I used to dislike Anita Sarkeesian, but...

[Erttheking]

You know, something about this has been bugging me for awhile, but I couldn't put my finger on it until now. I never was a huge fan of Anita, she just comes off as just boring. Her videos made lukewarm arguments at best, the connections to RL abuse that she makes REALLY stretches it. But...the reaction to her just makes me feel uncomfortable. I disagree with her, but that's it, I disagree with her and that's all I feel the need to do. I watch her videos, say "meh, whatever," and then they drift out of my mind. I can't even remember much about her videos aside from bits and pieces here and there. The thing is, Anita really has revealed a lot of problems in the gaming community. Not through her videos though, through the reactions to it.

Seriously, she made three boring ass videos that ran for twenty minutes each. Her points aren't that strong. So can I please ask why people get so royally pissed off at her? Why are people throwing every last insult at her that they can? On this website alone I've seen accusations that she's never played a game before in her life and that that was a fact, that she's a fraud, a con-artist, a hack, that she's trying to build a cult around herself (SERIOUSLY!?), that she wasn't a real feminist, that she was intentionally provoking people to insult her so that she could play the victim card, etc etc. The thing that really bugs me is that a lot of people on this website alone aren't trying to argue her points she makes in her videos. They're viciously attacking her in every way that they can, trying to discredit her, trying to make it look like any argument that she ever makes is invalid and...why? Because she tried to argue that there is sexism in the gaming community and industry? Because she had the gall to make youtube videos that are just plain mediocre? Why? What has she done to earn such rage? If she's wrong, just do what I did, say that she's wrong and move on.

But this obsession with hating her, the sheer amount of people that scrounge for every last detail to use against her makes me uncomfortable. I was bored to tears by her videos, to the point where I didn't even bother watching the third one. I really don't get what about her makes people feel so insecure that they feel the need to lash out at her like this. It makes me feel more uncomfortable about the gaming community than any of her videos did. It makes me think that maybe we do have problems. Anita said "I think there are sexism problems in the community," and so many people screamed back "we're not sexist you stupid ****!". Their words said one thing. Their actions another.

 

[MercurySteam]

I just can't take Anita's argument seriously. Society is built on stereotypes and she seems to be able to find sexisim everywhere (which is my problem with the whole idea of feminism). I mean, how many games are developed with feminists in mind? Can you imagine it? You wouldn't be allowed to make a game where you save a female character becuase its sexist and you're portraying women as weak and you're pro-patriarchy and you enjoy demeaning women and................ yeah, you can see what I mean if you watch her videos.

It's just something I can't get behind.

 

[mecegirl]

@mecegirl
OK, I see your point. Yet I don't agree. i don't take soft sexual content as seriously as you. As long as there isn't something really clashing with simple eye candy I don?t care.

Let me put it this way. Pan's Labyrinth is one of the best movies I saw in last several years. It's dead serious and is one long exercise in heart stinging and I wouldn?t want half naked female parading across the screen. However, Showdown in Little Tokyo is also one of the movies i really enjoy. It's stupid, badly made, badly acted action schlock but fun as hell and Tia Carrera and Renee Griffin are just the perfect spice for it. Same goes for tv series. In Brothers in Arms it would really ruin the mood. But in some teen centered thing? As a male teen? I would not be able to see enough of it.

To say it again, as long as it doesn't really detracts from the serious story, I don?t care. I like seeing female body. I like the shape of it, I like the meaning of it and i like what it represents. I know that some, or many people don't agree with me and that is perfectly fine. I'm not telling you what to like. For me that is deeply personal decision, one nobody should be able to change as long as it doesn't affects then in some real, objective way.

BTW, did you watch ROME?

At what point did I state that I was against anything other than scenes where the eye candy clash with the narrative? I'm not saying that games like lollipop chainsaw shouldn't exist. That is what specialized genres and sub genres are for. That is why I have an issue with comparisons between the Romance genre and video games as a whole. Which video games? Surely not the "mainstream" ones, because genre wise it's a horrible comparison.

If it is a game that expects the player to take the narrative seriously, or wants to be considered mainstream, then it needs to cut even the "soft sexual content" out when it is out of context. When it adds that it shows that the creators are making an assumption about who is playing the game, and that they are reaching for a niche audience. Most heterosexual men don't play mainstream games to see lady parts. They're too busy killing aliens, zombies, or enemy soldiers for that. It doesn't add anything to the game play or the narrative. So to add it, and be aghast when a game is called out for pandering, is illogical. Like, no one cares that Bayonetta gets naked when she uses her finishing attacks because Bayonetta is honest about what it is. In contrast look at all the attention that Miranda ass shot got from Mass Effect.

Not all of Rome it but I did watch Spartacus...I've never been to big on the whole politics and scandal thing. Got enough fuck ups in my own life to watch a show about other people fucking up.

 

[MrBrightside919]

Am I the only one who though he was going to say "...but then I took an arrow to the knee"?

I feel like i'm trapped in the past few years...

OT: Another day, another person saying they either "understand" or "hate" Anita...and I still don't care...the world continues to turn...

 

[Aramis Night]

If we compare monetary compensation for the same jobs in the same positions males and female earn roughly (or as I have seen it put, within the margin of statistical error) the same. Adjusted for less work time clocked in by females on average they actually earn more.

The main problem when it comes to the wage gap in scientific feminist discourse is the glass ceiling. Wage gaps are vastly overdiscussed; the main problem is how responsibility of the home is divided and the "risks" involved in hiring female workers. I skipped the rest of your comment, as I think you oversimplify things, but felt that it was neccessary to clear this up. Also, no, women do not earn more. They earn as much, with some very small exceptions in "third world" countries.

Let's put this wage gap nonsense to bed around here in a hurry if we can. Tired of seeing that myth pop up. http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2015274,00.html

Also if Time isn't credible enough for you, how about a report commissioned by the us dept. of labor: http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2015274,00.html

Thank you sir. Although you duplicated the link.

ah good eye. Here is the correct link for the US dept. of labor commissioned report: http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20Final%20Report.pdf

 

[carnex]

I never said I play those games for it. I said I don't mind it. You need context, I don't. I just don?t want it to fly in the face of something else. You have problem with both bad characters and non-characters, I have problem only with bad characters. I understand that much. Can't we agree to disagree and that it's all up to the personal, and maybe even gender taste?

And I don't understand why so much women have issues with Bayonetta. Yes, her story is laughably chiche, but she is most female empowering and female sex empowering character i have ever seen. She owns herself in every possible manner. I actually quite agree with MovieBob on that one. And that's exactly why I really like that character, unlike new Lara Croft which is presented as terminator, emotionless and indestructible yet somehow they showed in "sensitive and weak". BS. At least old Lara Croft was as straight faced super hero like Nathan Drake and Indiana Jones are. (Yea, bad characters bug me)

And I mentioned Rome since they use the flimsiest of excuses to put in sexual context. Not some skimpy clothed males and females but gratuitous shots of male and female genitalia, detailed descriptions of extreme sexual events "ala 50 shades of grey" and even full on softcore porn sex scene(those where genitalia grinding actually never are seen on screen but everything else is). Sometimes they would just say "to heck with reason" and just send character to prostitutes for some R&R. Popularity of series and it's special place in popular culture at the time was a major factor in creating Spartacus.

 

[prpshrt]

I think I must be blind because as someone who does read the news, I haven't seen this woman mentioned off the escapist forums in the few days I've started going through forums actively. I'm also surprised that a select group of individuals seem to have issues with the gender of their fellow gamers. Must be the fact that a lot of my guildmates from WoW back in the day were women and that I've played with quite a few women over pub games that use voice chat in Dota 2.

 

[thebakedpotato]

Snip

Change Society, and video games will follow suit naturally.
Change video games, and you change video games.

I think that's what pisses me off the most about Anita. And it was really in her third video that it showed. "When the roles are reversed this is token because the damseled man doesn't convey the same messages as a women." Why you're absolutely right Anita, let's roll up our sleeves and enact change in our society and rob these tropes of cultural stigma and meaning.

"No I think I'll plug a concept for a game that I may have a stake in." Alright Anita, I'll be making out with another dude. You know, that other side of gender stereotypes that needs to be handled before there's true equality.

I mean, I get it. I know that it sucks to like a medium that most often turns your gender into the polygon version of a body pillow. And to have to scrape to find representations that you can relate to in the media, let alone video games. But at the end of the day, you need to pick your battles. And you're going to have to live with the choices of what you work towards.

 

[Smeatza]

It's not so easy to see discrimination and prejudices when you're not the one they're directed towards.

I think we both realise you're desperately clutching at straws at this point.
I ask you to show how sexism is rampant (in said industry) - you wont, you just blindly assert that it is.
I ask you to address criticism of her work - you wont, you just blindly assert the the criticism is from closet sexists.
Simply put, you are a fundamentalist.

 

[Amaror]

snip

So then tell me: What does she want? What is her goal?
Change what attributes are considered usefull for survival?
That would be stupid, because these attributes simply ARE usefull to survival.
Or have woman be considered having attributes that are usefull for survival?
They already are. There are a lot of positive attributes that are often part of female character like mental strength, dexterity and intelligence.

So what i am asking: What's the point.

 

[Xenedus]

Surprisingly, you are familiar with these traits. Strength (both physical and mental) is one; another is resilience, coolness under pressure, rationality, and perseverance. You might notice that these are often common traits of protagonists in games, from Solid Snake, to Donkey Kong, to Master Chief. This is because in our patriarchal world, these traits are shown to be the most effective to both survival, and success.

This statement is actually sexist when you think about it. You are saying that Strength, Resilience, Coolness under pressure, Rationality, and Perseverance are glorified because they are patriarchal and not because they are good traits to have. Simply put: that argument is actually more sexist than any of the characters you used it against.

You are arguing that being a weak, emotional, and cooperative are female traits while being strong, resilient, and rational are male traits which is quite a sexist position to take.

You'll also notice that traits associated with femininity, including being emotionally open, vulnerability, caring, or cooperative, are rarely shown to be useful in game scenarios, even though they can add depth to a character.
This is what Anita is talking about when she says the Damsel in Distress is harmful, because it normalizes the notion that a female can't escape their captors, mostly because to escape would call for masculine skills that she does not have, or even if she does have them (Sheik from Ocarina of time), is still prevented from doing so by the confines of the narrative.

Again you attribute strength and resilience and rationality to having a penis. Characters get kidnapped/captured for many reasons. It doesn't necessarily make them weak or imply that they have female qualities. In addition a weak female character is just that. A weak female character. Weak characters come in both sexes. I wouldn't expect Joker to be able to stop someone from kidnapping him just like I would expect someone kidnapping Kerrigan to be in for a nasty wake up call. The character's formidability has nothing to do with their sex and to imply that a strong woman is somehow less of a woman because she's strong is a pretty sexist argument.

Even more troubling is the sexualization of females in games in ways that serve the player (fan service, skimpy outfits, press X to bone attractive character A) and don't suggest that females can have their own concept of sexuality. I don't believe this is intentional, but I do believe that we write it off as normal when it is really a construction that favors male viewers, and inadvertently belittles female players.

This argument is a little difficult to take one side or the other. Are highly sexualized outfits in bad taste in my opinion? Yes. Does that make a character wearing a sexualized outfit sexist? No. A character is a character and that character can wear whatever the hell that character wants to wear. You might be thinking "but what about those characters whose sole purpose is to be walking sex appeal? Aren't they sexist?" No they are just really crappy characters. The problem with mandating that women who look too sexually attractive are sexist is that you'd essentially be making the argument for game developers to portray female characters like this.

In short: Neither you nor anyone else gets to determine what is arbitrarily "ok" for a woman to wear in a video game.

 

[SidheKnight]

Oh God, where to begin...

Patriarchy refers to

The existance of Patriarchy, like the existance of God, is unfalsifiable, therefore a moot point.

media being male dominated, male centric

Based on what? How do you measure this? What does "male centric/dominated media" means?

but most importantly it describes how our world functions by emphasizing which kind of traits are both USEFUL and ENCOURAGED to have.

Yes, some traits are more convenient to have in some situations, and others in other situations.

Strength (both physical and mental) is one; another is resilience, coolness under pressure, rationality, and perseverance. You might notice that these are often common traits of protagonists in games

Of course they are. I wouldn't have it any other way. So?

This is because in our patriarchal world, these traits are shown to be the most effective to both survival, and success.

If by patriarchal world, you mean the real world, then you're right. Survival in a hostile environment like the ones game heroes typically face require these traits. That's not culture, it's nature.

You'll also notice that traits associated with femininity, including being emotionally open, vulnerability, caring, or cooperative, are rarely shown to be useful in game scenarios, even though they can add depth to a character.

Because game scenarios are all about combat most of the time. Showing vulnerability in front of the enemy (or your troops) is bad. Same about being emotionally open. Combat calls for stoicism.

Notice that in games where social interaction plays a bigger role than combat (Catherine comes to mind), suddenly all those undesirable "feminine" traits become very desirable.

Women like her have been in academics

How do pseudo-sciences like gender studies get to be called "academics"?

and been championed for their insight and ability to make us reconsider the meaning of stories and enhance our understanding of the human experience

Ha! Boy someone has been drinking the kool-aid.


P.S: I have nothing against Anita. I can't see how people can be offended by her videos. They're just pointing out stuff that we all already knew (although in a somewhat pedantic way in some spots) and doing an OK job about it.
I only want to shed light on the bogus ideology some of the concepts thrown in the discussion are based on.

 

[generals3]

You're focusing on the story context, and ignoring the larger cultural context. By itself, it makes total sense for Nintendo to change the lead of a game to a popular character to boost sales*; in the context of the lack of female video game protagonists, this is unfortunate (not "bad" per se, but a missed opportunity). By itself, it makes sense for a character to kill a person if she's turned into a monster; in the context of women rarely having agency in video games, this is again an unfortunate choice on the creators' part (and it is a choice. They could have easily gone with a different ending).


*Another point I wanted to make: just because something supposedly makes business sense, that doesn't mean it is a good thing and that you can't critique it. It made business sense for Fox to cancel Firefly, but because a lot of people expressed their disagreement with this, we got Serenity (which also didn't make sense financially, because it flopped). If enough people express their desire for better representation of women in games, it will make financial sense.

I'm not ignoring anything. I was merely pointing out how omitting context creates a false image. When she talked about Fox replacing krystal as the main protagonist she made it look like it was a matter of penis vs vagina while it was a matter of money. Twisting capitalistic choices into sexist choices is just plain wrong.

It would be like pointing out how a company hired a man instead of a woman while omitting the man was more qualified. The fact he was more qualified made him a more profitable employee hence why they took him, if you omit to mention that you risk creating a picture in which it was all about the genitals.

And you failed to address the fact that the context in which said women are "euthanized" makes the link with domestic abuse totally absurd. Her point than wasn't agency, it was that it is a dangerously irresponsible thing to do.

And I'm not saying you can't critique it. I'm merely pointing out how her critique is absurd. Not every critique is valid. Mainly if said critique tries to present itself as fact rather than opinion.

 

[nuttshell]

I really don't get what about her makes people feel so insecure that they feel the need to lash out at her like this. It makes me feel more uncomfortable about the gaming community than any of her videos did.

You have the trolls, the stupid, and the too young. Together, they are legion. What you have in common with them, is maybe playing something, they play too.

 

[Scott Rothman]

It's not so easy to see discrimination and prejudices when you're not the one they're directed towards.

I think we both realise you're desperately clutching at straws at this point.
I ask you to show how sexism is rampant (in said industry) - you wont, you just blindly assert that it is.
I ask you to address criticism of her work - you wont, you just blindly assert the the criticism is from closet sexists.
Simply put, you are a fundamentalist.

No.

Seriously, look at opinions and perceptions of the police and LAPD by Caucasians prior to and post the Rodney King beatings.

I gave examples of sexism in the industry, which you simply dismissed saying 'those require a long conversation'

I don't agree with a lot of what she asserts. I don't think negative portrayals of women directly contribute to increased sexist acts. I do agree that negative portrayals of female characters ostracizes and keeps women out of the industry, which is why that 'men spend more money on video games' argument is bullshit.

 

[MetalRain47]

The option of murdering is always there if you wish to take it.

 

[Kai Kuhl]

Your valid argumentation

So, I understand that many people in this community think that Sarkeesian is toxic for the discussion, I mean, alone the quantity of threads alone in this forum shows that, but I think that this is not the fault of Sarkeesian, but of the audience. I just can speak out of personal experience, but I got in gaming because of escapism, to separate me for a time from my personal problems, to temporarily experience a much purer world. To hear that your own chosen world is not free from problems of our world get you peeved. I understand that. I think a bunck of dislike towards her stems from that attitude.
Maybe the audience is pissed of by Sarkeesian due to her sometimes questionable scientific research and work with sources, but in the end she is an internet activist, not a harvard professor. And in the end, she reached her goal. She made a bunch of people aware of that problem, or otherwise ther wouldnt be a baziliard threads about her and misogynistic content.

 

[Kai Kuhl]

Ok this actually caught my attention, what is veganism doing in that list? How is that even closely related to the other kinds of activism?

Yeah, its a bit of another thing, because its more of a thing that you for yourself, not an active effort to change the way people think, (except vegan activists, like Gary Yourofsky). But it gets ridiculed in a similar way like other movements who wants to change the world to a better place.

 

[carnex]

Ok this actually caught my attention, what is veganism doing in that list? How is that even closely related to the other kinds of activism?

Yeah, its a bit of another thing, because its more of a thing that you for yourself, not an active effort to change the way people think, (except vegan activists, like Gary Yourofsky). But it gets ridiculed in a similar way like other movements who wants to change the world to a better place.

You are making a huge leap of logic there. To your preferences does not mean better place. Better place requires a lot of argumentation. Since you present none what you are doing is "I like that so I'm present it as beneficial so I could morally shame people who oppose it"

 

[Carpenter]

, the Darkness guy saves his wife because he loves her.

If she hadn't taken that clip out of context or if she had played the game and explained the context you would know that "darkness guy's" name is "Jackie" and that it's not his "wife" and he doesn't "save her" but she get murdered and it breaks him completely because he needed her so much.

Yes a story where a man needs a woman to be a real person, that is absolutely sexist, but you will never see her giving you the real reason.
But of course nobody cares if your story is sexist against men so it's perfectly ok to lie to support your argument that the game is misogynistic.