Flash Game Makes Players Beat Up "Tropes vs. Women" Creator

[him over there]

First let me say I can't knock Chell because, well, Chell is a part of me. Chell only ever did anything, even take a step or move a muscle when I made it as a conscious input, she never said anything I didn't say, because she didn't say anything at all. I did the portal mirror thing and looked at myself and saw a woman. It was a virtual reality as a woman. I WAS CHELL! And so was Anita Sarkeesian Chell when she played that game, she couldn't object to anything Chell did as she did that. You couldn't dislike Chell without disliking yourself.

There are millions of feminists on this planet (billions if you include the definition of feminism as "treat women as equals") I do not know what all of their stances are. I am looking at what Ms Sarkeesian's stated stance is, regardless of what kind on stance it might be defined as.

"underlying cultural baggage that we've been collectively hauling around since the birth of civilization"

I don't ascribe to that as it can go both ways. Paranoia from a history that is no longer practised can make equal treatment seem unfair by only looking at how women are treated rather than in comparison to men.

I too am fed up of male protagonist simply because by god, I've had enough of them. It's interesting to see a female protagonist of an action feature and you'd really struggle to overdo it.

My point about female characters is it's better to avoid bad press than get a load of good press. An all male cast is a safe bet, as you can't have someone make a troll video series about how this game is misogynistic if it completely avoid the issue. If a game isn't set in Japan and doesn't have any Japanese characters, you can't say its racist against Japanese.

Yes, a lot of us want female protagonists with real character, but it's not worth the risk of the likes of Ms Sarkeesian misrepresenting a female character as misogynistic.

Look at how she attacked Bayonetta, a strong female protagonist. How she attacked Catwoman. And Lara Croft. All her videos are about blatantly misrepresenting female protagonists, even saying that Bayonetta DIRECTLY caused women to be sexually assaulted. She does not care about strong female protagonists, she is on a moral crusade against sex and worse than that, she says women being sexual causes sexual assault. Watch ehr bayonetta video review.

Okay, first I think you need to understand that the following:

Jade from Beyond Good and Evil, April Ryan from the Longest Journey, Zoë Castillo from Dreamfall, Alyx Vance from Half-life 2, Terra from FF6, Marle and Lucca and Ayla from Chrono Trigger

are strong female characters in a way that Bayonetta and Catwoman and the earlier versions of Lara Croft aren't. They are strong female characters that required no sexualization at all in order to be awesome (and they were all pretty awesome). Note, as well, that Ayla went around in a fur bikini all the time, yet somehow still avoided pandering.

Now, sexualization is not a bad thing. But pandering is. And the Bayonetta ad campaign was pandering. Lara Croft's impossible breasts were pandering. Catwoman's constant zipper malfunctions are pandering. And for a girl looking at all of this, the message is really clear - females exist to be oogled. Whatever strengths these characters have, they are all secondary to the fact that these characters are there to be stared at. But being able to stare at a character's breasts or ass adds nothing of real merit to the character. Putting a majority of the focus on a character's breasts or ass sells everything else about that character short. And that is the issue. Because this sexualization does not exist to benefit the character in any way. It exploits the character to benefit the observer.

Now, Bayonetta using her sexuality in combat (which is a bizarre concept when you think about it, even removed from the larger issue) may well be a form of empowerment, and as I said elsewhere there is a case for Bayonetta as a sex-positive role model. But an ad campaign about collectively undressing her doesn't play to her empowerment. She's not undressing herself, she is being undressed. She has no power, she is merely an object to be drooled over.

A brief aside: Sarkeesian's issue was that putting that kind of ad in an environment that has a reputation for cultivating deviancy could - shock! - cultivate deviancy. She never said that Bayonetta was directly responsible for sexual assault, in spite of what you inferred - she simply questioned the intelligence of putting that message in that environment.

There is never any danger in creating a strong female protagonist that is not overtly sexualized. There is very little danger in creating a strong and sexual female protagonist whose existence is not purely as a pre-teen masturbatory aid. There is, however, quite a bit of danger in creating a hypersexualized caricature of a woman - Moonlight's example of the "pole with two watermelons on" - and pretending that such is somehow a 'strong' female character. That kind of characterization is the kind you find in Joe Eszterhas movies; it is terrible and it is sexist, and we're better than that.

Lara and Catwoman were pretty much pandering I'll give you that but Bayonetta was slightly different. Yes she was sexualised but the ironic thing is that despite the obvious sexualisation she is better personified and treated like more of a person than most females in the medium.

 

[Clearing the Eye]

In case you missed it, I did respond to the video a few posts ago, when it was liked by rbstewart, so I discussed the topic of subway cars there. To paraphrase myself, Sarkeesian is only endorsing that one specific subway car case, and then only implicitly, probably to prove her point. And while her point is knee-jerk and extreme, it is understandable, particularly given Japanese cultural fetishes (including subway rape) and kind of horrible treatment of women in general - as evidenced by the guy talked about in the OP.

I still think Apartheid is a really bad comparison. It's just so much more vast and more destructive than a safe-zone subway car ever could be.

As for the Bayonetta ad? I guess its placement was just a matter of unfortunate coincidence? I can't say I agree with her on that point, either.

OK, that is a plausible explanation... but so it is also plausible that she approves of segregation IN GENERAL as a solution of a minority of criminal assault. Never the less, she still supported this as a solution. It is very hard to excuse.

Japan actually has one of the lowest rape per capita in the world, lower than Canada:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_percap-crime-rapes-per-capita

Lower than strictly conservative countries like Morocco that ban all pornography and forbid women showing their body.

Japan has a lower number of reported sexual assaults. Don't confuse number of actual attacks with the number of those reported.

 

[BRex21]

If you won't accept reality then I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I think even the most stringent of manly male gamers would back me up on the fact that the women in soul calibur are hypersexualised. It's simply a fact unless you are just trying to be willfully ignorant.

Im not even disagreeing with the fact that the female characters in games like soul calibur are anything other than vapid empty bodies. I'm saying every character in there is. You grabbed the first piece of shit you could find and said look theirs women in here. everything in the game is overdone to the point of parody . Bad writing is not misogynistic, in fact this word is getting thrown around so much it is simply losing its meaning.
And with your little cartoon there, show me one picture of ivy and two of her gal pals bowing down in front of any other male character in that game. With the possible exception of duke nukem forever,(however arguably handled the abuse of said women in a tone usually reserved for men) which I think just about everyone agrees is terrible, no game is like that for this reason comics, particularly ones overstating a political argument. While women are objectified more often as human sex toys, as i said before men in both media and the real world are objectified as appliances which often results in death. Refusing to view male objectification because its different than yours really just borders on hating men. Or at least men who aren't subservient to you.

My mum is 60 and still goes to the gym. She is reasonably fit. I don't think if Ivy was 60 she would be way worse off than my mum having been a martial artist all her life.

Look up Augusta Pate who earned her blackbelt at 70 years old

Really, someone who routinely suffers hard blows to bones and puts hard stress on their joints would handle just fine compared to your mother? That's actually probably not something your mother should be proud of.
Therese a reason that professional weight lifters and joggers and yes fighters have more joint trouble than regular people. They wear out. The issue is that in high impact situations like fighting, a typical woman is going to face these issues at a faster rate than a typical man.
Sparring and workouts are very different things from fighting with far higher rates. The existence of physically fit older women does not disprove this.
However using your form of logic...
Marie Curie, a well educated physicist in the 1800s disproves that women were discriminated against in education. It has nothing to do with the population as a whole!

 

[WindKnight]

My friend wants me to come and work as a proof reader in Tokyo and as a blonde lady with big boobies getting groped on a train is not an aspect I am thrilled about...

The solution doesn't have to be permanent just until the authorities can get a handle on how to deal with the problem

Japanese men will sometimes behave themselves around western women. the whole thing relies on the whole aspect of Japanese society where women are expected to 'put up and shut up', and 'preserve their dignity' by not making a fuss, whereas western women have been known to protect their dignity by calling the pervert out, or lamping him one.

]Japan has a lower number of reported sexual assaults. Don't confuse number of actual attacks with the number of those reported.

Again, Japanese women are expected to put up and shut up, as being a rape victim can be a source of great shame to their family, and can lead to them being shunned by friends and family. The wonder and joys of blaming the victim.

 

[him over there]

Lara and Catwoman were pretty much pandering I'll give you that but Bayonetta was slightly different. Yes she was sexualised but the ironic thing is that despite the obvious sexualisation she is better personified and treated like more of a person than most females in the medium.

Fair enough - I've conceded already that a case for Bayonetta as a sex positive role model can be made. I was referring to the ad campaign specific to the video we were discussing, in which people remove cards in order to expose a poster of her laying in a sexy pose while mostly naked.

Ah yes the ads are definitely counter intuitive to the games point because they exist outside of the game. However I think that simply being pandering isn't inherently bad. I know that sounds totally insane but hear me out. Sexual Objectification exists for both genders. However you ever notice that male objectification is never complained about save as a lofty counterpoint to female sexualization? That's because men aren't constantly suffering self esteem problems and being objectified on a large scale in real life, women are. I think that sexualisation is okay, for both genders but it's wrong under these circumstances because women still aren't being treated totally equal in our society.

I mean whenever a violent videogame story jumps outpeople always point out that it's other's fault for not being able to distinguish fantasy from reality. I see no reason this doesn't apply to sexual fantasies. It isn't that women are being objectified, but that nearly only women are being objectified and nearly all women are being objectified. If it was done in a way that didn't reinforce this as a realistic portrayal of women and made it obvious that it was simply a far fetched fantasy that would be reasonable. But it can't be done right now because of the societal baggage surrounding it because women in real life are still being objectified.

 

[Agayek]

I'm inclined to agree that it was little more than a scam, but I don't really see how you can blame her that there are gullible retards that will throw money at a perceived injustice to feel better about themselves.

Were it not for the legal nonsense involved with kickstarters, I'd probably run a similar scam just to teach dumb people a lesson.

This is more or less my response to this. I find the base concept of the video to be somewhat silly and unnecessary (though I'll freely admit my perspective is somewhat limited, seeing as I am a white heterosexual male), but people are willing to pay for it. There's no need or reason to harass someone because people are willing to part with some cash for it.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

If you won't accept reality then I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I think even the most stringent of manly male gamers would back me up on the fact that the women in soul calibur are hypersexualised. It's simply a fact unless you are just trying to be willfully ignorant.

Im not even disagreeing with the fact that the female characters in games like soul calibur are anything other than vapid empty bodies. I'm saying every character in there is. You grabbed the first piece of shit you could find and said look theirs women in here. everything in the game is overdone to the point of parody . Bad writing is not misogynistic, in fact this word is getting thrown around so much it is simply losing its meaning.
And with your little cartoon there, show me one picture of ivy and two of her gal pals bowing down in front of any other male character in that game. With the possible exception of duke nukem forever,(however arguably handled the abuse of said women in a tone usually reserved for men) which I think just about everyone agrees is terrible, no game is like that for this reason comics, particularly ones overstating a political argument. While women are objectified more often as human sex toys, as i said before men in both media and the real world are objectified as appliances which often results in death. Refusing to view male objectification because its different than yours really just borders on hating men. Or at least men who aren't subservient to you.

My mum is 60 and still goes to the gym. She is reasonably fit. I don't think if Ivy was 60 she would be way worse off than my mum having been a martial artist all her life.

Look up Augusta Pate who earned her blackbelt at 70 years old

Really, someone who routinely suffers hard blows to bones and puts hard stress on their joints would handle just fine compared to your mother? That's actually probably not something your mother should be proud of.
Therese a reason that professional weight lifters and joggers and yes fighters have more joint trouble than regular people. They wear out. The issue is that in high impact situations like fighting, a typical woman is going to face these issues at a faster rate than a typical man.
Sparring and workouts are very different things from fighting with far higher rates. The existence of physically fit older women does not disprove this.
However using your form of logic...
Marie Curie, a well educated physicist in the 1800s disproves that women were discriminated against in education. It has nothing to do with the population as a whole!

But the fact is its not impossible so why have the devs made the decision that old women can't fight but old men can in a medium where they have free reign. It's not like they are going for hyper-realism here is it with their magic swords and clothes that would never stay on in a battle.

It's just another form of sexism.

 

[him over there]

Lara and Catwoman were pretty much pandering I'll give you that but Bayonetta was slightly different. Yes she was sexualised but the ironic thing is that despite the obvious sexualisation she is better personified and treated like more of a person than most females in the medium.

Fair enough - I've conceded already that a case for Bayonetta as a sex positive role model can be made. I was referring to the ad campaign specific to the video we were discussing, in which people remove cards in order to expose a poster of her laying in a sexy pose while mostly naked.

Ah yes the ads are definitely counter intuitive to the games point because they exist outside of the game. However I think that simply being pandering isn't inherently bad. I know that sounds totally insane but hear me out. Sexual Objectification exists for both genders. However you ever notice that male objectification is never complained about save as a lofty counterpoint to female sexualization? That's because men aren't constantly suffering self esteem problems and being objectified on a large scale in real life, women are. I think that sexualisation is okay, for both genders but it's wrong under these circumstances because women still aren't being treated totally equal in our society.

I mean whenever a violent videogame story jumps outpeople always point out that it's other's fault for not being able to distinguish fantasy from reality. I see no reason this doesn't apply to sexual fantasies. It isn't that women are being objectified, but that nearly only women are being objectified and nearly all women are being objectified. If it was done in a way that didn't reinforce this as a realistic portrayal of women and made it obvious that it was simply a far fetched fantasy that would be reasonable. But it can't be done right now because of the societal baggage surrounding it because women in real life are still being objectified.

I agree, for the most part. After all, I bought and enjoy Skullgirls a great deal, and it's hard to deny that most of the initial appeal was the character design.

But I think maybe objectified is not the word you ought to use? Perhaps that's just because conversations like this have loaded that word with a lot of negative connotation. That said, I don't have a better word off the top of my head.

In any case, you're absolutely right that it is not so much the depictions within the games themselves that are the problem, but the greater social context those games exist in. If there weren't such severe pockets of misogyny left over in the world, something like Bayonetta would never be seen as anything more than over-the-top goofy fun. And I think that's something that a lot of people who get so vehement about this issue tend to miss.

yeah, I think it isn't a matter of making it go away as much as it is making it not the norm. Like I said male's are objectified in media too. But we don't care because it doesn't transfer over to reality for us. With women it does.

I do however think that Feminine frequency has a bit of bias to it (for obvious and pretty justifiable reasons). In the Bayonetta nearly all characterisation is skipped in order to draw attention to the negative. It was essentially :"Bayonetts's pros is that she's um a single mum I guess but the cons are that it is evil for misrepresenting women." that's a pretty big spin when part of the point of Bayonetta is that it she is both a great character and a sex symbol but nearly all of her character is disregarded to draw attention to the latter.

 

[BRex21]

The study i posted also points out genetic traits such as our surviving female ancestors having lighter and more frail skeletons relative to their earlier ancestors, showing how the "rugged skeletons", the ones the article associates with neanderthals, are a less desirable trait, this would be consistent with a female role farther form dangerous physical work. It would also be consistent with modern women having lighter musculature thinner bones and greater risk for bone and joint issues that started this conversation.

This is why people shouldn't do the just so story thing w/ evolution instead of sticking to conclusions that are supported by the data. When you start saying stuff like "I think that women are smaller than men because women didn't have to do manual labor and size got selected out" you have moved beyond the realm of science and into the realm of pseudo-science. (Also the realm of "did you think that women in hunter-gatherer societies and starving agrarian villages spent all day doing needlepoint?")

[/quote] No, and i never said i did, As i have said repeatedly the sexual dimorphism of larger males better suited for combat came about due to males competing over mates using physical force with other males and prowess as a hunter to woo females both of these things meant that men were selected based on physical strength while females were selected based on their ability to provide offspring for said males. If you were arguing with ME as opposed to what you could quotemine here you would know this.
Also, At no point in time has anyone implied that female specific gender roles didn't include gathering but that they typically did not involve the more dangerous work like big game hunting, where a lack of physical prowess could very likely mean you would die, or fail to pass on your genes.

You are also using an abstract, a heavily oversimplified version with NO ACTUAL DATA LISTED, as your source. Talk about grasping at plausible explanations. I would much rather take the men with doctorates word for it that they can understand the data of their own research than your understanding of an abstract.

No, I'm actually taking about the paper itself (there's no pay gate, which makes me very happy from a free access to information standpoint), specifically the genetic findings and the factors discussed as possible causes for the genetic findings. If you read the entire paper, you will notice that the empirical data stops at "the male population has historically had a higher attrition rate." Later discussion of why that attrition gap exists is not empirically verified and is generally not discussed as such.

It's actually a really interesting paper, and I would advise you to read it, both because the paper's findings are interesting, because it gives you a really fascinating rundown of the factors that might be behind the genetic data (they don't just discuss their pet explanations, very much to their credit), and because it's a good example of what I'm talking about re: the difference between drawing conclusions from evidence and making speculations that are consistent with evidence.

[/quote]
The problem is that evolution is in and of itself widely conjecture. Conjecture based on a massive amount of evidence at hand but still conjecture. Since this study research into the human genome has helped us better trace our ancestors, and new information comes to light that can force us to re-evaluate our understanding. Its what separates it from religion.

The study you are citing is not only 20 years older than the one I posted

And? How has our understanding of anthropology changed in the last 20 years that would change our interpretation of this paper in a relevant way?

[/quote]
Hmmm since its not 20 years its 26 years, you only get 20 years if you look at when the new paper was released which kinda changes the interpretation of why a truly equal division of labour without said gender roles led to the extinction of the neanderthals... i think someone posted an article.

but it is cited in papers that specifically refer to the system of gender roles surviving into today's culture:
http://dornsife.usc.edu/wendywood/research/documents/Wood.Eagly.2002.pdf
and ones that refer to "egalitarianism" as equal but different, wherein men hunt and women gather. http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/28530/1/0000327.pdf

Hey, that's more like it. The John Speth paper is definitely a worthwhile read, and it's certainly important to differentiate between an understanding of hunter-gatherer societies as relatively egalitarian and non-hierarchical and the assumption of perfect egalitarianism.

and the more we work this out, the equal but different, we see more and more men in the high danger jobs(big game hunting) and more women in less dangerous ones (gathering type).

Neither of which disproves that there WAS variance in the gender role but the existence of that variance in no way disproves that the most successful system was that of specific gender roles and in fact some of the conclusions support it.

You can make a better case that the recipe for our species historical success is our flexibility.

[/quote]
Yet it does not negate the fact that some systems work better than others and, from a long term evolutionary standpoint those that don't fare as well in competitive environments tend to end up dead.

You refereed to the study as: re: how Homo Sapiens Sapiens operates in a hunter-gatherer environment. Searching for this minus one "sapient" yielded nothing, as did searching for it verbatim, it shares only a couple of words with the ACTUAL study you are using as the basis of your argument which gives me a near impossible task of figuring out what you are actually referring to.

"Homo Sapiens Sapiens" is just the Latin name for the only surviving subspecies of human, i.e. all of us. I'm referring to the significant observed diversity in social roles by gender... blah blah blah missed the point

so what you are saying is... i should be able to find a study because you know a science term? Because seriously, No person is going to be able to identify a study based on an INCORRECT NAME and brief discussion of its content. In fact knowing where it is i have no reason to believe that it is in fact the study you were referring to.

 

[BRex21]

The study i posted also points out genetic traits such as our surviving female ancestors having lighter and more frail skeletons relative to their earlier ancestors, showing how the "rugged skeletons", the ones the article associates with neanderthals, are a less desirable trait, this would be consistent with a female role farther form dangerous physical work. It would also be consistent with modern women having lighter musculature thinner bones and greater risk for bone and joint issues that started this conversation.

This is why people shouldn't do the just so story thing w/ evolution instead of sticking to conclusions that are supported by the data. When you start saying stuff like "I think that women are smaller than men because women didn't have to do manual labor and size got selected out" you have moved beyond the realm of science and into the realm of pseudo-science. (Also the realm of "did you think that women in hunter-gatherer societies and starving agrarian villages spent all day doing needlepoint?")

[/quote] No, and i never said i did, As i have said repeatedly the sexual dimorphism of larger males better suited for combat came about due to males competing over mates using physical force with other males and prowess as a hunter to woo females both of these things meant that men were selected based on physical strength while females were selected based on their ability to provide offspring for said males. If you were arguing with ME as opposed to what you could quotemine here you would know this.
Also, At no point in time has anyone implied that female specific gender roles didn't include gathering but that they typically did not involve the more dangerous work like big game hunting, where a lack of physical prowess could very likely mean you would die, or fail to pass on your genes.

You are also using an abstract, a heavily oversimplified version with NO ACTUAL DATA LISTED, as your source. Talk about grasping at plausible explanations. I would much rather take the men with doctorates word for it that they can understand the data of their own research than your understanding of an abstract.

No, I'm actually taking about the paper itself (there's no pay gate, which makes me very happy from a free access to information standpoint), specifically the genetic findings and the factors discussed as possible causes for the genetic findings. If you read the entire paper, you will notice that the empirical data stops at "the male population has historically had a higher attrition rate." Later discussion of why that attrition gap exists is not empirically verified and is generally not discussed as such.

It's actually a really interesting paper, and I would advise you to read it, both because the paper's findings are interesting, because it gives you a really fascinating rundown of the factors that might be behind the genetic data (they don't just discuss their pet explanations, very much to their credit), and because it's a good example of what I'm talking about re: the difference between drawing conclusions from evidence and making speculations that are consistent with evidence.

[/quote]
The problem is that evolution is in and of itself widely conjecture. Conjecture based on a massive amount of evidence at hand but still conjecture. Since this study research into the human genome has helped us better trace our ancestors, and new information comes to light that can force us to re-evaluate our understanding. Its what separates it from religion.

The study you are citing is not only 20 years older than the one I posted

And? How has our understanding of anthropology changed in the last 20 years that would change our interpretation of this paper in a relevant way?

[/quote]
Hmmm since its not 20 years its 26 years, you only get 20 years if you look at when the new paper was released which kinda changes the interpretation of why a truly equal division of labour without said gender roles led to the extinction of the neanderthals... i think someone posted an article.

but it is cited in papers that specifically refer to the system of gender roles surviving into today's culture:
http://dornsife.usc.edu/wendywood/research/documents/Wood.Eagly.2002.pdf
and ones that refer to "egalitarianism" as equal but different, wherein men hunt and women gather. http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/28530/1/0000327.pdf

Hey, that's more like it. The John Speth paper is definitely a worthwhile read, and it's certainly important to differentiate between an understanding of hunter-gatherer societies as relatively egalitarian and non-hierarchical and the assumption of perfect egalitarianism.

and the more we work this out, the equal but different, we see more and more men in the high danger jobs(big game hunting) and more women in less dangerous ones (gathering type).

Neither of which disproves that there WAS variance in the gender role but the existence of that variance in no way disproves that the most successful system was that of specific gender roles and in fact some of the conclusions support it.

You can make a better case that the recipe for our species historical success is our flexibility.

[/quote]
Yet it does not negate the fact that some systems work better than others and, from a long term evolutionary standpoint those that don't fare as well in competitive environments tend to end up dead.

You refereed to the study as: re: how Homo Sapiens Sapiens operates in a hunter-gatherer environment. Searching for this minus one "sapient" yielded nothing, as did searching for it verbatim, it shares only a couple of words with the ACTUAL study you are using as the basis of your argument which gives me a near impossible task of figuring out what you are actually referring to.

"Homo Sapiens Sapiens" is just the Latin name for the only surviving subspecies of human, i.e. all of us. I'm referring to the significant observed diversity in social roles by gender... blah blah blah missed the point

so what you are saying is... i should be able to find a study because you know a science term? Because seriously, No person is going to be able to identify a study based on an INCORRECT NAME and brief discussion of its content. In fact knowing where it is i have no reason to believe that it is in fact the study you were referring to.

 

[him over there]

snip

yeah, I think it isn't a matter of making it go away as much as it is making it not the norm. Like I said male's are objectified in media too. But we don't care because it doesn't transfer over to reality for us. With women it does.

I do however think that Feminine frequency has a bit of bias to it (for obvious and pretty justifiable reasons). In the Bayonetta nearly all characterisation is skipped in order to draw attention to the negative. It was essentially :"Bayonetts's pros is that she's um a single mum I guess but the cons are that it is evil for misrepresenting women." that's a pretty big spin when part of the point of Bayonetta is that it she is both a great character and a sex symbol but nearly all of her character is disregarded to draw attention to the latter.

Oh, Ms. Sarkeesian's bias is pretty obvious and pretty intense. She's not someone you want to go to for an even handed depiction of gaming icons. That said, she's trying to have a discussion we as a community need to have. She's not the most fair and she might not be the most qualified, but at least she has and will continue to start people talking - so long as people actually do talk, instead of just spew hate, but let's leave that alone for now.

If we ever are to de-normalize the kind of thinking that makes female objectification so problematic, we have to understand where it comes from and what forms it takes in our narratives. We have to be capable of introspection. Ms. Sarkeesian's video series may be entirely wrong, but if they give people a point to start thinking about these things, and to start talking about these things, then they'll be worth it.

I agree, however even though actually getting people talking is good but the fact that there are so few sparks for discussion means that plenty of people will be getting their information from biased sources. However the fact that there are plenty of counter responses arising as video replies to her is good.

As for spewing hate, I can say that quite a few people are being disingenuous regarding misogynistic attacks. The thing is people on the internet cesspool of youtube want to make people mad. From what I've seen the mentality is "I dislike this woman and only this woman in particular and want to offend her. She's very vocal about sexism therefore a sexist slur will offend her most, I'll use that." Not to say that Misogyny isn't relevant or present just that disingenuous hate leads to actual bigotry.

 

[him over there]

I agree, however even though actually getting people talking is good but the fact that there are so few sparks for discussion means that plenty of people will be getting their information from biased sources. However the fact that there are plenty of counter responses arising as video replies to her is good.

As for spewing hate, I can say that quite a few people are being disingenuous regarding misogynistic attacks. The thing is people on the internet cesspool of youtube want to make people mad. From what I've seen the mentality is "I dislike this woman and only this woman in particular and want to offend her. She's very vocal about sexism therefore a sexist slur will offend her most, I'll use that." Not to say that Misogyny isn't relevant or present just that disingenuous hate leads to actual bigotry.

Yeah, I understand that youtube commenters and 4chan trolls are all about using limited anonymity to get away with being little shits because they get off on that, but the thing about it is it's repulsive whether they're serious or not, and it's not productive either way.

People have heard it said "If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all" but the way I learned it was "If you don't have anything intelligent to say, keep your mouth shut."

My point wasn't so much that since it wasn't sincere it didn't matter so much as it was disingenuous bigotry is an enabler for actual bigotry.

 

[him over there]

My point wasn't so much that since it wasn't sincere it didn't matter so much as it was disingenuous bigotry is an enabler for actual bigotry.

Oh. Well, then yes. Quite.

People always say that restrictions only give words power. Trying to dissuade people from using it through stigma makes it more powerful through being exclusive but people who actually want to use it for hate will use it regardless because they don't care, sort of like how DRM hurts everybody but pirates. In theory unrestricting it is a good thing but in reality the emotional baggage attached to it simply renders it validation for using slurs. I remember somebody online called me a ****** then said that if you use a slur indiscriminately it loses its power but all it really does is enable people to hate others openly.