The Most Dangerous Woman in Videogames - Anita Sarkeesian
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Wow. Someone who actually commented on the article rather than falling into the honeypot of not-discussion that is Anita Sarkeesian! You deserve a cookie, at least.Blue Hero said:
I found that in spite of its many words, the article doesn't really say anything of interest.
It's rote narration describing the event, intercut with snippets of blind praise. There's no real "authority" from the author, and thus no overt point.
"Anita arrived, said stuff. *insert prose and praise*
Of course, I think most people who click over to the raging flame war in the comments can find the real purpose of the article.
Yup. I rescind my previous comment (the first on this "article"), and all I can do is shake my head at the 15 pages full of people who generated a few thousand page views for Bob, ensuring more of the same, since page views equal revenue and continued employment.Atmos Duality said:
Controversy = Angry Forumgoers = Large post counts = Lots of page views = Ad Revenue = More Controversial Articles. Congrats for feeding the monster, people.
I like how real life people exhibit a much more nuanced understanding of Feminism than self-absorbed nerds on the internet ever will. Bob basically proves in this article that "The Internet Makes you Stupid"
Even more saddening is that Anita's videos are pretty much Feminism 101 in terms of content which seems quite a large vocal group simply cannot comprehend. Even worse when people disparage the woman on so many levels, whether it be the sheer fact she has an opinion, the sheer fact that she ran a successful kick-starter, the sheer fact she is the a Feminist, and so on.
And come to think of it, most critiques of her are incredibly nonsensical and pretty much amount to "NNOOOOo your subjective opinion and viewpoint is completely wrong because RAISINS!" As if her background and knowledge completely disenfranchises her from speaking about video games. Holy Fuck, even if she didn't play video games at ALL her opinion would have still been valid anyway.
ALL this and all she is saying is that "Video Games have problematic (read: FUCKED UP) content in terms of how they present women, here are some examples:" AND we all acknowledge this is TRUE! Why the heck is it a problem when ANITA talks about it? (this is a rhetorical question) quite frankly people have a hard time accepting she is a woman, talking about video games. (the whole feminism thing being a double whammy)
Even more saddening is that Anita's videos are pretty much Feminism 101 in terms of content which seems quite a large vocal group simply cannot comprehend. Even worse when people disparage the woman on so many levels, whether it be the sheer fact she has an opinion, the sheer fact that she ran a successful kick-starter, the sheer fact she is the a Feminist, and so on.
And come to think of it, most critiques of her are incredibly nonsensical and pretty much amount to "NNOOOOo your subjective opinion and viewpoint is completely wrong because RAISINS!" As if her background and knowledge completely disenfranchises her from speaking about video games. Holy Fuck, even if she didn't play video games at ALL her opinion would have still been valid anyway.
ALL this and all she is saying is that "Video Games have problematic (read: FUCKED UP) content in terms of how they present women, here are some examples:" AND we all acknowledge this is TRUE! Why the heck is it a problem when ANITA talks about it? (this is a rhetorical question) quite frankly people have a hard time accepting she is a woman, talking about video games. (the whole feminism thing being a double whammy)
Once again, am I missing something?
Or is the whole case here boiled down to the following:
1. She asked for some money, got a huge amount more that was freely donated, and THAT OFFENDS ME
2. She got a detail wrong on my favorite videogame. This invalidates her whole point.
3. I like how everything is now, which means everything's fine, so she should shut up.
4. She's not a REAL gamer, so she's not entitled to have an opinion and express it.
5. She wants to wipe out any video game that's sexist, which she totally said, outright, in the video that I totally watched, really I did.
6. She has an agenda, which automatically makes everything she said invalid. Here's Thunderfoot to back me up, who totally does not have an axe to grind at all.
7. Why doesn't she just make her own game, because that's so easy to do!
8. This doesn't count BECAUSE REASONS!
9. She'll turn gaming into focus-tested, homogenized crap, instead of the vibrant bastion of unbridled creativity we have now.
10. She's infringing on freedom of expression by exercising her freedom of expression, and she should shut up.
11. She stole the same YouTube footage everyone steals. But it's BAD when she does it, because REASONS.
12. I totally have this clip from years ago where she says she doesn't play video games, because what someone says at this one point of time applies to their ENTIRE LIFE BEFOREHAND AND AFTERWARD.
13. I don't wanna hear it, so she should shut up.
14. I found a couple of women who agree with me, therefore she's wrong.
Okay, I think I'm convinced now. She's the most horrible person of all time. For I was blind, and now I see!
Or is the whole case here boiled down to the following:
1. She asked for some money, got a huge amount more that was freely donated, and THAT OFFENDS ME
2. She got a detail wrong on my favorite videogame. This invalidates her whole point.
3. I like how everything is now, which means everything's fine, so she should shut up.
4. She's not a REAL gamer, so she's not entitled to have an opinion and express it.
5. She wants to wipe out any video game that's sexist, which she totally said, outright, in the video that I totally watched, really I did.
6. She has an agenda, which automatically makes everything she said invalid. Here's Thunderfoot to back me up, who totally does not have an axe to grind at all.
7. Why doesn't she just make her own game, because that's so easy to do!
8. This doesn't count BECAUSE REASONS!
9. She'll turn gaming into focus-tested, homogenized crap, instead of the vibrant bastion of unbridled creativity we have now.
10. She's infringing on freedom of expression by exercising her freedom of expression, and she should shut up.
11. She stole the same YouTube footage everyone steals. But it's BAD when she does it, because REASONS.
12. I totally have this clip from years ago where she says she doesn't play video games, because what someone says at this one point of time applies to their ENTIRE LIFE BEFOREHAND AND AFTERWARD.
13. I don't wanna hear it, so she should shut up.
14. I found a couple of women who agree with me, therefore she's wrong.
Okay, I think I'm convinced now. She's the most horrible person of all time. For I was blind, and now I see!
- Apr 1, 2009
- 16,500
- 5,099
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
First of all, what the hell are you talking about? Second of all, it helps her case because even if she isn't a gamer and assuming that videogames are impossible for people to get into unless they have been into them since birth. It means that people who have devoted their lives to games can see the same problems she does.Icehearted said:
Your point makes no sense, the only way the whole kkk, ahmadine-jad, gibson thing you brought up would make some sense if they were also all jewish or they got a bunch of jews to agree with them. On its own it doesn't work though.
As someone who was actually there, I can say that she didn't really focus on that. She only briefly mentioned it before moving on.UberPubert said:
I will, for the moment, ignore the fact that your first statement to me was to imply I'm a liar and instead focus on this.Drathnoxis said:
Anita Sarkisian is not cherry picking by that definition or any other.
Why?
Because, when she leaves out game sections that aren't harmful to women, she's doing so NOT because they "disprove her point" - because they don't - but because they aren't a problem.
Her series is "Tropes against Women" - she's only going to talk about the bad stuff. If there's a non-sexist section in a game, particularly in gameplay... then that's good. Why would she criticize a section she likes?
As far as I can tell, people are accusing her of "leaving out the parts that are good" ... but why would she bring up stuff she likes in a critique series? That isn't cherry picking - that's being on topic.
Anyone saying that she is cherry picking is making the assumption that Anita is attacking games. That she is trying to prove that games are sexist and bad. That is the only logical reason that her leaving out "good" things could be cherry picking.
But that's not her goal. She's pointing out the bad stuff because she likes the rest. She's pointing out the bad parts so that Devs can FIX those parts and leave the rest alone! IF she has no problem with it, of course she's not going to mention it.
When people ***** about, say, Mass Effect, they often don't list the parts they liked - they specifically list the parts that pissed them off. That's a critique - it is a list of things you'd like to see changed in a game. However, the only reason you make that list is if you generally liked the game in the first place.
The problem is, a lot of gamers want to believe that Anita is some sort of game hater. That she is attacking games the way that those idiots on Fox News do. But she isn't. If Anita hated games, then she wouldn't have played enough games to notice these trends or to care about them. She's be making videos about TV shows or movies or something instead of games.
Cherry picking only applies if she's claiming that the whole game is inherently sexist, but that is never a claim she's made. She has always said that these "parts" or "scenes" are sexist. She's talking bits and pieces - small sections - not the whole game.
tl;dr: Anita is not cherry picking. She's nit-picking - attacking only the parts she dislikes and leaving the rest alone. That isn't dishonest - that's just specific.
Edit: And before you say "that isn't what you said before" - read my most recent previous post in this thread. I didn't consider what you meant by cherry picking before because it seemed so totally absurd to me that anyone would think her thesis is "all games are sexist and bad" that I didn't even consider the possibility that this is what you all meant. When a previous poster explained this to me, I was shocked - and immediately pointed out that that isn't her thesis and that cherry picking only applies if she's speaking in a systemic fashion and not specifically pointing out the small flaws and few instances of sexism in otherwise good games.
This made me laugh on the inside.McMarbles said:
Its always creepy to me though to see that people think making games more inclusive will somehow make them worse. Or that very very creepy idea that video games are somehow the "Noble, proud, last bastion of politically conservative entertainment (thus manly by proxy)" Or that video games are SUPPOSE to be misogynistic, or something along those lines.
That is also kind of encouraging in it's own way. If there is an argument to be made I'd rather see it stand on it's own merits than be supported by sympathy just because it was opposed.DragonStorm247 said:
This. So much this.Quadocky said:
I feel like I'm shouting into the wind. "This is just Women's Studies 101! People have been saying EXACTLY the same thing about books, TV shows, movies - and even games - for decades! Why are you pissed at her for echoing her professors and saying nothing new?"
And everyone keeps screaming "bias, cherry-picking (even though that doesn't apply to a critique), etc."
I've never said anyone had to agree with her. I've spent pages and pages just trying to explain her school of thought - that she didn't come up with all of this in her head, like everyone seems to assume. And I get people screaming at me. It's just sad.
I was going to complain about people still caring about her, but then I realized I was commenting on an article about her and that would make me a hypocrite.
Although I'm not strictly speaking caring about her, but about the people that care about her, because they shouldn't.
She's some random youtube person who makes decent videos. That is it.
She argues poorly, and boringly, and she's needlessly antagonizing, but so freaking what?
Women are misrepresented in all of media, and if you don't believe me try the Jimquisition challenge of finding an unattractive female main protagonist with questionable morality in a video game.
She goes about it badly but she's still right, so fucking whatever.
Although I'm not strictly speaking caring about her, but about the people that care about her, because they shouldn't.
She's some random youtube person who makes decent videos. That is it.
She argues poorly, and boringly, and she's needlessly antagonizing, but so freaking what?
Women are misrepresented in all of media, and if you don't believe me try the Jimquisition challenge of finding an unattractive female main protagonist with questionable morality in a video game.
She goes about it badly but she's still right, so fucking whatever.
She might very well be the most dangerous woman in video games but her videos are like the punch of a midcard against the mighty bosom of the Heavyweight Champion of quote-unquote "Patriarchy" and certainly don't show a budget worthy of $6k, nevermind however she didn't bank of $13k.
Tralling though what we already know, dismissing any attempt at meeting half way with violent scorn ("The Fighting Fuck-Toy"? Joanah Dark? Seriously...) does not make for an individual I want anything to do with if I had any say in the matter.
There's good videos to be had about the matter but they are not Sarkeesian's.
Tralling though what we already know, dismissing any attempt at meeting half way with violent scorn ("The Fighting Fuck-Toy"? Joanah Dark? Seriously...) does not make for an individual I want anything to do with if I had any say in the matter.
There's good videos to be had about the matter but they are not Sarkeesian's.
If that was the true intention of the article, then I say it was a wasted gesture.Quadocky said:
To be blunt, I question the sanity of anyone who legitimately thinks that they can reason with the Internet Hate Machine.
Furthermore, anyone, and I do mean bloody ANYONE who has even skimmed a Sarkeesian topic on The Escapist forums; nay, where Sarkeesian is even brought up on a tangent, knows just the sort of reaction to expect.
And while I do not presume to know what MovieBob was actually thinking, I can make a pretty solid guess that this was posted just to capitalize on Sarkeesian's notoriety for ad-hits. Lo and behold, that's is EXACTLY what has happened here. 15 pages of back and forth nothing almost entirely about Sarkeesian, but not the article. What a shock.
At best, all this article has shown is that The Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory is absolutely correct.
Even eliminating the opponents who offer mindless hate, trolling, and knee-jerk defenses for backwards ideologies (machismo, "rape culture" etc), Anita's arguments are riddled with flaws. She could wave those away and hide behind "just my opinion" had she not been pitching these in an academic fashion to an academic crowd. (yes, that's what she's doing. The entire article we're supposedly commenting on proves such)Quadocky said:
I don't hate Anita Sarkeesian the person; I even agree with her general position that gaming could use more HUMANIZED female characters and less token objectification. But I do not rate her "opinion" very highly at all because of the logical flaws in her arguments, nor do I believe that she is necessarily doing as much good as her supports believe because of her flawed arguments.
For most random internet sods, I agree. They hate just because they want something to hate.
The internet gang mentality: bereft of reason but full of purpose.
But just because she has proven the vile nature of her most vocal opposition does not automatically mean her cause has merit either, or that her arguments are any stronger as a result. Or that she even deserves the praise she's receiving.
I'm just surprised someone thinks video games are made with unbridled creativity right now. How many game covers look identical? What Call of Duty are we on now? How many reviews did I see saying the latest Assassins Creed 4 is really just 3.5? Also, AS3's ending was suspiciously like Mass Effect 3's ending, and Deus Ex's ending, and the Matrix ending and ultimately, they were all the same old, over used, Jesus Christ symbolism we've been seeing in everything for decades in pretty much all forms of entertainment.Quadocky said:
Oh yeah, the Video Game industry is just bursting with new, original things all the time.
This is really just untrue. Of course I can criticize something even if I don't like it, I'll probably criticize something especially harshly if I don't like it and whether Anita likes these games or not overall is irrelevant to the point.Bara_no_Hime said:
When I think of Anita as cherrypicking examples from games I look at it as her ignoring the greater context of the fictional setting itself. Her favorite phrase to use is that "these games do not exist in a vacuum", and what she perceives as the greater cultural context of how she sees the world is somehow far more relevant than what the game designer intended or how the topic is being presented. She is guilty of doing this in her Damsels in Distress video by cutting the length of game play clips and robbing them of prior dialogue, without showing what the greater story is or how the characters being described have arrived at they point they have.
The context of the fictional universe, the genre, and the character traits of the actors all have to be analyzed in order for her blanket claims of misogyny to become at all credible. But she consistently ignores all of these factors in order to present her case as black and white, because the tropes she describes are almost never that simple. This is cherrypicking, and it's what happens when she begins doing "research" when it's about an already forgone conclusion on her part.