Feminist Frequency Removes Fan Art From Tropes Vs. Women Banner

[UncleThursday]

So your concern is nothing for the victims of this fraud, but for the videos you've been promised that you haven't yet been given?

I suppose you could say my 'concern' is why she gets a free pass for not pulling through in a reasonable amount of time the videos she promised to the backers; of which, I was not one. Because people were mean to her on the internet? Because she claimed misogyny against her (an oxymoron, really, since misogyny cannot be against a sole woman, it is the general hatred of all women and girls not just a single woman). Is it because she made herself the face of feminism in gaming, much to the chagrin of many female gamers out there who don't share her ideals and/or problems in gaming culture? Hell, she gets more security than the damn president or pope when she does a speaking engagement, it seems; even if every other speaker can be recorded for any purpose, you damn well better turn that shit off when she is on stage... because... reasons?

She's put herself in an ivory tower, where she is free to disregard any criticism, even valid criticism, as merely people hating on her and trying to shut her up; and her followers and fans put her on a pedestal so high God couldn't even touch it and agree that no criticism, again even valid criticism, should be levied against her.

So far her videos have been anything but insightful. The research, as I said, is piss poor and barely worthy of a high school student, let alone someone who has a master's degree. The amount of time between them is laughable, considering with the poor research and such she could have filmed them all in a day. But, no, Saint Sarkeesian is beyond reproach; and even gaming media seems to throw itself at her feet like she is some all powerful deity with whom they need to cull favor.

Do you have sources for these accusations?

They don't exactly publish the newer questions for all to see. I go on what I know from women in colleges who have seen them and mostly laugh about some of the questions.

Older studies, like the first one done by Mary Koss as well as a later study by Dr. Dean Kilpatrick of the Crime Victims Research and Treatment Center at the Medical School of South Carolina are easier to find. The much shorter questionnaire (10 questions) also had an ambiguous question in them involving alcohol and drug use, which Ms. Koss defended for years before finally admitting the question could have been worded better for more definitive answers.

However, her study, if one can call it that, had another layer of ambiguousness to it, where the people asking the survey questions (this was done over the phone) were allowed to make their own judgement on if something was a rape or attempted rape based on Koss' definition of it. Which is how that particular one came up with 27% of women surveyed either were raped or had attempted rape against them. The 1 in 4 study.

Any answer to the last three questions in the affirmative was considered a rape. To be fair, the last two were hardly ambiguous, as they specifically mentioned threats of or actual violence used against the woman to procure sex. The only ambiguous one involved the use of drugs or alcohol that may have eventually led to sex. While alcohol and drugs can lower inhibitions, it left it very open ended... how much was there? Was it a dingle drink (and unless you're a two-beer-queer a single drink shouldn't do that much to your judgement)? Was it enough to have the woman pass out? There's no way to tell by the question in how it is worded.

The study by Kilpatrick is also known as the 1 in 8 study, which also had an ambiguous question. Ironically, Kilpatrick had done a previous study where he found lower numbers, 1 in 20, but that study got very little notice. The 1 in 8 study, though, got him a lot of media attention and probably more grants to do more studies.

So, here we see an issue. The studies which put the rape statistics at epidemic levels... well, they get lots of attention. They make the media rounds. They give gender feminists the ammo they need to push whatever agenda for whatever branch of feminism they support (seriously, they're as bad as Christians with how many sects there are of feminism). Studies that report much lower numbers, as high as 1 in 17 or as 'low' as 1 in 50 (both still relatively high, mind you, but not high enough for gender feminists) get lambasted by gender feminists as being inaccurate; and they don't get any real media coverage.

Sensationalism sells. Sensationalism also helps advocacy groups, like gender feminists. By touting very high numbers for whatever project/cause someone is advocating, they make it appear to be the right thing. It gets them money to work on it. It's what allows gender feminists to have rape centers built on college campuses, when there is already a rape center two freaking blocks off campus.

There's a lot of money in it. RAINN's goals are admirable, in theory. However, RAINN knows it has to use the far more epidemic level statistics done in advocacy sponsored studies in order to keep the money coming in. If RAINN was to use a study that said rape was as low as 2% (1 in 50), then the donations would start drying up, because many donators would assume that RAINN had done it's job and helped get awareness and reduce the rape statistics.

Think of it like career politicians who never really get anything done. Why do they never get what they promised done? Because then they wouldn't get reelected because their voters would not have a reason to keep them in office. In order to stay in office, they have to constantly be 'working' on some campaign promise and keep telling voters they're doing their best to get it done; and thus keep getting reelected into their cushy government job with lobbyist money rolling in.

It's like I said about race relations. If suddenly, gender feminists got everything they wanted... what would thy then do? How would they get the money to support their no longer needed rape and battered women shelters (a billion+ dollar industry between government and private grants right now)? How would they get themselves in front of the media proclaiming how bad it is for white middle class women in America (the second lowest, statistically, to be raped or otherwise sexually assaulted or victims of domestic violence, just under white upper class women)? They want things to stay just as they are and inflate whatever statistics they can to keep that money and media attention rolling in.

I don't think rape gets prosecuted on the federal level very often, so the federal definition is generally less useful or relevant than a state's definition. That is not to say the statutes aren't often horribly worded.

Rape, like murder, is a capitol offense. US Marshals and the FBI can be sent out looking for accused or convicted rapists. Thus, while it might not be prosecuted on a federal level, the federal law enforcement agencies getting involved means there is no worry about states crossing into each other's jurisdictions.

What is that alarming number, just out of curiosity?

Close to a thousand over the past 30 years. Some being cleared by DNA evidence, others when their accuser recants. Some, like Biurny Peguero, only recanted after the defense got a new DNA test done that showed the bite marks she claimed came from her rapist only contained female DNA, not male. Her reason for lying? To make her friends feel sorry for her. She got 1-3 years for perjury... her now exonerated accused rapist had already served 5 years.

What is your point here, exactly? That some men get falsely accused, so we shouldn't worry about all the rapes that do happen, because they're karmic retribution against lying women?

No, that society needs to stop drinking the all men are rapists and women never lie about rape Kool Aid and get real. Proper investigations need to happen. As of now, accused rapists get their names and faces and sometimes addresses plastered all over the local media, while the accuser is shielded. They are treated by the police and the court of public opinion as guilty until proven innocent... and even then the general public of the area might still consider them a rapist. Even in situations where it never gets to court before it is found out the woman is lying, the man's life is often already ruined. Loss of job, ostracized from the community, sometimes physically beaten by members of the community. And, for what? Because some woman wanted revenge/money/sympathy/media attention and wasn't above ruining some guy's life to do it? Because we're all supposed to believe, outright and without any question whatsoever, when a woman claims rape--simply because gender feminists say it should be that way?

Technology has improved. Medical examinations can tell if the woman has even had sexual intercourse within a few hours if it is reported immediately. Rape kits can gather DNA evidence when done quickly. However, that doesn't mean an investigation should stop there. Someone looking for revenge/whatever could consent and then still claim rape and have all the physical evidence ready to make it appear to be rape. The investigation needs to be thorough before anything goes public.

Happened to a friend of my brother's at college. An ex girlfriend was bitter about the breakup, so she concocted a plan to get revenge with a friend of hers from back home. Had the friend come down, meet up with him at a bar he frequented (he didn't know the friend), she slept with him, then the next day claimed rape. Even though the investigation finally showed the plan's concoction, etc. the guy STILL had to move across the country to get away from the stigma. He STILL had to go to a different school. Etc. All because of a bitter ex girlfriend knowing just getting him accused of rape could completely ruin his life.

Opponents of the death penalty always say, even one innocent man put to death is too many. So, how many is too many for false rape allegations without thorough investigations? I'm not saying assume the woman is lying, but don't just assume she is telling the truth, either. The investigations need to happen and be thorough. Otherwise it just turns into a witch hunt.

Ask any man which crime he'd rather be accused of; murder or rape? Pretty much every single one will say murder, because you aren't instantly guilty until proven innocent of murder; just rape.

No.

Then you've been drinking the Kool Aid. You do realize, Jim, that as a male, you are a potential rapist by drinking that Kool Aid? That every male is a potential rapist? That every male is just waiting for some opportunity to beat the shit out of some poor defenseless woman, then have his way sexually with her and then flaunt his patriarchal power over her for the rest of her life? If you're white and middle class, you're the fucking devil incarnate to the gender feminists that have been feeding you that Kool Aid.

Hope you can live with the knowledge that no matter how much you support the gender feminist ideals and support their advocated studies, that they'll always look at you as just some walking violent rape machine waiting to snap.

If you want to look at it that way, the question was rendered moot the moment FF removed it from the Tropes vs. Women banner. But there have been suggestions that FF could/should have paid Gray for the time it did use the image in its banner, which makes it relevant.

I believe those suggestions were coming from people other than Tamara, not Tamara herself. Hence why she was looking for proof of non-profit status, because she didn't want any of the potential legal issues that could come from her fanart being used in a for profit venture, even if she didn't offer the fanart to the venture.

 

[JimB]

I suppose you could say my 'concern' is why she gets a free pass for not pulling through in a reasonable amount of time the videos she promised to the backers; of which, I was not one.

So...you don't care about the victims, nor care because the product affects you in any meaningful way, which means your problem is...what, principle? Any time you hear about anyone who doesn't deliver a product in a timely fashion, you go online and start criticizing him?

Do you have sources for these accusations?

They don't exactly publish the newer questions for all to see. I go on what I know from women in colleges who have seen them and mostly laugh about some of the questions.

Then no, you don't have sources, and are making shit up. I'm actually sorry to dismiss it like that, since you have clearly put some effort into this, but that doesn't change that you are using your own imagination as a source for making specific accusations about a study whose contents you do not know.

Rape, like murder, is a capitol offense. US Marshals and the FBI can be sent out looking for accused or convicted rapists. Thus, while it might not be prosecuted on a federal level, the federal law enforcement agencies getting involved means there is no worry about states crossing into each other's jurisdictions.

It can happen, but it so very rarely does.

What is that alarming number [of men falsely convicted of rape], just out of curiosity?

Close to a thousand over the past thirty years.

Any false imprisonment is a tragedy at best and a travesty at worst, but "close to" a thousand in thirty years? That's, what, one man every two weeks? Any idea how many people are falsely convicted of any other crime in that same time period? I don't mean to trivialize the actual instances of anyone being falsely imprisoned; I'm just wondering if you're opposed to any false imprisonment or if it's only men who get accused of rape that bothers you.

Society needs to stop drinking the all-men-are-rapists-and-women-never-lie-about-rape Kool-Aid and get real.

And a need for more rigorous criminal investigations is specific to rape accusations?

Medical examinations can tell if the woman has even had sexual intercourse within a few hours if it is reported immediately. Rape kits can gather DNA evidence when done quickly.

I don't think it's reasonable to expect rape victims to submit to medical examinations "quickly," let alone "within a few hours."

Happened to a friend of my brother's at college.

The singular of "data" is "datum," not "anecdote." I'm not going to present a story about a friend of mine who was institutionalized and raped by an employee who used her illness to put her on trial as proof of some epidemic, and I'll thank you to avoid the same with a third-hand story about someone you don't even seem to know.

You do realize, Jim, that as a male, you are a potential rapist by drinking that Kool-Aid? That every male is a potential rapist? That every male is just waiting for some opportunity to beat the shit out of some poor defenseless woman, then have his way sexually with her and then flaunt his patriarchal power over her for the rest of her life? If you're white and middle class, you're the fucking devil incarnate to the gender feminists that have been feeding you that Kool-Aid.

I do not care about the opinions of anyone who actually thinks any of that paranoid bullshit, and I'm certainly not interested in winning the approval of such people. Nor am I frightened by the idea that someone who has a completely irrational reason to fear and hate me will do so if I support them, since such people are going to fear and hate me no matter what I do.

Hope you can live with the knowledge that no matter how much you support the gender feminist ideals and support their advocated studies, that they'll always look at you as just some walking violent rape machine waiting to snap.

Yes, I am perfectly sanguine with the idea that there are people who benefit from my efforts who do not like me. I think anyone who has ever been a member of a family unit has probably been exposed to that idea often enough to be desensitized to it.

 

[UncleThursday]

So...you don't care about the victims, nor care because the product affects you in any meaningful way, which means your problem is...what, principle? Any time you hear about anyone who doesn't deliver a product in a timely fashion, you go online and start criticizing him?

There technically are no 'victims' here. It's not some Ponzi Scheme or anything like that. The people who did give money were not 'investors' in anything. They were donators according to Kickstarter. However, the issue of the money, what was done with it, etc. is an issue that no one has any sort of legal right to question, even if they did donate (having the right to just question it on principal is anyone's right). But, this is more of an issue of accountability on Kickstarter projects that you keep bring up. There is no accountability on Kickstarter. Even if the project is funded, the funded project is in no way held accountable for actually producing anything. People 'donated' they didn't 'invest'. Investors have a legal right to sue if things aren't delivered; donators do not.

Still, I've yet to hear anything about my problems with her 'holier than the rest of the fucking planet and no one can criticize me or they're a misogynistic bigot who wants me to shut up and rape me and kill me' attitudes and those of her followers and the gaming media. Also, you haven't even commented on my problems with her supposed research into the subject matter.

Then no, you don't have sources, and are making shit up. I'm actually sorry to dismiss it like that, since you have clearly put some effort into this, but that doesn't change that you are using your own imagination as a source for making specific accusations about a study whose contents you do not know.

You can dismiss that, then, since I did attempt to find said questionnaires, but couldn't. The best was always names that did the studies, didn't publish any of the questions used, just the results. The Koss and Kilpatrick, studies, however, are fairly easy to look up and decide for yourself if their methodology is flawed or not. This is especially true to look at in the Koss study, since it wasn't a scientific study, but one done for Ms. Magazine... but is still very often cited by gender feminists.

I did find this http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19126832 which looks to be discussing the questions used, but all the links that you would think take you to the actual report just take you back to the summary page. Typical of government websites, I think.

It can happen, but it so very rarely does.

Did happen in a false rape case, though. Girl accused a guy she knew was living in another state of rape after being caught watching porn by her parents (she thought the cops wouldn't go after him), he had the feds arresting him the next day. 15 years in jail before she finally recanted.

Any false imprisonment is a tragedy at best and a travesty at worst, but "close to" a thousand in thirty years? That's, what, one man every two weeks? Any idea how many people are falsely convicted of any other crime in that same time period? I don't mean to trivialize the actual instances of anyone being falsely imprisoned; I'm just wondering if you're opposed to any false imprisonment or if it's only men who get accused of rape that bothers you.

Other offenses bother me, too. False murder, burglary, etc. Another near 2k murder convictions were overturned for various reasons, most often DNA evidence, since 1992 or so. Unfortunately, in many of those and the false rape cases, the people in prison had already spent better than 15 years in jail. There have been plenty of false robbery convictions, but most of them will hardly be overturned because of grainy as fuck surveillance video that has someone who looks roughly like the guy convicted as the perpetrator and that is enough to make the appeals process hard.

I'm also not a fan of mandatory minimum sentencing for minor drug offenses, especially pot, since that shit shouldn't even be illegal anyway and was really only made so to make DuPont and his friends very wealthy.

That said, I'm not against the death penalty, but only in cases where there is incontrovertible proof. That would, obviously, be hard in many death penalty cases, but there are a few where the proof is irrefutable (like the person was caught red handed).

And a need for more rigorous criminal investigations is specific to rape accusations?

No. But in no other type of criminal trial are you presumed guilty until proven innocent. In all others, the state has to prove you guilty, in a rape case, you have to prove your innocence. That's not how the law works. The presumption of innocence goes completely out the window in rape cases. All the state has to do is say 'she said he did it' and that's it, for the most part.

I don't think it's reasonable to expect rape victims to submit to medical examinations "quickly," let alone "within a few hours."

It might not always be reasonable. However, for any real evidence to be collected, it has to happen sooner rather than later. Even TV shows try to get that across now, like SVU and CSI. Then again, CSI makes Las Vegas look like the biggest murder capital in the world and SVU makes NYC seem like it is filled with nothing but rapists.

The singular of "data" is "datum," not "anecdote." I'm not going to present a story about a friend of mine who was institutionalized and raped by an employee who used her illness to put her on trial as proof of some epidemic, and I'll thank you to avoid the same with a third-hand story about someone you don't even seem to know.

Fair enough.

I do not care about the opinions of anyone who actually thinks any of that paranoid bullshit, and I'm certainly not interested in winning the approval of such people. Nor am I frightened by the idea that someone who has a completely irrational reason to fear and hate me will do so if I support them, since such people are going to fear and hate me no matter what I do.

Did you just use logic in a discussion involving gender feminism? DON'T YOU KNOW LOGIC HAS NO PLACE IN GENDER FEMINISM?!?! Christ, man! What is wrong with you? Maybe your Kool Aid was diluted. Still, you might be surprised at how many gender feminists seriously think that way. Look at Jezebel some time. It's frightening. Almost as bad as creationists. Maybe for laughs, I'll eventually link you to a list of things that make you a rape apologist that has some pretty interesting things in it... you know, like if you have ever had consensual sex with a woman, you are a rape apologist (because all sex between a man and a woman is rape). Dead serious, that's on the list. And it's not a humor post.

Yes, I am perfectly sanguine with the idea that there are people who benefit from my efforts who do not like me. I think anyone who has ever been a member of a family unit has probably been exposed to that idea often enough to be desensitized to it.

Kind of the overly helpful kind of guy? I used to be that, until I realized I was letting my own life go down the shitter to help others who may or may not have appreciated it.

 

[JimB]

Still, I've yet to hear anything about my problems with her 'holier than the rest of the fucking planet and no one can criticize me or they're a misogynistic bigot who wants me to shut up and rape me and kill me' attitudes and those of her followers and the gaming media.

I have nothing to say about any of that. I have never seen nor heard her saying or even implying such a thing, so I've been assuming this is another complaint about her not enabling comments and the inferences people draw (or more likely, project) based on it. It strikes me as a fantasy, quite frankly, and after a week of having these arguments, I just get sick of fighting about the same, made up stories, so I'm ignoring it.

Also, you haven't even commented on my problems with her supposed research into the subject matter.

Nothing to say about that, either. People keep saying how bad the research is, but never demonstrate any errors or what the correct conclusions would be, so, again, I get tired of it.

The Koss and Kilpatrick, studies, however, are fairly easy to look up and decide for yourself if their methodology is flawed or not.

I am not terrifically interested in looking up a study that is not the one we're talking about as proof of malfeasance in the study we are talking about. That would be like saying to me, "Well, your cousin believes the United States government is using the DNA of South American frogs to create a zombie virus that they're infecting American citizens with before unleashing them on the public to test the virus's efficacy, so you must believe that too because you're related."

It can happen, but it so very rarely does.

Did happen in a false rape case, though.

Yeah, I shouldn't have brought that up. Sorry. It wasn't really a fair point.

In no other type of criminal trial [than a rape case] are you presumed guilty until proven innocent. In all others, the state has to prove you guilty, in a rape case, you have to prove your innocence. That's not how the law works. The presumption of innocence goes completely out the window in rape cases.

Uh, do you have a source for this? Because the last time I bothered to look it up, the conviction rate for rape cases was in the single digits, percent-wise. I have heard lawyers speak about the difficulty of successfully prosecuting a rape case because of the dual problems of a lack of evidence (the evidence left behind tends to be only evidence of sex, strictly speaking, not of rape; which means the prosecutor generally has to prove intent rather than action) and a jury's unwillingness to believe a rape victim due to a fear of acknowledging that rape happens. Admittedly, this was all a long time ago back in school, but still.

Fair enough.

Thank you.

Did you just use logic in a discussion involving gender feminism?

I understand you're joking, but nevertheless, I'm being serious when I say it was unintentional. I don't generally care very much about logic when it comes to my own personal motivations for doing things. I know people who have been hurt by rapists and social responses to being raped, and I want to do something to ease that wound because I care about those people. If people I don't care about also benefit, well, so what? I've already established to myself I don't care about those people.

Still, you might be surprised at how many gender feminists seriously think that way.

Every philosophy has morons and dickheads among its adherents. That doesn't make the philosophy wrong. If it does, then I'm wrong to be an atheist because some self-important, butt-hurt dick-sneeze is protesting a monument at Ground Zero because the monument is in the shape of a cross.

You know, like if you have ever had consensual sex with a woman, you are a rape apologist (because all sex between a man and a woman is rape). Dead serious, that's on the list. And it's not a humor post.

I've read that. I ignore it. Whoever wrote it is a lunatic, and not worth dignifying with my time.

Kind of the overly helpful kind of guy?

Not really. I just have my goals because I see a state that I am offended by and wish to change. If someone I dislike or who dislikes me benefits from that, well, tough shit. My sense of right and wrong is not based on whether I personally like everyone involved. For instance, I'm not a particular fan of Anita Sarkeesian, but I still speak up in discussions like these because most of the complaints against her offend my sense of fair play.

(I think I used that last sentence once in this thread already, but fuck it. It's still true.)

 

[VVThoughtBox]

Is it possible to keep Gender and Identity politics away from video games?

 

[JimB]

Is it possible to keep gender and identity politics away from video games?

Sure, as long as no one making or playing video games has a gender or an identity or cares about those things.

Hey, you might be turning into Anitan Sarkintosh.

Yes, yes, you misspelled her name. The very height of hilarity this season.

For example, from this thread, previous page:

I know where it's from. It's all specious crap.

She has facts wrong.

Without saying what facts she gets wrong and how they are wrong, this is useless.

She misinterprets story meaning (if there is any), or willfully sends out a misinterpretation to her target audience.

Without saying what stories are misinterpreted, this is useless.

Her explanation of Dinosaur Planet, a game hardly anyone ever did play, is filled with falsehoods, lies by omission and creative editing of the Dinosaur Planet trailer and the StarFox Adventures scene to push her agenda.

Without saying what falsehoods, lies by omission, and creative editings happened, this is useless.

Should we also believe that Princess Peach/Toadstool is always a damsel in distress, simply because Anita said any game where she isn't can be ignored (which is called confirmation bias)?

Without direct quotes of what she actually said, this is useless.

I mean, with Smash Bros. for the DS and Wii U she will have appeared in 84 games, I think... maybe 83. But, we can discount the 45 or so games where she is a playable character, because Anita says they don't count.

Without a direct quote of why she says those games don't count, this is useless.

And so on and so forth. It's crap, it's annoying to be expected to need to rebut it despite it being crap, and I resent being in a position where I have to dignify it by responding to it as if it is not crap.

 

[VVThoughtBox]

Is it possible to keep gender and identity politics away from video games?

Sure, as long as no one making or playing video games has a gender or an identity or cares about those things.

But video games are made for the sole purpose of entertaining people. They were never meant to explore complex social and political issues. Game developers are not urban sociologists. Part of the reason why Anita gets so much hated is that she's trying too hard to apply gender studies to a subjective medium such as video games, film, or books.

 

[JimB]

But video games are made for the sole purpose of entertaining people.

Video games are made for whatever purposes a game's creator creates them for.

They were never meant to explore complex social and political issues.

Tell that to the Bioshock franchise.

Game developers are not urban sociologists.

In the first place, no one ever said they are. In the second place, there's a saying that every painting is a self-portrait. What you create says something about whom you are, and general trends across a medium serve to illustrate what society thinks.

Part of the reason why Anita gets so much hatred is that she's trying too hard to apply gender studies to a subjective medium such as video games, film, or books.

Okay, but so what? Nothing about being hated implies that she's wrong.

 

[Schadrach]

Well, she sort of has to. If she wants anyone to take her seriously when she critiques games, surely we would want to know that she actually plays them? Would you trust a vegetarian's review on a steakhouse? Would you trust any product review from someone who never actually used the product? No? Then you shouldn't trust a critique on games by someone who, from all the evidence provided, does not want to be associated with them and does not even play them.

Surprisingly, I'm able to watch many series and read many articles of people critiquing games without people crying out for physical proof of that persons interest in games.
I'm reminded of one of Jim's videos in which he states he has NEVER been asked to `prove` he likes games.

OT: Well this was rather unexciting all round. I can't wait til this whole thing is over. I just don't know what kind of infallible goddess will be able to speak about games without the same shitstorm stirring up.

I tell you what: Anyone, regardless of gender, who says they are a "lifelong fan of" something when they want to get funding to criticize said thing, but also claim that same thing is not a fandom they are part of, isn't a thing they are a fan of, not something they are into, etc, etc, etc is going to be someone who's opinion of that thing I take with entire mountains of salt, especially when I start noticing factual errors or misdirection in their conversation, and doubly so if it's only in cases that fit an underlying ideological perspective (as doing so makes intentional misdirection that much more likely than simple ignorance).

I'll say the same things about MovieBob and movies when you dig up a quote from him saying he doesn't like movies.

 

[Schadrach]

She has facts wrong.

Without saying what facts she gets wrong and how they are wrong, this is useless.

This has been done time and time again, in other threads and in various videos that have been linked on multiple occasions. Apparently, unless issues with and criticisms of her argument are presented in a form that is wholly and unabashedly pro-Sarkeesian they aren't worth examining.

Her explanation of Dinosaur Planet, a game hardly anyone ever did play, is filled with falsehoods, lies by omission and creative editing of the Dinosaur Planet trailer and the StarFox Adventures scene to push her agenda.

Without saying what falsehoods, lies by omission, and creative editings happened, this is useless.

Ask yourself this, based solely on the contents of the TvWiVG: Damsel in Distress videos, who is the protagonist of Dinosaur Planet, and what roles does she serve in the Star fox universe?

If you answered "Krystal" and "as a damselled love interest and nothing else", you, sir, are incorrect. In actuality, Dinosaur Planet had two protagonists which the player could freely switch between (the other being a male character named Sabre who was simply removed unceremoniously, and is conspicuously absent from her discussion because it doesn't serve her point) and Krystal becomes a part of the core Star Fox team after she's rescued, for the remainder of the series. Leaving that bit out is the same as what she does later with Princess Peach, reducing a female character to only cases where they are in trouble, in order to score points.

Should we also believe that Princess Peach/Toadstool is always a damsel in distress, simply because Anita said any game where she isn't can be ignored (which is called confirmation bias)?

Without direct quotes of what she actually said, this is useless.

Not going to rewatch the DiD videos just to give you a timestamp and exact phrasing, but it's in the Damsel in Dsitress videos when she starts talking about Peach in detail. She literally just declares only the games in which Mario saves Peach to be "main" titles containing Peach, and thus the only titles worth considering. For a character who is an iconic mascot of the developer and thus shows up in anything in which she might be vaguely appropriate, that seems a bit odd (80-odd titles contain her and only a bit over a dozen get to "count" according to Ainta Sarkeesian).

And so on and so forth. It's crap, it's annoying to be expected to need to rebut it despite it being crap, and I resent being in a position where I have to dignify it by responding to it as if it is not crap.

The funny part is that you are complaining about him not citing his sources in explicit detail when criticizing an argument, while defending someone who doesn't cite her sources and quietly uses other people's media without acknowledgement of any kind. I could make suggestions *why* someone might do such a thing, but that's an argument for another time and place.

 

[JimB]

[Saying what facts she got wrong and what the correct facts are] has been done time and time again, in other threads and in various videos that have been linked on multiple occasions.

Then you are saying you don't need to do any research or present any sources for your assertions because I need to have already done so for you. Yeah, I stand by my original position that this is crap.

Apparently, unless issues with and criticisms of her argument are presented in a form that is wholly and unabashedly pro-Sarkeesian, they aren't worth examining.

I am not going to say anything about this yet, but I want to draw attention to this quote and ask you to remember it for later.

In actuality, Dinosaur Planet has two protagonists which the player could freely switch between (the other being a male character named Sabre who was simply removed unceremoniously, and is conspicuously absent from her discussion because it doesn't serve her point) and Krystal becomes a part of the core Star Fox team after she's rescued, for the remainder of the series.

There, see, this is beginning to be useful. This is something people can work with. So how was Sabre removed, anyway?

Not going to rewatch the "Damsel in Distress" videos just to give you a timestamp and exact phrasing, but it's in the "Damsel in Distress" videos when she starts talking about Peach in detail.

Then your argument seems to be, "I don't know exactly what she said, but that doesn't mean I can't talk about what she said like I do know it."

The funny part is that you are complaining about him not citing his sources in explicit detail when criticizing an argument, while defending someone who doesn't cite her sources and quietly uses other people's media without acknowledgement of any kind.

Remember that quote I asked you to remember? Here is why I asked you to do so, because you are engaging in exactly the behavior you condemn Ms. Sarkeesian for, and you are condemning me for supporting her (which I don't, but never mind) despite her errors and lack of sources without condemning Sonichu for his support of someone who makes errors and does not cite sources. In short, this is blatant hypocrisy.

I could make suggestions why someone might do such a thing, but that's an argument for another time and place.

Spare me your passive-aggressive threats to psychoanalyze a stranger over the internet.

 

[McMarbles]

Is it possible to keep Gender and Identity politics away from video games?

No. Every other form of media is subject to criticism from many points of view. What is so unique about video games that they should be an exception? The fact that YOU aren't interested?

 

[UberGott]

May I?

*Deep Breath*

So how was Sabre removed, anyway?

Dinosaur Planet would have allowed players to use Sabre in certain areas and Krystal in others. This has been well documented by both early footage and the producers behind the game - much of which can be seen [a href="http://starfox.wikia.com/wiki/Dinosaur_Planet_(game)"]HERE[/a]. Anita speaks at length about Krystal, but other than a single passing mention of Sabre, ignores his place as one of two major playable characters entirely.

If I'm not mistaken, in the finished Starfox Adventure game you play as Krystal during the prologue - more or less exactly as it would have been in the original Dinosaur Planet version - and once Krystal's been captured, you play as Fox for the remainder of the game. Sabre never appears in the final game, and was effectively replaced by Fox.

What happened to Krystal was unfortunate, I think we all agree on that, but at least she still exists - and went on to become a generally well liked and developed character in the Star Fox franchise going forward. Long term, we lost Dinosaur Planet, but a more popular franchise earned a new, likable heroine. Sabre... well, he gets jack squat.

Without saying what facts she gets wrong and how they are wrong, this is useless.

Agreed. It's really not that hard to examine and discuss these videos, either: Feminist Frequency has full transcriptions for each of their videos, with the relevant parts regarding Princess Peach being but a CTRL+C/CTRL+V away.

The particular argument against Peach has always irked me, so I don't mind doing quoting it for context:

"Sadly Peach has never been a playable character again in the franchise. Even with newer games that feature 4 player options, like New Super Mario Brothers Wii and Wii U, the Princess is still excluded from the action. She?s been replaced with another Toad instead as to allow Nintendo to force her back into the damsel role again and again."

Keep in mind, this was recorded before Peach was announced as a playable character in Super Mario 3D World.

"Peach does of course appear in many spin-offs such as the Mario Party, Mario Sports and Mario Kart series as well as the Super Smash Brothers Nintendo Universe crossover fighting games. However all of these spins-offs fall well outside the core Super Mario series of platformers. She is the star of only one adventure and we will get to that a little later."

This is being said to draw attention to the fact that Peach is only playable in "spin-off" games, which seems worth bringing up only if you think they're somehow less relevant than the "core" franchise. Peach's appearances as a player avatar dramatically outweigh her appearances as a damsel in the core franchise, so unless these games are somehow less relevant to gaming in general, I don't see what being core vs spin-off really matters in terms of the character's acceptance to the public.

Yes, Princess Peach is a damsel in distress. She's also a go-kart racer, a tournament fighter, a party girl, a sports enthusiast, and a member of an epic RPG battle party. But these are spoken of separately and never referenced again, because they go against the focus of Peach as little more than a damsel in distress. If you run the numbers, as has already been discussed, Peach is far less often a DiD than the separation of the two as somehow different entities would suggest.

Without saying what stories are misinterpreted, this is useless.

Unfortunately, at times Anita can't even decide how to interpret a single trope consistently, much less apply it to the narratives she's discussing.

In the first video of the series, she specifically throws up an image of Peach in "Mario Style" overalls - heck, it's the [a href="http://www.feministfrequency.com/2013/03/damsel-in-distress-part-1/"]Preview Image for Part 1![/a] - only to say this about it the concept of "Ms. Male" characters in their own video, released about a year later:

"Essentially Ms. Male Characters are feminized imitations or derivative copies of already established male characters. They exist only because of, and in relationship to, their male counterparts.

Ms. Male Characters typically aren?t given their own distinctive identities and are prevented from being fully realized characters who exist on their own terms. This has the, perhaps unintended, effect of devaluing these characters and often relegating them to a subordinate or secondary status inside their respective media franchises, even when they are, on rare occasions, given a starring role in a spin-off or sequel."

In other words, she openly suggests turning Peach into a "Ms. Male" Mario style character in the first video as to help strengthen and affirm the presence of the most iconic woman in Nintendo's mascot franchise as a non-assertive plot device is a GOOD thing... but then suggests that Ms. Male characters are themselves a BAD thing because they undermine the concept of heroines as generic copies of the franchise lead anyway (the "Man with Boobs" argument all over again).

The lack of a clear distinction between what is and isn't "positive" portrayals of female characters is incredibly frustrating here, and leaves me to assume she's convinced that there IS no positive place for Princess Peach in the Super Mario series, core or otherwise. And that's not encouraging that she has as much to add to the discussion as I had hoped she would.

*Deep Sigh*

Huh. Think I finally got some of that bile out of my system. Thanks!

OT: I'm glad that Feminist Frequency had the good sense to remove a piece of fan art from their logo at the request of its creator. Even if what was done with it would (probably) still constitute fair use, the appropriate thing to do would be to stick to "official" art that represents the material being discussed. The fan community and the works they produce is a wholly separate discussion from the media itself anyway - a good one to have, but well outside the scope of what's being done with the WvTiV series, at the very least.

Tamara's recreation of Don Bluth's style is pretty dead-on, but the fact that they had to remove the artists' signature and would have found no actual copyright on what was a non-commercial promo piece for the artist herself leaves any otherwise valid argument about it being an honest mistake feel a bit limp. It speaks poorly to Feminist Frequency's propensity to both credit, and double-check its sources, which - if they're really dead set on this being an academic venture, rather than an edutainment project - isn't something they can let slide on a regular basis.

 

[Kathinka]

i had honestly hoped she'd get sued over this. she's hurting gaming and the struggle of equal treatment of women so much that by this point i'd pretty much welcome everything bad happening to her.

 

[VVThoughtBox]

But video games are made for the sole purpose of entertaining people.

Video games are made for whatever purposes a game's creator creates them for.

They were never meant to explore complex social and political issues.

Tell that to the Bioshock franchise.

Game developers are not urban sociologists.

In the first place, no one ever said they are. In the second place, there's a saying that every painting is a self-portrait. What you create says something about whom you are, and general trends across a medium serve to illustrate what society thinks.

Part of the reason why Anita gets so much hatred is that she's trying too hard to apply gender studies to a subjective medium such as video games, film, or books.

Okay, but so what? Nothing about being hated implies that she's wrong.

But the creator's intent is usually to make a game that keeps the player entertained. Even games that attempt to make a strong political message needs a story, plot, fleshed out characters, setting, spectacles, and so on to keep the player interested. Using a game to talk down to, and or angrily lob the political message at the audience won't do go. What's the point in playing a game if the characters have no personality, the world they live in is just a cheap stage, and the main message of the game boils down to: The Author is Right, Everyone is Wrong?

 

[JimB]

May I?

By all means.

This is being said to draw attention to the fact that Peach is only playable in "spin-off" games, which seems worth bringing up only if you think they're somehow less relevant than the "core" franchise.

My personal takeaway from that argument is that there are no characters at all in those spin-off games; at least, not as I define the word "character." They're just, as you said later in the paragraph, avatars.

Yes, Princess Peach is a damsel in distress. She's also a go-kart racer, a tournament fighter, a party girl, a sports enthusiast, and a member of an epic RPG battle party. But these are spoken of separately and never referenced again, because they go against the focus of Peach as little more than a damsel in distress.

Personally speaking, and under my own theory that you can only be a character if you have a personality and a motivation and an arc, I only count Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars as being an actual appearance by Princess then-Toadstool, and even then she spends the first half of the game having been kidnapped despite showing herself to have been, at the time of her capture, more powerful than Mario was at the time (since he was level 1 at the game's beginning, and she will be a level appropriate to the party by the time she's unlocked).

But the creator's intent is usually to make a game that keeps the player entertained.

I do not care what you estimate to be the intent of some unnamed individual. I further do not think intent mitigates outcome.

Even games that attempt to make a strong political message needs a story, plot, fleshed out characters, setting, spectacles, and so on to keep the player interested. Using a game to talk down to, and or angrily lob the political message at the audience won't do go. What's the point in playing a game if the characters have no personality, the world they live in is just a cheap stage, and the main message of the game boils down to: The Author is Right, Everyone is Wrong?

...What are you talking about?

 

[VVThoughtBox]

But the creator's intent is usually to make a game that keeps the player entertained.

I do not care what you estimate to be the intent of some unnamed individual. I further do not think intent mitigates outcome.

Even games that attempt to make a strong political message needs a story, plot, fleshed out characters, setting, spectacles, and so on to keep the player interested. Using a game to talk down to, and or angrily lob the political message at the audience won't do go. What's the point in playing a game if the characters have no personality, the world they live in is just a cheap stage, and the main message of the game boils down to: The Author is Right, Everyone is Wrong?

...What are you talking about?[/quote]

I'm saying that the artist and developer has to put in a lot of time and effort into their work if they want the consumer to purchase their product. Nobody is going to take a risk and spend $60 on a feminist friendly game with a female main character if the game has a terrible character design, no interesting characters, horrible graphics, or just bad level design. They're certainly not going to buy a game in which the main character is a robot programmed to say the writer's political views every few hours.

I guess what I'm trying to say is people really do want games with female leads, but some important information and context are missing. Why is the female character beating up those mooks? What are her goals and motives? What makes her goals different from the antagonist? For example: Why is Nilin from Remember Me remixing people's memories? What makes her just in doing something like that? Or why is Samus from Metroid a bounty hunter and what makes her different from her archenemy Ridley? These questions won't be answered by making only positive role models for women to look up to.

Edit: This is directed to JimB. Sort of messed up on the Quoting.

 

[UberGott]

Personally speaking, and under my own theory that you can only be a character if you have a personality and a motivation and an arc, I only count Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars as being an actual appearance by Princess then-Toadstool, and even then she spends the first half of the game having been kidnapped despite showing herself to have been, at the time of her capture, more powerful than Mario was at the time (since he was level 1 at the game's beginning, and she will be a level appropriate to the party by the time she's unlocked).

Now this is a perfectly fair point! Trouble is, that's true of pretty much every single character in the Super Mario "core" games as well. Does that rule Mario himself out for any legitimate intellectual dissection, despite him being one of the single most iconic characters in the medium?

Or does it merely mean that we have to look at the bigger picture, and accept that a lot of the attachments players give him as an actual character have to do with the universe created outside of the core games themselves, including the various spin-off games, and even the tangentially related "official" merchandise that established the characters further (ie: cartoons, comics, movies and so on)? Feminist Frequency seems happy to trot the Super Mario Bros. 3 cartoon out for the purpose of showing what a shallow, bratty stereotype Wendy O. Koopa was (Anita and I agree on that, at least!), but never once references how the show presents Toadstool/Peach, despite typically casting her as the smartest and most capable character in that universe.

Anyway, I should probably give this a rest for now. A thousand directions to go in... none of them particularly useful, or relevant to the Daphne Fanart situation itself. Thanks for humoring me, Jim.

 

[Gindil]

Part of the reason why Anita gets so much hatred is that she's trying too hard to apply gender studies to a subjective medium such as video games, film, or books.

Okay, but so what? Nothing about being hated implies that she's wrong.

Except... This has been explained to you numerous times and you continue to bend over backwards to argue your beliefs without any validity to Anita's claims.

She has a double standard on gender thanks to her Bechdel test.

She hypocritically wants "strong female characters" while playing a victim herself.

There's no validity to her "9 seconds a woman is beaten" claim, and its aggressiveness making games more "misogynistic."

And when it comes to females IN gaming, Anita is more than willing to deny they exist until it's convenient for her like Toadette.

And quite frankly, Anita will hypocritically show how women are "objectified" with the entire bow thing but she does that exact thing herself with her interpretation of Peach and Zelda.

Meanwhile, the perfect Miss Male Character exists in the Nintendo-verse in Daisy, Impa, Karane, and a few others. The problem has already been solved and Anita would know that if she played the games and came to an objective conclusion.