I used to dislike Anita Sarkeesian, but...

[Asita]

Basically, despite the business the industry gets from women, the industry doesn't do a lot to actually welcome them. Women game in hostile territory, more or less. I'd like that to change. I'd like them to appeal more to women.
It doesn't really take a lot to get the ball rolling. Gender Select is a surprisingly big step towards making women feel included.

Ah, I get your gist now. Thanks for the clarification

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

Aw yeah, I get a chance to post these again. Cameron really did a fantastic job on these videos.

Fantastic my ass. His video criticizing her academic work was a colossal piece of shit.

First, the lit review and methodology being approximately half the actual content of academic writing, let alone a thesis and especially in the humanities or social sciences, is pretty typical. So is the findings and analysis being a comparatively small portion of the writing. That goes back to the concepts of academic honesty and academic culture in general, which I won't discuss here, but that's the norm and frankly I'd be surprised if it wasn't the case.

Second, the writer wants their Flesch-Kincaid grade level as low, and the F-K ease index as high, as possible without compromising the integrity of their work or their argument. Even if the intended audience is peers in one's discipline or even peers in one's area of expertise, the writer wants their audience's mental resources dedicated to critical analysis rather than simply trying to read their work; moreover, the writer cannot guarantee their audience is even of their discipline or area of expertise, in which case the writing itself would be exclusionary and therefore be held against them.

 

[TAGM]

Taking a picture with a stack of video games does not mean she even played 1 of them. Those were donated anyway.

In all likelihood those games were not donated but bought with the money she got from her kickstarter campaign. But since you seem to know better, I'm sure you can back up your claim with some proof, right? Like you have been asked before, for your claim that she has never played a video game in her life?

She said she's playing all of those games for her Tropes series. Now while I can't know with certainty whether that is actually true, why should I believe some random and possibly slightly biased guy on the internet over her?

http://victorsopinion.blogspot.be/2013/07/anitas-sources.html

Here, I did that searching for you. Will that do for evidence at all?

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

Anita isn't making videos for academic reasons...Anita no longer in academia and her work is focused solely on paying off her student loans.

That's all well and good, except that she's passing herself off as an academic, her work as academic quality and of pedagogical merit. That means the onus is on us, her audience, to hold her work to the standards of academic rigor.

I agree with you, that her work is anything but academic and that she's likely operating off a profit motive, but until/unless she admits that at least I will hold her to the standards by which she claims.

 

[Smeatza]

I didn't have the time or patience to read through 7 pages of what typically ends up people shouting about how sexism isn't an issue in the industry and is more made up than many people perceive it to be.

If you can't be bothered to ensure you are fully informed then I suggest not taking part in the discussion.

I don't think her argument is without fault, but I do think she makes a lot of valid points

Bearing the above criticisms in mind, how can that be?
How can clearly biased, dishonest, sensationalist, non-academic work be considered - as you put it, valid.
If you don't think the above criticisms apply then you would do well to explain why, rather than carry on with this tired "everyone (or most people) who disagrees with her is a closet sexist" schtick.

and has done a good job of getting people talking about the issues.

This I would disagree with. She has done a job of getting people talking but not a good one.
If she had done a good job then the discussion would be open and honest (like she said she wanted).
Instead she has encouraged a discussion where one side is making outlandish, unproved claims and playing them off as established fact, and the other side is immediately defensive to anything anyone on the other side says.
I exaggerate but you get my point I hope.

Those conversations though are typically more about her and how badly everyone wants to prove her wrong versus actually discussing the issues and problems with a lot of content and ideologies in the industry.

So you don't want a debate or discussion then.
What you want is for people to blindly accept what she says and then discuss what to do about it.

 

[Lilani]

Anita has never played a video game in her life, and that isn't invented, its fact. She isn't even remotely qualified to talk about the subject material.

I saw someone else call you out on this, but as far as I can tell you've yet to reply to it. So I'll ask again: What is your proof of this? The aged picture of a little girl who looks uncannily like her playing a NES (or SNES? Not sure, mine wasn't a Nintendo household) on the first page of this thread is pretty convincing. And I can't imagine any other reason she'd dive into video games if she wanted a shot at entertainment journalism/commentary, rather than traditional celebrity commentary and journalism.

So come on, prove this. Prove that little girl isn't her. Show me your evidence. The other side has shown there's, now it's your turn.

 

[Resetti's_Replicas]

"Cared enough to start a kickstarter" BAHAHAHAHA!!! Starting a Kickstarter is just about the least selfless thing someone can do. She's impossible to please, so there's really no point in anyone trying. She is right about the under representation of women in games, but is pro gender roles, as evidenced by her thoughts of men vs women being killed in video games.

 

[Mikeyfell]

snip

Okay, I respect that that is your stance on the subject, but most people have a stance that falls somewhere between

"The Chicken or Egg Quandary"
and
"That's how story telling works"

The chicken V egg argument is simple.
Women and men are not the same in every regard, they just aren't. And one of the main points they differ is physically. (I'm telling the truth. This isn't my opinion)
Men develop upper body strength at a faster rate then women do.

So when story telling gets invented back at the advent of language (Probably) stories were told about what they knew, and that involved a lot of women being weaker then men.
And in the modern age we've moved away from that a lot, but it hasn't changed the biology of it. So it's still true and it's still used in storytelling.



The second "That's just how storytelling works" (Or "Most writers, especially for videogames are just lazy") is also pretty easy to explain.

What are the two most easily relatable forms of motivation.
Sex and Revenge.
What's the easiest way to use both of those of those motivators on a man?
Kidnap their love interest.

Since games are primarily marketed to strait people that love interest is a woman most of the time.


I'm sure that you, me, Anita and everyone else in the world wants to see better stories and writing from videogames and the rest of media, but as long as the "easy way out" exists lazy writers (Or just writers on a time crunch) will take that rout. Even though it's lazy and uncreative and doesn't offer any substantial roll for the primary female character.


Writing an original story that doesn't conform to some trope or another is REALLY REALLY HARD!!!!!

And the easy thing is a tempting path, it's not sexism.

 

[Mikeyfell]

Anita has never played a video game in her life, and that isn't invented, its fact.

From where? Because it sounds more like you pulled it out of thin air.

The facts are that she uses uncredited footage from other people's Youtube channels in her videos and passes them off as her own footage.

Which would imply that she hasn't played (Or at least hasn't recorded herself playing) The games she's talking about.

 

[carnex]

Here is a lot of arguments, some anecdotal evidence, some historical. Almost all good but it would make this post too long so here's the link
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.826049-I-used-to-dislike-Anita-Sarkeesian-but?page=7#20054321

Anyway, I enjoyed reading your post. Lots of evidence where men robbed women of their accomplishments in science. and female sultans. And that is all tip of the iceberg. But, lets put some things into perspective.

While I agree women were stripped of their social power through the history it was in exchange for lacking responsibility, and safety from harm. Not a choice they made consciously but something that trickled over from times when that was only reasonable position. And women were right for fighting that. And they won.

What you describe is power abuse (except for female sultans. Like any other ruler taht didn't shake feathers somewhere, they were ignored. If they went for a bit of conquering with significant results, or shaken up the hierarchy, you can bet we would her of them). Men were in power and they used that power to give them self partially undeserved credits. More often than from women, they would steal from assistants or students for example. Difference is, since women were in much lower numbers in scientific comunity, it actually hurts much more. Every minority feels this to this day

But, as I said, women won their power. They can vote, own and kick to the curb. Only problem is that, through history, men had the power and responsibility for actions of those not in power under them (women and children). Now women have power but are reluctant to take responsibility as well. And who can blame them, men would do the same if they could. In old days, even if women had no power outside family and friends unless they, as individuals, fought for them (well there always was shaming), they had no responsibility outside those communities either. Now, the curve is all messed up. It should be that as one goes up, other goes equally up too.
Also, you didn't mention this, but I must bring up. Males and females are different. Biologically and psychologically (this is argued to no end but no real counter argument has yet been shown). There for we can?t really be filling the same roles. Men can't be mothers (for now) and women can't be fathers (although we are bloody close to that). Men have much stronger muscular and bone structure but burn more fuel, while women are more fragile but can survive longer without fuel. Men are fighters, women are survivors. That is not to say we are not equal, just not the same. With that in mind, i must say gender roles are not bad per se. They can be used to do great damage, but so can a beautiful poem.

Not to say that women should be without power, or locked out of any positions they desire. Just to say that we all have baggage to drag behind us. I would say that, in some ways, women got screwed over with childbearing. It's a wonderful but immensely painful thing. Most of all, its interruptive of everything. If you have a career and want a family, you are going to be overshot by competition. It sucks, but never the less; it's a fact of life. And it's never going to be a nice solution for that problem. You are going to sacrifice something. just like a man always sacrificed products of his labor in order to attain a safe and happy family.

 

[FriendlyFyre]

How's this for a rule, a young woman who posts a picture of herself on facebook is more likely to get comments pertaining to her beauty then if a young guys posts the same? Why? My theory is that women are primarily valued for their appearances, which are essential to the picture, while males are praised primarily for their ability to cultivate masculine traits, which show up best through actions.

Probably because a guy complementing a guy is going to be called a ******. Also, girls would more likely be hesitant to send mixed messages to guys by calling them handsome.

Why is it that guys are so fearful of being called gay? Because gay represents something that is thought to be less masculine, something closer to the feminine, and being thought of as less masculine is what hurts men's ego on some level. I don't think that girls would try and restrain their compliments for fear of "leading guys on," definitely not on facebook where they don't have to worry about sharing physical space with them.

They wouldn't compliment his looks because society has not told them this is "normal." Only complimenting a girl for her physical beauty is "normal."

 

[Scott Rothman]

Giant snip

I've read at least 5 of these threads. I felt as if going through another was more of a waste of my time than gathering more information on the discussion.

Regardless as to how you may perceive the industry, there IS a sexism issue. There really isn't a place for debate. The fact that people still think that women are a huge minority in the industry (when they actually comprise almost half) is proof of that alone. The fact that people can't see why people would take offense to characters like Dragon's Crown's Sorceress, or can't see the difference of exploitation between a the sorceress and her male counterparts, is proof.

I don't want to have a discussion on whether or not sexism in the industry is an issue, because it IS. What I want to talk about is how to fix the problematic elements of the industry.

 

[carnex]

I've read at least 5 of these threads. I felt as if going through another was more of a waste of my time than gathering more information on the discussion.

Regardless as to how you may perceive the industry, there IS a sexism issue. There really isn't a place for debate. The fact that people still think that women are a huge minority in the industry (when they actually comprise almost half) is proof of that alone. The fact that people can't see why people would take offense to characters like Dragon's Crown's Sorceress, or can't see the difference of exploitation between a the sorceress and her male counterparts, is proof.

I don't want to have a discussion on whether or not sexism in the industry is an issue, because it IS. What I want to talk about is how to fix the problematic elements of the industry.

We can talk about female representation in games, not sexism. One is witout harmfull conotation in background and I prefeer that. We can debate is something sexist or not and what being sexist means today, but flinking it arround like a piece of waste paper is, for me, unacceptable. There is much baggage attached to that term and thus must be used carefuly.

Oh there are misconceptions about female gamers on all fronts. That deserves attention on it's own. Hmm, wonder if any new research was done on that. Well, off to the internet!

 

[Sofus]

When you think about it then most games, books and movies have tropes in some way or another. Mario may be the easiest game to spot it in, but if helpless characters are tropes simply because they are incapable of freeing themselves or overcoming an obstacle, then every human being is a trope at one time or another.

 

[cikame]

I dislike the fact that she has been wrong about so many points she has made and evidence she has given.
Also i'm not sure the number of videos she's going to make it necessary considering others seem to be able to express their opinions 1. Without funding and 2. In less time.

 

[Scott Rothman]

I've read at least 5 of these threads. I felt as if going through another was more of a waste of my time than gathering more information on the discussion.

Regardless as to how you may perceive the industry, there IS a sexism issue. There really isn't a place for debate. The fact that people still think that women are a huge minority in the industry (when they actually comprise almost half) is proof of that alone. The fact that people can't see why people would take offense to characters like Dragon's Crown's Sorceress, or can't see the difference of exploitation between a the sorceress and her male counterparts, is proof.

I don't want to have a discussion on whether or not sexism in the industry is an issue, because it IS. What I want to talk about is how to fix the problematic elements of the industry.

We can talk about female representation in games, not sexism. One is witout harmfull conotation in background and I prefeer that. We can debate is something sexist or not and what being sexist means today, but flinking it arround like a piece of waste paper is, for me, unacceptable. There is much baggage attached to that term and thus must be used carefuly.

Oh there are misconceptions about female gamers on all fronts. That deserves attention on it's own. Hmm, wonder if any new research was done on that. Well, off to the internet!

I'm not sure what your distinction between sexism and negative representations of women. I'm not being facetious, I'm actually not sure what you mean.

I found this: http://www.theesa.com/facts/pdfs/ESA_EF_2012.pdf

It's a 2012 study of video gamer demographics

 

[generals3]

I've read at least 5 of these threads. I felt as if going through another was more of a waste of my time than gathering more information on the discussion.

Regardless as to how you may perceive the industry, there IS a sexism issue. There really isn't a place for debate. The fact that people still think that women are a huge minority in the industry (when they actually comprise almost half) is proof of that alone. The fact that people can't see why people would take offense to characters like Dragon's Crown's Sorceress, or can't see the difference of exploitation between a the sorceress and her male counterparts, is proof.

I don't want to have a discussion on whether or not sexism in the industry is an issue, because it IS. What I want to talk about is how to fix the problematic elements of the industry.

We can talk about female representation in games, not sexism. One is witout harmfull conotation in background and I prefeer that. We can debate is something sexist or not and what being sexist means today, but flinking it arround like a piece of waste paper is, for me, unacceptable. There is much baggage attached to that term and thus must be used carefuly.

Oh there are misconceptions about female gamers on all fronts. That deserves attention on it's own. Hmm, wonder if any new research was done on that. Well, off to the internet!

I'm not sure what your distinction between sexism and negative representations of women. I'm not being facetious, I'm actually not sure what you mean.

I found this: http://www.theesa.com/facts/pdfs/ESA_EF_2012.pdf

It's a 2012 study of video gamer demographics

The fact you think this study shows what you think it does is quite telling. Those numbers say nothing about money spent, time spent and most importantly which type of games they play. If you actually would have made more thorough research you would have come across studies showing that (I have linked the studies in quite a few topics in the past so i'm not really in the mood to look them up yet again):
A: Women spend much less time and money on games on average than men
B: They are liking different things in games than men (eg: they prefer the social aspect, less favorable towards violence and competition, etc.)

This makes it easy to conclude that yes women are just a small piece of the cake in the violent VG industry.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

You know, to change the subject matter a bit, I think I also figured out the one thing that just pisses me off the most about Sarkeesian. Just, like every time I see one of her videos I zero right the hell in on it, and it just leaves me simmering in my own little stew of rage.

She sucks at makeup. I mean, like the worst I have ever seen, and I have seen some next-level personal grooming and appearance train wrecks. Just, ugh, really why even bother with makeup? She obviously wants to have a personable, professional appearance, and obviously goes to lengths to try, but just completely buggers the pooch in the process. There are pictures of her online with less, or no, makeup and she has a very approachable, friendly, and personable appearance without it. So, why fuck it up?

I mean, really. Her foundation is too light and too thick, her blush is either too light or too sparse to balance out the foundation, she has that tacky sharpie eyebrow shit going on, her eye shadow does not match her eye color or complexion (seriously, freakin' smoky blue?), and semi-glossy pink lipstick? Worst of freaking all, her makeup is color-coded to go with her shirt and that is just tacky.

I'm a straight guy. My experience with makeup is going drag for RHPS and for stage productions, and I can point that crap out. Just, damn.

 

[LetalisK]

Anita has never played a video game in her life, and that isn't invented, its fact.

From where? Because it sounds more like you pulled it out of thin air.

The facts are that she uses uncredited footage from other people's Youtube channels in her videos and passes them off as her own footage.

Which would imply that she hasn't played (Or at least hasn't recorded herself playing) The games she's talking about.

Yes, the bolded part would be the correct implication based on that fact. There is a world of difference between that and "she's never played a game in her life". And just to be clear I'm not assuming or arguing she has played all or any of the games she's talking about, but rather pointing out that a particular statement is only based on prejudicial speculation rather than any facts.