So, I agree with pretty much everything in Anita Sarkeesian's Damsels in Distress video.

[Tomeran]

Its only to be expected that gamers try to jump her for all the wrong reasons when she starts to pick hole at their little male centered hobby and show just how big a problem this is. Of course that doesnt make it okay, far from it, but it is unfortunetly far from surprising.

I swear I keep running into people that go "Women? playing games? yeah right, peggle over their iphones maybe" or that still believe the "der r no gurlS at teh internet!1"-saying. And that's me living in a relativly tolerant and socially equal country(Sweden).

This issue has been in dire need of highlighting for at least a decade, and its saddening to see people nitpicking at details and desperatly cling to strawman arguments without really getting the bigger point: There's a problem here. Lets try and do something about it.

As for why she's gotten so much attention: Hate spreads fast over the web and in this case she became a postergirl for something gamers thought they could unite against.

 

[TTYTYTTYYTTYTTTY]

*sigh* The same as last year:
Please show me where people do videos of such quality (technical quality since the quality of the content can be argued) for free. I haven't seen any.

TotalBiscuit/FreddieW and anyother youtube partner, they only get return on there own investment if there video does well.
TotalBiscuit also went on record stating that we wouldn't accept donations. Until Anita actually does something worth doing (unlikely), I can only think of this money as a donation/charity.

 

[generals3]

Its only to be expected that gamers try to jump her for all the wrong reasons when she starts to pick hole at their little male centered hobby and show just how big a problem this is. Of course that doesnt make it okay, far from it, but it is unfortunetly far from surprising.

I swear I keep running into people that go "Women? playing games? yeah right, peggle over their iphones maybe" or that still believe the "der r no gurlS at teh internet!1"-saying. And that's me living in a relativly tolerant and socially equal country(Sweden).

This issue has been in dire need of highlighting for at least a decade, and its saddening to see people nitpicking at details and desperatly cling to strawman arguments without really getting the bigger point: There's a problem here. Lets try and do something about it.

Here's the thing, you describe a problem which is caused by a lack of female gamers in the more mainstream games among youngsters (Shooters, RPG's, etc.). But her video doesn't address that at all. The only way to get more female gamers is to make games they want to play. So if you want to solve that problem you don't need to make BS propaganda videos, no, you need to actually be rational and go on and make studies which determine what would drive women into hardcore gaming and than show it to publishers like EA who would instantly get dollar signs on their eyes and make a typical high budget mediocre game but more aimed at women.

 

[Xanadu84]

Makes sense, I agree with her too, minus a few nitpicks, and no matter your opinion, it seems absurd to consider the things she has to say crazy. Agree or disagree, she made perfectly reasonable, debateable, thought out points. It's terrifying to imagine how much better she would have been treated, and how all those criticisms would have instead been indifference, or acceptance with a few caveats, if she were a man. A lot of people won't like me saying that. I mean, I can think of a few videos (Jimquisition did a few) That were if anything more inflammatory, and less thoroughly backed up (Mainly by virtue of Tropes vs Women having a LOT more time to make it's point) that people were far less critical of. Id like to think that the reason for this is because Tropes vs Women came across a little dry in the first installment, especially compared to the more engaging and dramatic style of Jimquisition. Unfortunately, I can't convince myself that this is the only reason.

I notice that too many people seem to think that TvW is implying something malicious or the result of sexist game developers directly, when really, she pretty clearly points out that these tropes are trends with a long and rich history that just bring about some awkward implications in the modern day. No malice or open sexism, just a failure to consider the context in which the game exists.

 

[JellySlimerMan]

Perhaps I should clarify: reward for the player character. Player by association. But please, do tell me how that character is elevated beyond Endgame Acquisition. I certainly haven't seen it, but I'm willing to consider that I've missed something crucial. Unfounded and undeserved calls for empathy, however, won't cut it.

Only association if there is no character to begin with on the protagonist. Which is true for ALL characters in videogames since they barely got any personality at all, wheter if they are the protagonist or someone to be rescued. And since story and character doesn't exist, what matters for the players is the gameplay alone.

Again, i dont see how this is supposed to pander to the male fantasies of rescuing the useless female, unless one is actually stupid and insane enough to fool themselves into believing that the badly pixelated image without character at all is, in fact, a female.

Then again, such extremes actually exist: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PoesLaw

As for that second paragraph of yours which is little more than posturing and semantic nonsense, I'm not going to address it. You've clearly decided to not argue honestly anymore.

Semantics is everything, from politicians to writers, and specially for a "professional" like Anita. Semantics is what started the rage towards Roger Ebert when he said "Game will NEVER be art" (<<-- nice Absolutist Statement right there) and semantics is what makes people scratch their heads around the "Object Dichotomy" that Anita keeps using. Semantics is what makes people question if she actually knows what he means by Strong female character, since she doesnt seem to agree with herself AND her other feminist people:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/YMMV/FeministFrequency

And remember, as extreme it may sound in my post, there is people that ACTUALLY BELIEVE THAT. So asking is just common courtesy at this point.

And even if people cared about the story, its clear that you are rescuing a LOVED ONE and not an object. If women are soooo disposable to the males, wont it make sense to have the option to just not give 2 fucks about her and find a replacement? I mean why not? she is supposed to be an object (not an unique human being) and objects are everywhere for the males to pick up and go on with their lives because they are replaceable, right? There should be a gameplay implement where you walk to the left instead of to the traditional direction of right, so you can visit different places to pick up women to replace the one you lost. Why not? games are made for males, so CLEARLY there is plenty of innovation in the area of gameplay around shopping for your next shiny object for you to show off to your buddies, and much as the innovation of desensitize us around the loss of our loved on-SORRY I MEAN- objects, right?

No lets make it so that you have the option to go to the left and call the cops. After that you play him doing his normal every day life stuff. Like working as an accountant in his usual attire. All with quick time events with Mike Tyson's punch out training theme attached to it in all its 8bit version. I bet all the gamers would buy this. Hey its gender neutral to a point so all gamers can play this where the male protagonist has no agency other then his job.

Better yet! since my post was too "video-gamey", i believe that i can alter my design to make it more like the real world. Instead of a story of a man saving his loved one, we could make it into a story of a man saving a woman to AVOID getting in Jail for suspicions of having pay a gang to kidnap her, or even to avoid being LYNCHED by the citizens who wouldn't tolerate for a male partner of a relationship to abandon his woman.

It will be JUST like real life, and historically accurate:
http://unknownmisandry.blogspot.ca/2011/10/societys-acceptance-of-domestic.html

It will have the tagline: "Is he saving her, or himself?"

For bonus "Artistic" points (so we can call the dissenters "entitled" or even "homophobic"): We could make the male into a gay male that just so happens to be a friend of the kidnapped female, but the populace assumed he was her boyfriend and they will lynch him if he doesn't rescue her like ALL males should do.

 

[JellySlimerMan]

Dude, YOU changed the video after I posted. Don't go all Stalinist revisionist on me. And I can't vouch for what individual self-professed feminists claim. The fact remains that mainstream and radical feminism as pure concepts are ideologically two quite different things.
Do I take issue with a lot of things alleged feminists say? Of course. I'm intersectional myself, so personally I think most feminist discourse is far too obsessed with the interests of middle-to-upper class straight white women. But if you think you can define a movement by putting the most extreme expressions of that movement under singular scrutiny...I'm not sure we could ever hope to get anywhere.

And you didn't even noticed that i changed it because the old video didn't had the contents i was ADRESSING in the first place, the real video had the issue of "No True Scotsman" addressed, which is what you and everyone else keep saying that mainstream feminist are NOT doing, but radicals do.

 

[Maevine]

Thank you. We needed at least one person saying something positive about that poor girl's videos! It's ridiculous that so many people are still all up in arms against Anita and her series. Guys, it's a couple of videos. You didn't fund them, they're not about you, and you don't need to watch them. It's okay. Really. Just calm down o.o;;

 

[Yuuki]

Guys, it's a couple of videos. You didn't fund them, they're not about you, and you don't need to watch them

???

I personally didn't help fund this project (thank goodness) but almost 7000 people DID fund it, with real money.
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/566429325/tropes-vs-women-in-video-games

Most of it went into the intro animation and the rest went was spent on Anita's makeup.

 

[Stealthygamer]

She just calls it tripe and offer no actual analysis of the movie or any of the previous work of the director.

unless you count that part where she says Watchmen and Sin City are evidence that he has a thing for violence against women.

He also has a thing for violence against men, there was no real point there

 

[Do4600]

snip

snip

It's a myth because men are not strong. People who are strong are people who train for strength, while men who train for strength are stronger than women, the breakdown still comes down to about 99% weak people and 1% strong people, and which group a person is in comes down to the choices they make, not gender. (not that anybody has actually understood this point yet).

Okay, I'll rephrase, Men are innately physically strong relative to women. Just like everybody who trains for strength is relatively stronger than those who don't train for strength.

Here's the breakdown of relative physical strength:

--------------------=|People who train for strength
-----------------=|
--------------=|
------------=|
----------=|
---------=|Male human
--------=|Female human
------=|
----=|
--=|
=|
|Human baby

This only matters if physical strength matters for social equality, which I see no reason why it should, just like I see no reason why a person's height, or lung volume, or running speed, or blood chemistry, or hair color, or skin color, or vocal magnitude should effect their equality. Equal relative social worth cannot be based on physical criteria, they're mutually exclusive ideas, one is social equality, the other is a bias. Which is why I don't understand why acceptance of the fact of sexual dimorphism is apparently controversial.

When a feminist says, "Women are just as strong as men." They're not accurately representing the facts and by that they are supporting a bias that favors the physical trait of strength and by emphasizing this trait they are creating a benchmark for equality that is based on a physical trait.

This reasoning: "If women and men are equally strong, then they are obviously socially equal"(or vice versa) posits the bias that physical strength is a prerequisite for obtaining social equality......which is mind bubblingly insane.

This is why Sarkeesian's idea that dimorphism is an "orchestrated myth" is so destructive, because it holds physical equality at the same level as social equality while disregarding fact. This totally destroys the idea of egalitarianism, the beauty of absolute social equality is that physical differences don't change a person's worth or respect. Sarkeesian is insisting that physical differences do make a difference in a person's worth or respect. This is counter-productive to the goal of feminism.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

This statement implies that you know less about feminist theory/history than you think. The primary difference between radical feminism and non-radical feminism is the same as the difference between revolutionary communism and reform communism, the former believes that a certain class constitutes a historically oppressed group and that revolution -- violent or otherwise -- is the sole means by which they can be liberated. The latter largely agrees with the assertions of the former but believes that society can be reformed gradually from within. Hence, you could characterize radical and non-radical feminism as revolutionary and reform feminism respectively.

No, not at all. "Mainstream" feminism is about equality. Radical feminism [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_feminist] as defined within the feminist movement is what initially gave us lots of the theories about patriarchy etc. (you've got this absolutely right though), and is today the movement which wants to completely do away with gender in society. What was "radical feminism" in the 1980's is largely mainstream feminism today. The people who mainly use the term radical feminism today are opponents of feminism and they use it with an implied negative connotation to radical.

On the subject of whether she should have stayed quiet -- that's an interesting discussion. The fact that she was asking people to pay her at all for doing what she's already been doing for free speaks volumes about her level of self-interest. I've been threatened with death and rape on the internet before, I never created a special part of my blog where people can see it.

The reason she lets people see it is because there's a massive discrepancy between the number of female journalists and activists who receive threats and the number of male journalists that receive the same. Recent studies in Sweden showed that over 90% of female journalists that have written an opinion piece has received threats at some point, compared to 30% of the men. 45% of female journalists received threats on a regular basis, compared to 4% of the men. See the problem?

As for her self-interest: If you want to do something for a living you've got to make money off of it. Sarkeesian asked for funding to do an investigative webseries, she got it. This is no different from anyone else pitching their idea for a series to production companies. The fact that so many people are doing this, resorting to personal attacks against Sarkeesian instead of critiquing her work, is pretty much par for the course when a feminist wants to discuss something today. This is the more benevolent cousin to all those threats feminists generally receive, the slandering of their character and persona.

Whether or not she's a hypocrite is a more interesting discussion. The problem that I have with the Damsel video is that Sarkeesian makes and underlying, and utterly unproven, assumption about the relation of objectification and the victimizing of females. Namely, she assumes that being objectified is inherently a negative and that it's always better to be an actor rather than acted upon.

When is it ever a good thing to be a passive object as opposed to an active agent? That's a serious question, but you also confound two things here:
1. Objectification in the form of female characters as rewards for the player (rescuing Peach) or in outfits only meant to make these women sexually appealing.
2. The lack of agency in female characters.

Both are serious problems and there's really no scenario ever where they can be a positive thing, no matter the gender of the objectified, passive character.

Let's use one of her own examples; in the Dinosaur Planet video she bemoans the fact that Krysta went from an active protagonist to a passive protagonist who is acted upon by the new protagonist, Fox McCloud. She assumes that this is a bad thing for women because it perpetuates extant gender roles about women passivity, she fails to note that this would mean that the role of being the actor is necessarily thrust on males. In that regard, Fox has the short end of the stick as he thereby assumes 100% of the risk involved. Passivity requires no effort, nor risk whereas playing the active role requires complete acceptance of risk.

What amount of risk is involved in a computer game? None. This might be a proper argument for not sending people to war, but it is a terrible argument against storytelling since one of the most basic traits a hero needs is the ability to face risk and overcome it. We've celebrated this particular trait for centuries. By taking it away from a female protagonist you are taking away what made her the protagonist in the first place. Which also relegates her to a more traditional female gender role.

After Sarkeesian started being harassed for her video series, she immediately went to the internet and plead her case to any media source that would listen. She had full benefit of being a young, attractive woman who was being unduly bullied by a bunch of anonymous cyberthugs. People love young, attractive women and hate it when they're unduly bullied by anonymous cyberthugs. Hence, Sarkeesian complained about the damsel in distress trope while benefiting entirely from it. By the way, a quick search of her supporters on her kickstarter will reveal that near all of them are men.

Tropes are not real life. Repeat that until you understand it.
Sarkeesian told people of the harassment she was subjected to, that's a pretty normal reaction. It does not make her a Damsel in Distress (not that tropes applies to real life anyway, as they are narrative tools), it makes her a victim of harassment speaking up about said harassment. That does not mean she's taking advantage of the situation and nothing indicates that she did.

Also, a majority of gamers are men, are you surprised a majority of her backers are men? Very few outside of gaming cares about gaming to begin with.

There's yet another aspect to this; as I mentioned earlier, Sarkeesian is relying on an assumption that being objectified in inherently bad which leads to female victimizing. If that's the case then Sarkeesian would have no choice but to admit that everyone who came by to save her by giving her money were actually victimizing her. She won't, but it's a good example of how being objectified isn't inherently bad.

Speaking up against being subjected to harassment is pro-active. You are continually building up this situations where Sarkeesian is damned if she spoke up against those harassing her and she was damned if she didn't. She wasn't objectified, because the money donated was so that she could take action and prove those harassing her wrong, not so that someone else could come save her from harassment.

The sheer amount of double standard in your post is making me slightly nauseous, honestly.

 

[Eddie the head]

Of course they don't. For as many times as I've seen this claim, I've never seen anyone offer concrete proof of it. People have little trouble believing something if it suits them, and if enough people believe it, it becomes an INTERNET FACT.

Spoiler

Yeah it's called confirmation bias. People have a tendency to favor information that confirms there beliefs. There is also the bias you seam to be suffering form called a bias blind spot. You're making the assumption that you are less bias then everyone else when you're not. Look lets not open up this can of worms. Everyone has 110 biases that they fall for in any decision. No one is above it.

Furthermore what you appear to be doing is a "Argument from Bias." (is that a thing, if not it should be) Just because someone is suffering form a bias that doesn't mean that they're wrong. The halo effect tells us that people have a tendency to let attractive people off the hook easier. People are much more likely to acquit an attractive person for a crime then an ugly one. This is a bias. Dose that mean attractive people are more likely to be guilty? No.

At best you didn't prove anything with what you just said, and worst you caused a backfire effect.

 

[Chemical Alia]

Of course they don't. For as many times as I've seen this claim, I've never seen anyone offer concrete proof of it. People have little trouble believing something if it suits them, and if enough people believe it, it becomes an INTERNET FACT.

Spoiler

Yeah it's called confirmation bias. People have a tendency to favor information that confirms there beliefs. There is also the bias you seam to be suffering form called a bias blind spot. You're making the assumption that you are less bias then everyone else when you're not. Look lets not open up this can of worms. Everyone has 110 biases that they fall for in any decision. No one is above it.

Furthermore what you appear to be doing is a "Argument from Bias." (is that a thing, if not it should be) Just because someone is suffering form a bias that doesn't mean that they're wrong. The halo effect tells us that people have a tendency to let attractive people off the hook easier. People are much more likely to acquit an attractive person for a crime then an ugly one. This is a bias. Dose that mean attractive people are more likely to be guilty? No.

At best you didn't prove anything with what you just said, and worst you caused a backfire effect.

I know very well what a "bias blind spot" is. I have absolutely no reason to believe angry rumors on the internet like that. I've seen nasty rumors with more "evidence" than that purported as facts by people with an axe to grind that I knew for certain were untrue. What I'm giving her is called "the benefit of the doubt", it's pretty cool and it works for me.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

She just calls it tripe and offer no actual analysis of the movie or any of the previous work of the director.

unless you count that part where she says Watchmen and Sin City are evidence that he has a thing for violence against women.

He also has a thing for violence against men, there was no real point there

I think that's closer to being fair. I think the violence against women in those films only stands out because we're so used to never seeing it. The violence against women in Sin City still pales in comparison to what happens to the male characters, so... It looks like the reaction to the films says more about our gender perceptions than the content of the films.

Guys, it's a couple of videos. You didn't fund them, they're not about you, and you don't need to watch them

???

I personally didn't help fund this project (thank goodness) but almost 7000 people DID fund it, with real money.
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/566429325/tropes-vs-women-in-video-games

Most of it went into the intro animation and the rest went was spent on Anita's makeup.

Spoiler

A large amount of money was clearly spent acquiring the games. Which, to my mind, is really indicative of the problem. I fully suspect that she's considerably less knowledgable than most of the backers and most of the audience... which is clearly the opposite of what you would hope for in a commentator. It's been months and people are claiming that's a long time, but it's actually a very short time to get through a stack of games like that and actually inform yourself if you're starting at a point of relative ignorance.

I always find it funny when people try to analyze Mario. It's fucking Mario! The fact that Nintendo don't change the story is probably because they have a sense of humour about it, and because it's not important to the gameplay at all. Most gamers I talk to think it's funny, and I think that's how it's supposed to be perceived. Mario is about as deep as Clifford the big red dog, when all is said and done. It's fluff.

 

[Uhura]

I've been threatened with death and rape on the internet before, I never created a special part of my blog where people can see it.

That's your own choice. I don't think there is anything wrong about publicly talking about the abuse and threats one receives online. She is doing nothing wrong.

 

[MeTheMe]

I will say, I think she makes some good points. I don't think I agreed with -everything- she said, but she made points that made me think. Personally I think the fact that she made it was more important than some of her points, she started a dialogue I think we should be having, we're discussing the issue now when we aren't having knee jerk reactions. It's something we should be talking about at the least, and I like that she started it. I'll be watching her videos, even if I don't agree with everything she says, I'll respect her side of the argument.

 

[Requia]

snip

snip

It's a myth because men are not strong. People who are strong are people who train for strength, while men who train for strength are stronger than women, the breakdown still comes down to about 99% weak people and 1% strong people, and which group a person is in comes down to the choices they make, not gender. (not that anybody has actually understood this point yet).

Okay, I'll rephrase, Men are innately physically strong relative to women. Just like everybody who trains for strength is relatively stronger than those who don't train for strength.

Here's the breakdown of relative physical strength:

--------------------=|People who train for strength
-----------------=|
--------------=|
------------=|
----------=|
---------=|Male human
--------=|Female human
------=|
----=|
--=|
=|
|Human baby

This only matters if physical strength matters for social equality, which I see no reason why it should, just like I see no reason why a person's height, or lung volume, or running speed, or blood chemistry, or hair color, or skin color, or vocal magnitude should effect their equality. Equal relative social worth cannot be based on physical criteria, they're mutually exclusive ideas, one is social equality, the other is a bias. Which is why I don't understand why acceptance of the fact of sexual dimorphism is apparently controversial.

When a feminist says, "Women are just as strong as men." They're not accurately representing the facts and by that they are supporting a bias that favors the physical trait of strength and by emphasizing this trait they are creating a benchmark for equality that is based on a physical trait.

This reasoning: "If women and men are equally strong, then they are obviously socially equal"(or vice versa) posits the bias that physical strength is a prerequisite for obtaining social equality......which is mind bubblingly insane.

This is why Sarkeesian's idea that dimorphism is an "orchestrated myth" is so destructive, because it holds physical equality at the same level as social equality while disregarding fact. This totally destroys the idea of egalitarianism, the beauty of absolute social equality is that physical differences don't change a person's worth or respect. Sarkeesian is insisting that physical differences do make a difference in a person's worth or respect. This is counter-productive to the goal of feminism.

Anita isn't saying Dimorphism is a social construct[footnote]The dimorphism would probably be lower if women hadn't been convinced that losing weight was necessary to look good though[/footnote]. At least I don't think she is, it is hard to tell what her point is in most of the video. She's saying that the idea of strength being a male attribute is a social construct. The dimorphism is there, but the correlation isn't high enough to back up the idea.