The Most Dangerous Woman in Videogames - Anita Sarkeesian

[Specter Von Baren]

Ahhhh! So this is why a new Sarkeesian thread popped up in the gaming section, Bob is beating the dead horse again. We've had quite the peace and quiet in terms of this topic for several weeks and I wish it had stayed that way until her next video (Whenever it gets released). Just to bring something up for this topic.

First TvT video currently has this many views.

1,662,299

Her second has this many views.

875,732

And her third has this many.

573,142

Most people are bored of her and this discussion by now, can we please just let it die already instead of prolonging its agony?

 

[TheMadDoctorsCat]

I've yet to see any well-written article against what she's doing. As far as I know, the only hate comes from the "little people" of the internet.

Agree with this.

I admit I'm prejudiced more towards her than against her, because I absolutely despise the vile campaign that's been levelled against her, and its perpetrators. Seriously, those guys (and unfortunately I'm assuming that it's probably mostly men) need to just disappear. The thing that sticks with me personally (on quite a selfish level) is that people might assume that those horrible, horrible people are speaking for ME. They're not.

Other than that, I saw the video that prompted the campaign, and thought that it was very good. There were parts that I disagreed with, and other parts where I actually thought she could've gone a good deal further in her arguments than she did (I thought she might've brought up the issue of marriage in terms of what she was discussing in regards to Skyrim, for example). There was nothing in it that struck me as mean-spirited or dishonest.

Glad you enjoyed the talk, MovieBob. Don't suppose anybody knows if there's a video of it anywhere?

 

[Draconalis]

She goes on and on about how sexist super mario is for example.. a game where you play an italian plumber... who eats mushrooms to grow bigger and kills turtles by stomping on them.

You know...? When you put it that way... PETA should do something to save all those poor virtual turtles...

 

[Piecewise]

cherry picking data points to give evidence to a presupposition.

This is an often quoted complaint... that means nothing.

If you know anything at all about academic work - particularly in the field of the Humanities (such as English and Women's Studies) you know that there is no such thing as cheery picking in those fields. ALL academic work is based on choosing evidence to support your point in that same fashion.

Cheery picking MIGHT exist in science - but not in humanities. It has no place in this discussion.

Excuse me? I believe there are a few of my English teachers who would like a word with you. In fact, as someone with a degree in English, I'd like to have a word with you.

The concept that there is no such thing as cherry picking, no such thing as taking information out of context in order to falsely give credence to a viewpoint is ludicrous to the point of weeping hilarity. By that logic, by this assertion that "Cherry picking doesn't exist in the humanities", I could make any argument and then support it with practically anything.

I could say "Bara No Hime supports neo nazi's and child prostitution" and then go and rip quotes from your posts, out of context, and string them together with skewed interpretations to make an argument that, according to you, would be completely valid.

Do you not comprehend the idiocy of that concept? The idea that taking things out of context and skewing them to what you want does not lower the validity of an argument or opinion? As one of my favorite English Lit teachers said, in reference to research projects regarding interpretation of symbolism in fiction:

"When it comes to interpreting the meaning of something in fiction, there are no right or wrong answers. There are however, answers that are more right then others, and those are the ones that can give the most support to their opinion. You can find a religious allegory in anything if you look hard enough. That doesn't mean that is what it was intended to be. It's just what you're making it into. "

 

[Draconalis]

I've yet to see any well-written article against what she's doing. As far as I know, the only hate comes from the "little people" of the internet.

Agree with this.

There are plenty of them around, most floating in this very thread.

I personally suggest Feminism vs Facts by Thunderf00t

 

[Machine Man 1992]

I am thinking of the leaders of A Voice For Men and The Spearhead, two of the most prominent sites. Both have said absolutely awful things and both of which are generally held up as leaders in the MRA community. Warren Farrel talked about how date rape is sexy in his book, so I don't have any direct links to that, but I do have links to images of the passage where he discusses that, if you like.

As for links to horrible stuff from them... Well, those are more easy to find!

Horrible shit from The Spearhead:
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2013/10/14/why-you-might-want-to-think-twice-about-sending-your-daughter-to-college/
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2012/05/30/after-25-women-are-just-wasting-time/
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2010/09/15/how-female-suffrage-destroyed-western-civilization/

Horrible shit from A Voice For Men:
http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/women-dont-own-sex/
http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/chanty-no-not-that-one/
http://www.avoiceformen-uk.com/2013/07/are-women-homophobic.html

While that does seem like a bunch of horrible crap to say, especially Spearhead, it is jumping the gun a bit to assume that this is what all MRAs support. I doubt Thunderf00t is crazy enough to oppose the vote for females or in favor of date rape. And all those MRAs who want to sponsor education for PoC boys or better support for male victims of domestic abuse, I can't say for sure but I don't believe sexy date rape is something they would give the thumbs up.

The terms feminist and MRA are very broad, MRA even used as an insult to detractors of feminism. Associating rape apology with MRAs is like people who bash all feminist ideology just because they disagree with Sarkeesian. Which happens way too often.

I don't think it is going to far to associate rape apology with MRAs. Mainly because the rape apology comes from those who are considered the most important, greatest thinkers in the MRA. There is not self criticism like there is in feminism (see: womanism, the sex wars). The MRA is only comparable it feminism if feminism was made up of nothing but Andrea Dworkins. Hell, they aren't even helping anyone they say they want to help, as those groups who are helping to end prison rape, decrease male suicide rapes, etc. tell others not to associate them with the MRA!

And in exchange, I'll tell people not to associate with feminism. Your double standards and myopia regarding Men's Rights are astounding.

MHRA's are called misogynistic because feminists are under the delusion that acknowledging that men have issues too would undo everything.

 

[Worgen]

What is it about Anita Sarkeesian that makes people really really stupid? I mean seriously, it seems like people are just bitching about her to ***** and have paid no attention to anything shes said. "Oh a woman is talking about vida james, RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE BURN STAKE RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!"

Youtube is full of people that have paid attention to what she's said and have proven her assertions are crappola. Then there's the MRM crowd, the radically pro-male flip side to her feminist pandering, and even they've made some fair arguments, most recent one being that it's unfair to women that actually play video games to come in from nowhere and demand things change for the sake of someone that doesn't even like video games. There were women that liked things as they were, that were already gamers, not really against any of it. Then along she comes telling everyone things need to change because she is a damsel and it distresses her, ironically again because she doesn't even really play video games anyway. She earned her money by being a damsel in distress by the "big scary patriarchy" that chose to abuse her for having a voice, then rode that theme to conventions and public speaking engagements, all the while pandering to a fear-based group of supporters that feel bad for her being abused by these awful churlish male misogynists.

More than anything she struck oil, some magic grouping of funding, publicity, radicalized support, radicalized hate, and just plain good timing. It's like one of those marvelous accidental discoveries that changes things, for better or worse.

Some links if you care (and many of you may have seen at least one of these already):

Fair waning on these, they are from MRM activists... so with a grain of salt, folks.

I haven't watched those specific vids but I have watched a few that claimed to refute her and they were full of shit. They only took the most superficial aspects of her argument or just went with what people thought she was saying and went with it, most of them looked like they were just fishing for page views. I'm not saying your links are full of shit, but for all I care they are. Since Anita isn't wrong about the portrayal of women and for the most part her vids are accurate, really the only leap in logic I could find in hers was when she brought up Ghost Trick. Although if I remember right the only time you had to save someone from getting killed was when it was a women, might be wrong about that, been awhile since I played it.

 

[wulf3n]

I'm not saying your links are full of shit, but for all I care they are.

The quintessential opinion of both sides, and the clearest indication of the futility of the whole argument.

 

[Sonic Doctor]

Wow, 17 minutes and no comments yet? I wholly believed this place would be World War 5 by now, congratulations. As much as I believe her kickstarter was an unnecessary and dishonest cash grab, the notoriety it earned her is now letting her reach people academically, so that's a good thing.

How is it a good thing? I would understand it as such, if her videos had any academic research backing it. From what I've watched of her games series, all I could say with every point she had was, "Citation needed".

Everything that has come out of her mouth is opinion and instances of "I have experienced this".

If she had handed work like her videos to any professor I had when I was in college, they would have looked at her work and told her she failed the assignment because she didn't cite anything and brought now proof, the nicer ones would have given her and extra couple of days and told her to start over and actually do some real research and work.

If there are actual professors that brought her to that university to speak "academically", I would have to cross that university off as a place of proper learning.

What is it about Anita Sarkeesian that makes people really really stupid? I mean seriously, it seems like people are just bitching about her to ***** and have paid no attention to anything shes said. "Oh a woman is talking about vida james, RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE BURN STAKE RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!"

Granted that is the reason for a small few, but it has nothing to do with why I can't stand her. Her being a woman has nothing to do about it. I have clearly watched and listened to what she says.

It's the fact that she her work gives off the obvious air of "I did zero real academic research" or "I don't care about real research because it doesn't help my cause."

She talks about in-depth looks at the "issues", but from what I've seen of her videos, to her, in-depth is looking at the surface of and thick shell of information and reporting bias opinion/observation.

Observation is not research. It is a part of research, but only a very small part of it. There has to be cold hard facts to back her research, cited sources and studies. Reading off basic wiki descriptions and saying while playing this game I saw this, is not research.

As I said in my other above comment in this comment, the professors I had in college would have failed her or told her to start over and hand in her assignment in a couple more days(if she was lucky).

It is very troublesome that universities are actually inviting her to speak and calling it an academic lecture. Calling what she is putting forth "research", is sad and laughable.

 

[DonTsetsi]

The fact that all of the leaders are huge misogynists and (usually) rape apologists. The fact that they are anti-science, choosing to hold to disproved theories of evolutionary psychology. The fact that even the most "respectable" of their number, Warren Farrell, has endorsed date-rape.

Any links for reference?
Also I'm not sure you can consider anyone in MHRM a "leader"
There are few noticeable personas, but no one who demands/deserves/carries title of "leader"
Are you talking about any particular person?

I am thinking of the leaders of A Voice For Men and The Spearhead, two of the most prominent sites. Both have said absolutely awful things and both of which are generally held up as leaders in the MRA community. Warren Farrel talked about how date rape is sexy in his book, so I don't have any direct links to that, but I do have links to images of the passage where he discusses that, if you like.

As for links to horrible stuff from them... Well, those are more easy to find!

Horrible shit from The Spearhead:
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2013/10/14/why-you-might-want-to-think-twice-about-sending-your-daughter-to-college/
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2012/05/30/after-25-women-are-just-wasting-time/
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2010/09/15/how-female-suffrage-destroyed-western-civilization/

Horrible shit from A Voice For Men:
http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/women-dont-own-sex/
http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/chanty-no-not-that-one/
http://www.avoiceformen-uk.com/2013/07/are-women-homophobic.html

OK, let's review some of the examples you gave. I will focus on the ones from A Voice for Men.
Women don't own sex: 1. Being cautious is important, no matter what gender you are, you can decrease the likelihood of being the victim of a violent crime. That DOESN'T mean the victim is guilty, just that being cautious can save your life. 2. Vilifying all men for actions done by a small minority of both men and women is discrimination and teaching men not to rape doesn't have any merit, because ALL MEN ALREADY KNOW THAT and rapists are not doing it out of ignorance. 3. The final point, the one you would call rape apology, is that the sexes should be equal in sexual encounters. At the moment a man can be convicted of rape without any evidence, a woman can claim rape if both she and her partner were intoxicated, statutory rape cases are often gender biased- there is a case of a 13-year old paying child support to his rapist, for example.
The other two articles discuss point 2 from the previous article.
Yes, there are some exaggerations and generalizations, but I wouldn't say that complaining about inequality is horrible shit.

 

[BreakfastMan]

Here's the thing though, I don't recall there being a mass vote or anything on the news to decide who the most important, greatest thinkers in the MRA are. I certainly don't consider them the leader of anything. Do you judge atheism by Richard Dawkins personally, or is he just one voice whose importance is relative to how much he matters to you personally?

Um... Richard Dawkins is an important and influential leader in modern atheism? So I don't really get the point here.

It's silly to try and point to a 'center' or leader of an amorphous group of people tied together by a label.

I don't point to a single leader. I point to a number of influential people in their community which the community likes.

As for the lack of internal criticism, I highly doubt that none has ever existed.

I have yet to encounter any that is anything meaningful. Certainly, the PUAs attack the MRAs, and vice versa, but they both have the same problems.

And in exchange, I'll tell people not to associate with feminism. Your double standards and myopia regarding Men's Rights are astounding.

MHRA's are called misogynistic because feminists are under the delusion that acknowledging that men have issues too would undo everything.

That doesn't counter shit. Or did you miss that I provided specific examples as to why I considered the MRA bigoted? And did you miss the bit where I said that the MRA don't actually do jack about men's issues?

 

[Professor Icepick]

I, for one, can't wait to see the next Big Picture: "Anita Sarkeesian: Greatest Hero in American Herstory or World Herstory?"

 

[SummerOtaku]

I am thinking of the leaders of A Voice For Men and The Spearhead, two of the most prominent sites. Both have said absolutely awful things and both of which are generally held up as leaders in the MRA community. Warren Farrel talked about how date rape is sexy in his book, so I don't have any direct links to that, but I do have links to images of the passage where he discusses that, if you like.

As for links to horrible stuff from them... Well, those are more easy to find!

Horrible shit from The Spearhead:
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2013/10/14/why-you-might-want-to-think-twice-about-sending-your-daughter-to-college/
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2012/05/30/after-25-women-are-just-wasting-time/
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2010/09/15/how-female-suffrage-destroyed-western-civilization/

Horrible shit from A Voice For Men:
http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/women-dont-own-sex/
http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/chanty-no-not-that-one/
http://www.avoiceformen-uk.com/2013/07/are-women-homophobic.html

While that does seem like a bunch of horrible crap to say, especially Spearhead, it is jumping the gun a bit to assume that this is what all MRAs support. I doubt Thunderf00t is crazy enough to oppose the vote for females or in favor of date rape. And all those MRAs who want to sponsor education for PoC boys or better support for male victims of domestic abuse, I can't say for sure but I don't believe sexy date rape is something they would give the thumbs up.

The terms feminist and MRA are very broad, MRA even used as an insult to detractors of feminism. Associating rape apology with MRAs is like people who bash all feminist ideology just because they disagree with Sarkeesian. Which happens way too often.

I don't think it is going to far to associate rape apology with MRAs. Mainly because the rape apology comes from those who are considered the most important, greatest thinkers in the MRA. There is not self criticism like there is in feminism (see: womanism, the sex wars). The MRA is only comparable it feminism if feminism was made up of nothing but Andrea Dworkins. Hell, they aren't even helping anyone they say they want to help, as those groups who are helping to end prison rape, decrease male suicide rapes, etc. tell others not to associate them with the MRA!

And in exchange, I'll tell people not to associate with feminism. Your double standards and myopia regarding Men's Rights are astounding.

MHRA's are called misogynistic because feminists are under the delusion that acknowledging that men have issues too would undo everything.

Uh feminists aren't delusional for one thing and for another acknowledge men have issues. Issues caused by patriarchy and unfair gender roles. And really the very things they are trying to fight against.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

Excuse me? I believe there are a few of my English teachers who would like a word with you. In fact, as someone with a degree in English, I'd like to have a word with you.

First off, I'm an English Professor.

Academics do not cherry pick evidence that supports its point. There is something called Peer review in the academic world to prevent people from cherry picking.

Secondly, I never said anything about not being peer reviewed. However, choosing evidence to support your point and poking holes in opposing points is the core of academic writing.

I can (and have) "proven" that Ophelia (in Hamlet) was faking her insanity. There's plenty of evidence in the text to support this.

Others have "proven" that she is insane.

I can (and have) "proven" that Gertrude murdered Ophelia.

Others have "proven" that she loved Ophelia.

That's how academic writing works. Anyone who says otherwise is full of it.

 

[SummerOtaku]

The fact that all of the leaders are huge misogynists and (usually) rape apologists. The fact that they are anti-science, choosing to hold to disproved theories of evolutionary psychology. The fact that even the most "respectable" of their number, Warren Farrell, has endorsed date-rape.

Any links for reference?
Also I'm not sure you can consider anyone in MHRM a "leader"
There are few noticeable personas, but no one who demands/deserves/carries title of "leader"
Are you talking about any particular person?

I am thinking of the leaders of A Voice For Men and The Spearhead, two of the most prominent sites. Both have said absolutely awful things and both of which are generally held up as leaders in the MRA community. Warren Farrel talked about how date rape is sexy in his book, so I don't have any direct links to that, but I do have links to images of the passage where he discusses that, if you like.

As for links to horrible stuff from them... Well, those are more easy to find!

Horrible shit from The Spearhead:
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2013/10/14/why-you-might-want-to-think-twice-about-sending-your-daughter-to-college/
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2012/05/30/after-25-women-are-just-wasting-time/
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2010/09/15/how-female-suffrage-destroyed-western-civilization/

Horrible shit from A Voice For Men:
http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/women-dont-own-sex/
http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/chanty-no-not-that-one/
http://www.avoiceformen-uk.com/2013/07/are-women-homophobic.html

OK, let's review some of the examples you gave. I will focus on the ones from A Voice for Men.
Women don't own sex: 1. Being cautious is important, no matter what gender you are, you can decrease the likelihood of being the victim of a violent crime. That DOESN'T mean the victim is guilty, just that being cautious can save your life. 2. Vilifying all men for actions done by a small minority of both men and women is discrimination and teaching men not to rape doesn't have any merit, because ALL MEN ALREADY KNOW THAT and rapists are not doing it out of ignorance. 3. The final point, the one you would call rape apology, is that the sexes should be equal in sexual encounters. At the moment a man can be convicted of rape without any evidence, a woman can claim rape if both she and her partner were intoxicated, statutory rape cases are often gender biased- there is a case of a 13-year old paying child support to his rapist, for example.
The other two articles discuss point 2 from the previous article.
Yes, there are some exaggerations and generalizations, but I wouldn't say that complaining about inequality is horrible shit.

All men already know that? I'm not sure I agree given statistics and the like. Do you not believe rape culture exists?

 

[Karadalis]

Care to give me specific arguments, or do you want me to rant against the various arguments I have seen that stick out in my mind the most?

Whatever stuck out to you, lay it on us, bro! We can take it!

...right everybody?

......

Okay, well... Here we go!

"Saying sexism in games doesn't cause people to be sexist like violent games doesn't cause people to kill others!" That is a stupid comparison. Sexism is not the same as violence. Sexism is an idea, violence is an action.

"She presents no sources!" For what? What does she have to present sources for?

"She censors everyone!" No she doesn't, that is just asinine.

"She is exploiting her victim hood!" So, she should just shut up about receiving loads of rape and death threats?

"She takes everything out of context and lies all the time!" Any specific examples?

"She refuses to debate the subject!" Everyone is not owed a response.

"BWAAA, she is a manipulative ***** that tricked everyone into giving her money!" And what do you base this on, then? A 4chan thread? Oh me oh my, what fantastic evidence. This doesn't even address her points, anyway.

"She said she doesn't identify as a gamer in this one video!" I don't always identify as a gamer either. Doesn't mean I don't like games.

"She says games are inherently sexist!" No, she never actually said that.

"She is trying to censor creators!" So... Criticism is censorship, now?

"She doesn't present any solutions!" Why should she? She is a critic, her job is to point out the flaws. Or do you get upset when moviebob doesn't explain how to fix movies in his reviews?

"Damsel in Distress trope doesn't harm people because people want to protect others in real life, which somehow means it isn't sexist!" You do know that real life isn't fiction, right? And how does this disprove that the DiD trope has a harmful effect on how people view women?

"Damsel in Distress trope isn't sexist because it is an easy motivation that people connect with!" How does this even counter anything? It is a total non-sequiter. Yes, it is an easy, cheap way to create tension and a goal. How does that not make it harmful again?

"She hates sex!" No, she doesn't. Overuse of objectification leads to damaging stereotypes of women.

"She should use all her money to effect change!" Then she would just be committing fraud. The kickstarter was for the video series, so that is what the money went towards.

There are probably more, but that is what stood out to me from trawling through half this thread again. If you have any specific points you want me to address, feel free to send them my way.

.....

Wow.... just... yeah the amount of nonsense in this post is earth shattering..

Lets work this down point by point:

A) Violent behavior and Sexist behavior are both states of ones mind. The act of violence might be an action but this is about teaching people through video games to behave violent/sexist so in this context it is exactly the same. Your little differntiation that one thing is an idea and the other is an action holds absolutely no meaning when it comes to the basic question of video games actually affecting peoples behavior. Heres a hint: They dont.

B)Lets start off with all the nonsense she spouts about the "patriarchy" that she fights so hard. Is there actual proof that political figures actually are in cahoots with the creators of video games to surpress women throughout the world by implementing tropes of female chars into their game? How about giving credit to all the game footage she has stolen and not recorded herself? All she does is bring forth her own conspiracy theories that lack any sort of footing in the real world and tries to picture this universal boogyman for women that is "the patriarchy". As if there is actually some james bond villain like organisation that actively works against females.

C)Yes she does and it has been prooven numerous times and actually has been stated by her herself that she moderates every single comment. Saying that she doesnt moderate them is calling her a liar and i think as one of her supporters you surely arent going to call the person you try to stubbornly defend a liar.

D) She should come out and admit that she set this all up. Only for that one video she did not moderate all the comments and let the BS vitriol flow freely.. whats more is that "someone" went to 4chan.. a place that makes mos eisly look like friggin kindergarden and spammed the site with her kickstarter project.

Before that basicly no one in the gigantic community of gaming even knew about her. But suddenly BAM every gaming news website reported on the incident.

That is why i said she is a very smart women.. she knows how to attract attention and it literally paid out for her very well.

E) Uhm yeah... her entire videos up till now? But thats a bit to easy. How about that one time she talked about that star trek episode where Dana Troy is "impregnated" by some cosmic space energy entity? She claimed that the baby dies at the end of the episode and that the topic of emotional trauma isnt even touched upon. When in truth the baby does not die but turns back into the cosmic energy space entity because its existance threatens the enterprise or some such nonsense. Fact is she has no problem with lying or withholding information to further her agenda. Or about that time she said zelda is a powerless entity in the games when in truth zelda is actually a badass girl who for the most part is very competent.

F) Im really scratching my head about this one... so basically what youre saying is that its okay for her to pretent as if no one disagrees with her?

G)Then wheres the money? Clearly not in the video series thats for sure.. she doesnt even use game footage recorded by herselfe and isntead rips off lets players. So the question stands... where did the money go to?

H) She said that she isnt a fan of gaming and that she doesnt like to play games because they are to violent. In her kickstarter video and in her media apearances thought she claims to be a long time player who played games as soon as the age of 10. Something does not add up here and either way she is lying. The argument also wasnt about her being a "gamer" as being part of the community or not.. but if she actually plays games to be qualified to even talk about them in the way she does. And all evidence points to her not playing games.

I) I havent seen anyone actually claiming that... but its not hard to see because basically everything containing women in games is sexist according to her. She has both stated that powerless women are sexist because they are obviously powerless, and that empowered women are sexist because they are just tits tagged onto "positive" male criteria.. so again she has herselfe to blame for this one.

J) When moviebob points out flaws in movies he doesnt ramble on about how holywood tries to brainwash the masses. Unlike Arnita here who claims that these video games are trying to enforce their sexist view on their audience. Not only that but she doesnt even care for the success of these games or if they where actually good games or just trash. Again the problem is not with that she critisizes games for perceived sexism... its how she does it.

K) You seriously just shot yourselfe in the foot here. Yes it is not real life.. and that is EXACTLY why it does not have this brainwashing effect on people that arnita claims video games have. People KNOW that super mario is not the real live and KNOW that peach is not a real person.. so why should they attribute peachs personality to women in REAL life?

L) Because this trope was used during a time when the biggest games where as data intensive as 80 seconds of a MP3. You HAD to work with that, there was no way for elaborate storylines or character depth. And that was all she was harping about... old ass games that where made during the very beginning of gamer culture.

M) Again i have no one here or on youtube ever state that "she doesnt like sex" in any of the many many well thought out response videos to her claims. And we asked you for arguments raised in those responses and NOT from those 4chan 1 braincellers. Straw man.

N)Again.. what? Effect change? Again... a point not brought up. The actuall point is WHERE DID THE DAMN MONEY GO? It is not in the videos who quality wise are little different from the stuff she did before the kickstarter... it wasnt spend on research material or footage because she just uses wikipedia/TV tropes and footage from LPs... so again where did all the money go?

So there you have it.. i debunked every single point you brought up to debunk the arguments against her... god this really is a boring day today -.-

 

[wulf3n]

First off, I'm an English Professor.

May God have mercy on us all

Secondly, I never said anything about not being peer reviewed. However, choosing evidence to support your point and poking holes in opposing points is the core of academic writing.

I can (and have) "proven" that Ophelia (in Hamlet) was faking her insanity. There's plenty of evidence in the text to support this.

Others have "proven" that she is insane.

I can (and have) "proven" that Gertrude murdered Ophelia.

Others have "proven" that she loved Ophelia.

That's how academic writing works. Anyone who says otherwise is full of it.

Cherry picking evidence to support an interpretation of said work... fine.
Cherry picking evidence to support real world consequence to said interpration... not so fine.

 

[MXRom]

She doesn't give me much reason to have faith in her views. I was introduced to her in one video, and while some points were valid, what she used as support left me underwhelmed. Note this is my viewpoint based on what I've seen of her.

"She presents no sources!" For what? What does she have to present sources for?

For any claim she makes. In several videos she liked to use numbers, and kept re-affirming she did research on the subject, without so much as a link to this research. Another group that practices this is Fox news...

"She censors everyone!" No she doesn't, that is just asinine.

I agree with you there. Not censoring. At least not on Youtube, but she blocks comments. That gives off this elitist "I'm right, you're wrong" attitude that just bends many people the wrong way.

"She takes everything out of context and lies all the time!" Any specific examples?

She uses Borderlands 2 as an example of Damsel in distress, using the female character Lilith out of context. She only falls victim to Jack because he knows how to deal with Sirens seeing as he had one for a daughter his entire life, so it stands to reason how he was easily able to capture her. Despite that though, Lilith is still a strong character, as demonstrated nearly every time she is given 'screen time' so to speak. Even when captured she fights against Jack, teleportng you away instead of vaporizing you like Jack commanded her. Yet Anita didn't bring any of this up.

It isn't the fact she takes it out of context alone that miffs me. But the way she started that video saying she had done extensive research on the subject, and a biased view was the best I saw. I don't hate her for it, but I am disappointed.

"She refuses to debate the subject!" Everyone is not owed a response.

But debate is the best way to change opinion. Yes there are those that don't deserve a response, namely those who argue for the sake of arguing, but how about those that have a clear viewpoint that conflicts with hers? Maybe she can convice them to her side, or possible even alter her own because one of these people saw something she didn't.

"She said she doesn't identify as a gamer in this one video!" I don't always identify as a gamer either. Doesn't mean I don't like games.

Yeah but it does help that if you are going to critique something that you have some experience with it. In essence, critiquing basic concepts of gaming as a whole can earn some serious ire if you cannot claim to be a gamer. Much in the same way Fox News had some psychologist prove Mass Effect as some 'XXX' game despite never once touching it. Some people may view her on that same spectrum, that she doesn't know what she's talking about and may be stretching the truth for shock value or something.

"She says games are inherently sexist!" No, she never actually said that.

"She is trying to censor creators!" So... Criticism is censorship, now?

Yeah I agree these arguments are silly. I think she's pushing more for equality, than censorship.

"She doesn't present any solutions!" Why should she? She is a critic, her job is to point out the flaws. Or do you get upset when moviebob doesn't explain how to fix movies in his reviews?

Well some critics do point out what was missing, and that in itself is how to fix a problem. Kinda like Yahtzee when he explains why Final Fantasy lost its impact with each new addition to the franchise.

"Damsel in Distress trope doesn't harm people because people want to protect others in real life, which somehow means it isn't sexist!" You do know that real life isn't fiction, right? And how does this disprove that the DiD trope has a harmful effect on how people view women?

"Damsel in Distress trope isn't sexist because it is an easy motivation that people connect with!" How does this even counter anything? It is a total non-sequiter. Yes, it is an easy, cheap way to create tension and a goal. How does that not make it harmful again?

Okay I don't know enough about this trope, though I can guess. But I'm not gonna debate this and accidentally trod on someone's toes.

 

[wulf3n]

Snip

I don't... think you know what the word proven means...

If you really are an English professor, you remind me of the English Professor who got cross with me because I insisted she use a word correctly... and she told me to not be literal... with the definition and use... of a word.

I'm saying she wasn't very good at her job... and I get the impression you might share traits with her.

That's interesting because Bara_no_Hime blocked me because of a discussion we got into regarding the definition of a word, and got upset that I was using the term literally.

edit: It must be a requisite for English professors.

 

[Icehearted]

I haven't watched those specific vids but I have watched a few that claimed to refute her and they were full of shit. They only took the most superficial aspects of her argument or just went with what people thought she was saying and went with it, most of them looked like they were just fishing for page views. I'm not saying your links are full of shit, but for all I care they are. Since Anita isn't wrong about the portrayal of women and for the most part her vids are accurate, really the only leap in logic I could find in hers was when she brought up Ghost Trick. Although if I remember right the only time you had to save someone from getting killed was when it was a women, might be wrong about that, been awhile since I played it.

Yeah, not going to hound you about it. The first video I linked actually uses her own words, not specifically to debunk whatever she has to say about how women are depicted in video games, it even specifically says that it isn't the point, but it demonstrates that the the field in which she's risen to fame is one she actually doesn't really enjoy and didn't know a lot about to begin with. She says this, we see her saying this, there is video footage of it right there. Kind of smacks of the same things we got from people like Martha MacCallum claiming that Mass Effect was pornography, or every politician, parent, and anti-gun lobbyist that has ever attempted to link video games to mass shootings and other types of violence; they didn't play games, they didn't know much about games personally, they just drew sweeping conclusions based on assumption or they very plainly lied. In other words they didn't even know what they were talking about.

All personal feelings aside, one way or the other, in most cases like the topic of politics, religion, gun control, and racism, this is one where nobody is changing anyone's mind, people just become more entrenched when the issue, or in this case the woman emerges as the discussion.

For what it's worth I think any women's rights movements out there could probably do better than get angry about Mario recusing a princess, or other generic Macguffins. But what do I know?