanted to talk about. That's just petty...

Anita contradicts herself with her own argument from Damsels. She gives herself and her "creations" more makeup and jewelry while complaining about such things.

Ah, yes, the old, "Women who wear makeup aren't allowed to be feminists" argument.

Ah yes... The "men wear makeup in video games while Anita's being hypocritical" argument. Not like you'd know anything about that eh?

Meanwhile, the perfect Miss Male Character exists in the Nintendo-verse in Daisy, Impa, Karane, and a few others.

I don't think you know what "Miss Male Character" means. Which male character is Daisy a female version of? Which male character is Impa a female version of? Which male character is Karane a female version of?

You mean the Distaff Counterpart?

Um, no, I don't. You did not say "Distaff Counterpart." You said "Miss Male Character." Why are you bringing up this new thing now? Are you trying to change the subject?

No. That's what the Trope actually is and Anita's argument fits those. You didn't know about those tropes?

Daisy is a counterpart of Peach, showing a more tomboyish side to Peach's girlishness.

Has Daisy ever been a character in a story-based game other than the Mario game for the very first Gameboy, where she was a kidnapped princess needing to be rescued by Mario? If not, then what the hell does this have to do with anything? Are you arguing that her having a slightly more boisterous voice track than Peach's on a Mario Party game is equivalent to actually doing something?

It sure as shit is since she's been doing something right in her kingdom to not get kidnapped more than once. Or do you have a reason for ignoring her?

Impa is the Distaff of Zelda, who has had various iterations and has always been a mainstay of Zelda games.

Um, either you are using some specific slang term here that I don't know, or else you don't know what "distaff" means. It refers either to a part of a spinning wheel for weaving, or else to a thing that is female in nature. How is Impa a female Zelda? Isn't Zelda a female Zelda?

Except when she's Sheik, then she's a great character, right? *rolls eyes* Impa shows a lot of different character traits that Zelda doesn't embody. I thought you'd know that just like Mario and Luigi are different Distaffs of each other (even if they're guys...) the same can happen for females too with Zelda and Impa embodying different traits.

Karane is a distaff of Link with a less "sexist" version of dress than what Anita came up with.

I don't know whom Karane is. Can you explain that to me?

http://zeldawiki.org/Karane

 

[Gindil]

Oh gosh, it's another topic where JimB and Gindil continues to defend this woman in light of every single thing she's done so far being pretty misguided and flawed.

What a surprise.


We get it, you like her more than you like logic itself, but, jesus man, give it a rest.

The hell did I do? I don't defend Anita. JimB just loves to Leroy Jenkins for her. Hell, I barely come in except to read a few stories, drink a spot of tea and show the problems of his argument.

;_;

 

[The Lunatic]

Oh gosh, it's another topic where JimB and Gindil continues to defend this woman in light of every single thing she's done so far being pretty misguided and flawed.

What a surprise.


We get it, you like her more than you like logic itself, but, jesus man, give it a rest.

The hell did I do? I don't defend Anita. JimB just loves to Leroy Jenkins for her. Hell, I barely come in except to read a few stories, drink a spot of tea and show the problems of his argument.

;_;

Yeah, not actually sure why I mentioned you.

I think I've just seen you in this kinda thread before.

Not that I particularly care what people like JimB do, but, when 90% of the threads are one guy responding almost incoherently and completely devoid of logic, it gets a bit tiresome.

I mean, this thread has come up many times, the points raised about how she played public opinion, how she's often wrong, fails to cite sources, rips other people's content, etc, etc.

He just pretends they're new every time and never actually gets around to addressing any of the points with much other than opinion.

 

[Gindil]

Oh gosh, it's another topic where JimB and Gindil continues to defend this woman in light of every single thing she's done so far being pretty misguided and flawed.

What a surprise.


We get it, you like her more than you like logic itself, but, jesus man, give it a rest.

The hell did I do? I don't defend Anita. JimB just loves to Leroy Jenkins for her. Hell, I barely come in except to read a few stories, drink a spot of tea and show the problems of his argument.

;_;

Yeah, not actually sure why I mentioned you.

I think I've just seen you in this kinda thread before.

Not that I particularly care what people like JimB do, but, when 90% of the threads are one guy responding almost incoherently and completely devoid of logic, it gets a bit tiresome.

I mean, this thread has come up many times, the points raised about how she played public opinion, how she's often wrong, fails to cite sources, rips other people's content, etc, etc.

He just pretends they're new every time and never actually gets around to addressing any of the points with much other than opinion.

Yeah, that was my first comment and he acted as if that was hard to follow. Kind of funny that his logic breaks down as soon as someone points out the contradictions in Anita. But yeah, it's time to move on from this because he's going to act even more obtuse thanks to his responses trying to act as if Anita has never asked her backers to do research, was incredibly late for no reason, has a double standard based on gender, has a creationist method of research, makes her out to be a hypocrite...

Yeah, why he is still following her is a massive mystery to me...

 

[JimB]

If I felt something was a viable threat, I would inform the authorities and actually be vigilant to see if that threat came to pass. But I wouldn't be showing it off at every opportunity because if the threat is still in any way viable, I don't want it known to others.

What about an Amber Alert? Does informing the public of a child reported kidnapped mean the authorities don't think the child is in legitimate danger?

There was an interview where a statement was read by the interviewer, the statement made by the guy who made the game, where after she says "It was not a threat," Anita laughs.

I can think of a couple of different ways to take that, but okay.

Dunno. I don't know who those other people are.

So, it's okay to make beat up games about various people, the overwhelming majority being men, famous or not (remember that part, the or not)... but it is sexist, misogynistic, etc. to make one about Anita?

Oh, stop it. You asked if unnamed people I don't know should be afraid of what a game means, and you did so after providing a list of people who have Secret Service-level protection. All I said is I don't know the people you're talking about; therefore, I don't know the level of security they have available and can't answer the question you asked, as opposed to what seems to be a secret question hidden inside the question you actually asked.

You seem to think she didn't [spam 4chan, etc.) and doesn't still want that sort of response coming to her.

I think that if you're going to publicly level accusations against someone, then it is incumbent upon you to be able to prove your accusations; particularly when you use those unproven accusations as justification for punitive measures. What you propose is very little different to me from telling a jury, "We cannot prove the defendant actually fired the weapon that killed the victim, but we know she didn't like him (though that motivation can be applied to thousands of people, really, but never mind), so let's send her to jail. She probably deserves it."

Perhaps you have another theory as to why she let that video have open comments when all her previous ones were moderated (one of her own videos she even talks about the fact she moderates comments, so straight from the horse's mouth as the saying goes)?

Looking at her videos, the difference between them is the one you're talking about was a public request for funds. Maybe she thought people deserved to be able to contact her. Dunno.

Anita from her TEDxWomen talk and other interviews at the same time: I've been a gamer all my life. I love video games.
Anita from 2010 or so in the now infamous 'I'm not a gamer' video: I'm not a gamer. I don't like video games In fact, I had to learn a lot about video games before making this video.
The Internet: I thought you were a lifelong gamer?
Anita's only response (a tweet): I took a break from gaming.
Anita's supporters: Yeah! She's still been a gamer all her life! Leave her alone!

I wouldn't feel bad about saying I've been into comics all my life, even though there was a period in...I don't know, the late nineties or the early aughts (I'm bad with time periods) when I wasn't reading comics because every writer I liked at DC had left, Marvel was doing stupid spectacle-driven bullshit like the Spider-Clone Saga, Image was being Image as its creators had conceived it and was juvenile and tacky, Dark Horse hadn't found its own voice...my point is, I didn't like anything out at the time and Brian Michael Bendis hadn't come around yet to draw me back into comics, so I wasn't picking up any books, even though I was at least peripherally aware of what was going on. Still had my subscription to Wizard Magazine and everything.

So, I'll ask seriously: Why is she allowed to make contradictory statements and when taken to task for saying them, is she allowed to casually throw off the criticism and her followers (and the gaming media) decide it's perfectly fine she said both and that she is still incorruptible in their eyes?

I will not speak for anyone other than myself, so if you want to know why her followers and the gaming media do things, you'll have to ask them. For my part, I forgive the "contradiction" about being a gamer because I think a person's life and personality encompasses enough contradictions that we can expect a categorically untrue statement like "I've been a gamer all my life" to be categorically untrue because unless she plopped out of her mom's womb with a controller in hand, she has obviously exaggerated the length of time she's been a gamer. If she wants to consider herself a life-long gamer despite having broken up with gaming at some point in her history, that's fine with me; I do the same thing with my stance on comics.

Also, you are dodging the question. Do you or do you not think it is fair for people to know when someone has made public, harassing statements on Twitter? Do you think those people deserve special protection or anonymity for their actions?

Even if everyone else is allowed to be recorded, once she takes the stage if any recording equipment is being used that person is forcibly ejected. But, since she seems to be just retelling the story of Anita vs. the Big Bad Internet, that it's been about her and nothing else.

So you haven't seen a recording of one of these events or been to one? Then how do you know what they're about?

Literally speaking, though, it doesn't include Sabre in the task at hand, either; does it?

No, but since she's not talking about him, so what? It's the job of every tire on my car to stay inflated so I can drive places, but I am probably only going to talk about the one that's flat.

I'm sorry, which part of:

As development on the project neared completion, legendary game-designer Shigeru Miyamoto joked about how he thought it should be the 3rd installment in his Star Fox franchise instead. Over the next two years he and Nintendo did just that.

isn't implying direct causation?

That's a nearly impossible question to answer. It's more on you to point out which part is. I mean, I could talk about how in 2001, the Twin Towers fell and I broke up with my first girlfriend, but there's no causation either stated or implied (or, for the record, real). They're just things that happened in sequence.

What exactly is your complaint, UncleThursday? Are you saying the things she says are untrue, or are you saying they're true but don't count?

That she simply doesn't know how to do research.

Uhhhhh huh. Okay. So you don't think she's wrong, you're just mad because she said something that isn't wrong but that you think makes her seem unfairly smart. She can say true things if she wants, but only if she appends each such statement with an asterisk about how she's too dumb to have found that out for herself even though it can be proven she found that out.

Right. I don't think I have it in me to keep doing this.

 

[JimB]

Yeah, why he is still following her is a massive mystery to me...

I had the usual line-by-line response typed out to your previous post, the one actually addressed to me, but I deleted it when I read this. I wish I'd noticed this post sooner, actually, because it would have saved me a lot of time, since everything I need to know about what you're doing here is encapsulated in it. You don't understand why I'm doing what I'm doing, and do you know why not? Because you never asked, and the only reason you wouldn't ask the question is that you don't care what the answer is. You are not interested in actually exchanging ideas and information (which I should have guessed earlier on from the way you refuse to provide any context for the things you say, like "Look at her posts:" whose posts? Where are they? Where am I to be looking?), not in any kind of discussion in good faith or even a debate in that same spirit, but only in taking opportunities to congratulate yourself on your own self-apparent wisdom you refuse to share with anyone.

If in the future you find yourself looking for another excuse to declare your superiority to the internet, please leave me out of it. It's fucking offensive.

 

[JimB]

JimB, so you say you're here in this thread basically just to annoy us.

No, I didn't, and I think you must know that or else you'd have actually quoted me saying so.

 

[Gindil]

Yeah, why he is still following her is a massive mystery to me...

I had the usual line-by-line response typed out to your previous post, the one actually addressed to me, but I deleted it when I read this. I wish I'd noticed this post sooner, actually, because it would have saved me a lot of time, since everything I need to know about what you're doing here is encapsulated in it. You don't understand why I'm doing what I'm doing, and do you know why not? Because you never asked, and the only reason you wouldn't ask the question is that you don't care what the answer is. You are not interested in actually exchanging ideas and information (which I should have guessed earlier on from the way you refuse to provide any context for the things you say, like "Look at her posts:" whose posts? Where are they? Where am I to be looking?), not in any kind of discussion in good faith or even a debate in that same spirit, but only in taking opportunities to congratulate yourself on your own self-apparent wisdom you refuse to share with anyone.

If in the future you find yourself looking for another excuse to declare your superiority to the internet, please leave me out of it. It's fucking offensive.

I pointed out your hypocrisy and what you did before was dishonest anyway. You don't exchange ideas, you just stick to your own guns, which you've done since this started. You intentionally ignored my comment before and acted as if I said something that wasn't part of your behavior before.

So I'm not going to get mad over your own bad behavior and hypocrisy. There's been plenty of people saying the same thing and you do the Same. Damn. Thing to them. That's not my doing, that's your choice.

This isn't about me feeling some superiority. It's just because I know the girl is dishonest in everything she did and you don't want to acknowledge that. *shrug* You can lead the horse to water and all.

 

[JimB]

sigh

This is probably pretty close to crossing a line of the terms of use, but I'm going to take a chance and do something to try to point out how supremely frustrating it is to try to talk to you, Gindil. I wish I could honestly say I have some hope it will convince you to try treating people with respect when you talk to them, but really, I'm pretty much convinced you only want to level charges so vague there's no defense against them in order to try to look authoritative. At this point I'm just doing it because I think it does a disservice to all people when crap is allowed to pass unchallenged.

I pointed out your hypocrisy.

Because you refuse to provide any specificity in your accusation, I do not know what you are decrying as hypocrisy, so I cannot respond to anything you just said.

What you did before was dishonest anyway.

Because you refuse to provide any specificity in any of your accusations, I do not know which action and/or statement you are referring to, nor the time frame you say it occurred in, so I cannot respond to anything you just said.

You intentionally ignored my comment before.

Because you refuse to provide any specificity in your accusations, I do not know which comment you are accusing me of ignoring, so I cannot respond to anything you just said.

[You] acted as if I said something that wasn't part of your behavior before.

Because you refuse to provide any specificity in your accusations, I do not know which of your comments or my behaviors you are referring to, so I cannot respond to anything you just said.

There's been plenty of people saying the same thing and you do the same.

Because you refuse to provide any specificity in your accusations, I do not know which people you are referring to, what thing they are all saying, or what thing I am saying, so I cannot respond to anything you just said.

Damn. Thing to them.

Because this sequence of words is gibberish, I cannot respond to anything you just said.

That's not my doing, that's your choice.

Because you refuse to provide any specificity in your accusations, I do not know what either the first or the second "that" are, so I cannot respond to anything you just said.

There are four sentences in your post which contain enough internal coherency that I could have responded to them, but it seemed dishonest to try to respond to them as if they made sense in the greater context of your post, so I didn't.

 

[Gindil]

sigh

This is probably pretty close to crossing a line of the terms of use, but I'm going to take a chance and do something to try to point out how supremely frustrating it is to try to talk to you, Gindil. I wish I could honestly say I have some hope it will convince you to try treating people with respect when you talk to them, but really, I'm pretty much convinced you only want to level charges so vague there's no defense against them in order to try to look authoritative. At this point I'm just doing it because I think it does a disservice to all people when crap is allowed to pass unchallenged.

"Do unto others as you would do unto you"

That's what I live by. I point out YOUR actions because this is a two year old topic Jim. We've had this battle before this topic and Anita hasn't changed her behavior. You're free to point out anything you want about me. Hell, look at my past and see if I've contradicted myself. But don't sit here and act all offended at me. I don't care about your feelings. I care if your argument has basic logic. When it comes to Anita, it's pretty indefensible and you play the coy card way too often. If I wanted to be "authoritative" I wouldn't sit here and call out Anita's bad behavior. She has harsh accusations and yet you think the critics are the problem? *shrug*

I pointed out your hypocrisy.

Because you refuse to provide any specificity in your accusation, I do not know what you are decrying as hypocrisy, so I cannot respond to anything you just said.

Bullshit. As stated, this is a two year old topic and you have to be told repeatedly on this stuff as if you've never experienced it before. You were told about Dinosaur Planet how many times now and yet you're still playing obtuse with Ubergott on the top of page 6? You were there in the first few TvW threads, Jim. You should know this stuff by now. And yet you still just want to say with your fingers in your ears "Lalala, can't hear you."

I swear the Seattle Seahawks don't have a better defense than Anita for people that don't know the games she's wildly accusing of sexism...

What you did before was dishonest anyway.

Because you refuse to provide any specificity in any of your accusations, I do not know which action and/or statement you are referring to, nor the time frame you say it occurred in, so I cannot respond to anything you just said.

And that's why you shouldn't parse sentences and read everything.

You intentionally ignored my comment before.

Because you refuse to provide any specificity in your accusations, I do not know which comment you are accusing me of ignoring, so I cannot respond to anything you just said.

And that's why you shouldn't parse sentences and read everything.

[You] acted as if I said something that wasn't part of your behavior before.

Because you refuse to provide any specificity in your accusations, I do not know which of your comments or my behaviors you are referring to, so I cannot respond to anything you just said.

And that's why you shouldn't parse sentences and read everything.

There's been plenty of people saying the same thing and you do the same.

Because you refuse to provide any specificity in your accusations, I do not know which people you are referring to, what thing they are all saying, or what thing I am saying, so I cannot respond to anything you just said.

And that's why you shouldn't parse sentences and read everything.

Damn. Thing to them.

Because this sequence of words is gibberish, I cannot respond to anything you just said.

And that's why you shouldn't parse sentences and read everything.

That's not my doing, that's your choice.

Because you refuse to provide any specificity in your accusations, I do not know what either the first or the second "that" are, so I cannot respond to anything you just said.

And that's why you shouldn't parse sentences and read everything.

There are four sentences in your post which contain enough internal coherency that I could have responded to them, but it seemed dishonest to try to respond to them as if they made sense in the greater context of your post, so I didn't.

Context matters and you've ignored it just to do what I called out before in the most obnoxious manner possible. You have now shown that you're willing to use very annoying debate tactics where you ignore context and content similar to Anita just to support your argument. You have my pity.

*shrug*

 

[JimB]

"Do unto others as you would do unto you"

That's what I live by.

So...you're spouting unintelligible gibberish at me because it's what you want others to respond to you?

You're free to point out anything you want about me.

Heh. Thank you for pointing out to me that I am allowed to exercise a freedom that I have been exercising all this time and that you cannot take away from me. I am humbled by the depths of your magnanimity.

Don't sit here and act all offended at me.

Then don't offend me.

I care if your argument has basic logic.

I do not believe what you just said is true. I think you care if my argument is in agreement with yours. If you were actually trying to change any minds, whether mine or those of people in the audience, you would bother to actually support your arguments with citations and examples, which you don't. As far as I can tell, you just declare yourself right with unintelligible nonsense that seems designed to make sure no one can respond to it meaningfully so you will get in the last word.

She has harsh accusations and yet you think the critics are the problem?

Depends. The problem with what?

As stated, this is a two year old topic and you have to be told repeatedly on this stuff as if you've never experienced it before.

And as I stated, I can't understand you because your use of English is inimical to my ability to understand. I have only the vaguest guesses as to what you're talking about (I'm a hypocrite because I think feminists are allowed to wear make-up but boys wear makeup in SNK games? What?).

You were told about Dinosaur Planet how many times now?

Many times. I still think most of those are attempts to shift the goalposts away from Krystal and, by extension, female characters in gaming to make the conversation be about male characters in gaming.

Yet you're still playing obtuse with Ubergott on the top of page 6?

No, but thank you for asking.

You were there in the first few Tropes vs. Women threads, Jim. You should know this stuff by now.

I would find this argument compelling if anything you have said to me had been about Tropes vs. Women instead of about me. "You read a thread about videos you haven't watched in a year, so you should know what I think about you" is lunacy at best, and transparent crap at worst.

And yet you still just want to say with your fingers in your ears "La la la, can't hear you."

Please note that my last post addressed to you contains eight distinct instances of me asking you to explain what the hell you're talking about, whereas your last post to me contains nothing but mockery of me in place of actually explaining what you're talking about so I might actually understand what you claim I'm trying to ignore.

You have my pity.

No, I don't. What I have are more of the same: declarations that you've won, made in such a fashion as to try to shut down rather than enhance conversation, delivered with a completely false sense of beneficence. It's just clumsy manipulation, and I hope you don't think you're fooling anyone.