The Most Dangerous Woman in Videogames - Anita Sarkeesian

[Professor Icepick]

I'm kind of disgusted to hear that my own university would pay that con artist any amount of money to spew her ill-conceived bile about video games. Not surprised, just disgusted.

 

[Neurotic Void Melody]

I havent heard of this women until now. Sounds like she means well. It seems feminism has more of an resisted influence in the US than the UK. US does suffer a lot more from sexism, racism etc than a developed country should. The UK had a female prime minister in the 80's ffs. When is that ever gonna happen in the US? The only problem i find is that some aggressive feminists, along with many other activists for various causes, only concentrate on that one cause as if it's the most important thing in the world to them, when there are more worrying problems in this world. Here in the UK, females are well above equality, so a British feminist sort of seems stuck in the past with some obvious personal issues.

However, saying that, i know what ppl can be like and im glad she's able to show the female community in america what to look out for when it comes to objectification. All it takes is one person with enough passion to inspire others to not be so lenient. Good for her. I would like to also say that i feel very underwhelmed every time a play a huge muscular marine hero in unsaid games. My manliness is constantly being degraded by pixels...fuck you pixels!! I can be whatever i want! Except big and muscular...so fuck you genes!! *Ahem* Sorry bout that.

Lastly, i wonder what her reaction to playing dead or alive and metal gear solid games would be

 

[DaViller]

Whats wrong with wonder pink?

 

[LetalisK]

Perfect Dark as a bad example? Sure, the commercial was terrible but that has nothing to do with the actual content of the game

Not to mention that the commercial wasn't even a good example of what she was talking about. The commercial wasn't trying to portray a fighting fuck toy, it was building an expectation with some eyebrow raising and then did a 180 and completely flipped those expectations on their head. This is why I don't understand all the hate she gets. Her points are often times so poorly executed that it's comical, not infuriating.

 

[VanQ]

Honestly you just have to what Thunderf00t's responses to her videos on youtube to see it. She has used a bunch of immature gamers to propel her career despite herself not being worth much note.

She is part of the new wave feminists that in general hate men and think men are terrible for finding women sexy.

You know this is puzzling. I wonder whether she intentionally decided to advertise her project on 4chan (out of all possible places) to gain publicity. It's kind of a stupid question she can't be that naive.

There is no evidence that she herself spammed 4chan and Reddit about her campaign. However, I was there and when somebody most certainly did spam /b/, /v/, /jp/ and /a/ with posts asking to "come and donate to my kickstarter." Last time I checked, there were still OPs on the archives of /v/ of the post that was spammed.

As I said, there is no evidence that she herself did this. However, someone kicked the hornets nest on purpose. We just can never prove whether it was one of her detractors hoping to troll her or if it was a supporter hoping that controversy would fuel the flames.

Anyway, as long as nothing can be proved, this point may as well be moot.

Perfect Dark as a bad example? Sure, the commercial was terrible but that has nothing to do with the actual content of the game

Not to mention that the commercial wasn't even a good example of what she was talking about. The commercial wasn't trying to portray a fighting fuck toy, it was building an expectation with some eyebrow raising and then did a 180 and completely flipped those expectations on their head. This is why I don't understand all the hate she gets. Her points are often times so poorly executed that it's comical, not infuriating.

There are people that do take her words at face value. It's infuriating that someone that purposely misinforms people gets so much positive reception in the industry.

 

[walruss]

I suppose the outpouring of support and love (and money) for this woman is only fair given what she had to go through just to do something she was passionate about. I... wonder whether she would have been as successful if it wasn't for the jerks. Her stuff tends towards the obvious and reductive end of things. Case and point: the images "say it all" before she even comments. What does she have to say that we don't already know?

I'd never wish anyone ill for doing what they love, and I am deeply sorry for all the bullying she had to tolerate to do it. I guess I just don't get it.

 

[Mid Boss]

You know, people keep attacking her for not using the money on her videos. I actually have no idea how you would spend 160,000 dollars making youtube vidoes! XD It's actually quite funny. I guess she could rent a studio, hire some musicians and artists, but... why? The only thing I could think of would be to fly around meeting the people who made these games and talking to them about it.

Well, my college, did pay for people to fly out and lecture. I can't say if that's how they all work.

As for Kickstarter's rules for how to use the money... I honestly don't know. Surely someone here is familiar with kickstarter and can enlighten us both.

That's an absolutely, fan-bloody-tastic idea right there. It's one that would be interesting. It is something that would give her work credit. It is something that would be worth the money donated by people for her kickstarter.

So why has she just continued making her videos like she always did? I wholly understand that she only asked for $6000. But why isn't she taking advantage of the amazing amount she was given to deliver amazing content to those that were willing to give her money?

Where is the rest of that money going? Why do her backers not give a shit?

I do not know if her backers give a shit. I haven't heard any of their opinions as, whenever her name gets mentioned, the screech monkeys descend and start debating if she should be killed then violated or violated then killed. Which is decidedly counter productive to actual debate or discussion. I guess it would depend on if the majority of people gave her the money because they wanted to see high quality videos or they gave her the money as a "We're sorry about the human race. Here's some money." Without really caring either way. Since I haven't heard anything from them I suspect the latter.

.... I..... I wish I could get some "Sorry about the human race" money... Vanq. Help a guy out here. Give me your money. Vanq... I'm a janitor at a rest stop area. I DESERVE "SORRY ABOUT THE HUMAN RACE" MONEY!

 

[Silverback91]

I really do think there is a problem with lack of gender inclusion in the mainstream industry, however I think that she is going about her points the wrong way. Many times in one of her videos she was discussing a lack of agency that the female characters had, where they were not the protagonists of their own games. Games by their nature are very event oriented, and it is rather weird to a player if an npc displays agency of their own. You see this with male and female side characters alike. Personally I think the problem stems much more from a lack of good female protagonists than poor representation of women in games.

That and I do not think that Anita herself really has any sort of qualification to be discussing this (although I will say that it is a discussion worth having). I disagree with her point in part 2 where she basically said that "These games may have legitimate reasons for the use of the tropes, but the context does not excuse them." While saying that they cannot be removed from the context of a larger culture. To me that just felt like a gross misrepresentation. If you apply this logic then Star Wars is a film series detailing an endorsement of terrorism without an attempt at diplomacy.

Whats wrong with wonder pink?

She commented on how she was a gross exaggeration of everything wrong with how women are represented in video games, ignoring that everything in the game was exaggerated to a similar degree. The french hero was fat and a coward, the Japanese one was a samurai/ninja that spoke in heavy engrish etc.

 

[josemlopes]

Perfect Dark as a bad example? Sure, the commercial was terrible but that has nothing to do with the actual content of the game

Not to mention that the commercial wasn't even a good example of what she was talking about. The commercial wasn't trying to portray a fighting fuck toy, it was building an expectation with some eyebrow raising and then did a 180 and completely flipped those expectations on their head. This is why I don't understand all the hate she gets. Her points are often times so poorly executed that it's comical, not infuriating.

I had a very vague memory of the commercial and now that you have said that I went and watched it again, you are right, the commercial is actually good at showing that women can be more then "fighting fuck toy" by actually being a good/strong character, and yet she pissed on it. Its like she only watched half of the commercial and went "This is sexist!" and close her eyes to the rest of it.

She commented on how she was a gross exaggeration of everything wrong with how women are represented in video games, ignoring that everything in the game was exaggerated to a similar degree. The french hero was fat and a coward, the Japanese one was a samurai/ninja that spoke in heavy engrish etc.

Thats something that comes up a lot, for example in the GTAV review in Gamespot, its like they just ignored all the exaggeration to everyone else and only focused on the women, in that game everyone is a fucking stereotype and yet the women stereotype is the only one that matters, isnt that what being sexist is? Like, you can make fun of one gender and not the other? The game treats both genders with the same amount of disrespect but somehow it should only be applied to men to make it not sexist according to them.

Thats what being sexist is, to treat one gender better then the purely based on their gender.

 

[TreuloseTomate]

Anita is a proven liar and conartist. You can find the videos on YouTube of her saying that she doesn't care and never cared about video games at all. It's not her thing.

That doesn't mean there shouldn't be a discussion about these issues. I would love to see better stories and well developed characters (not just better female characters) in video games. But I don't understand how this woman is still treated as the paragon of feminism in gaming. She is a distraction.

 

[Ragsnstitches]

Perfect Dark as a bad example? Sure, the commercial was terrible but that has nothing to do with the actual content of the game

Not to mention that the commercial wasn't even a good example of what she was talking about. The commercial wasn't trying to portray a fighting fuck toy, it was building an expectation with some eyebrow raising and then did a 180 and completely flipped those expectations on their head. This is why I don't understand all the hate she gets. Her points are often times so poorly executed that it's comical, not infuriating.

It didn't flip shit. That trailer is the definition of a fighting fucktoy. The qualifiers of a fighting fucktoy are:

*Deliberate accentuation of sexual characteristics for the sake of sex appeal.
*On a character who is depicted as being able to hold their own in a fight.

There is no subversion in that trailer. It's "look at this hot girl. Oh my god she's nekkid, isn't she hot. Oooh, did you catch that bit of underboob?" then "Oh look at our cleverness, she isn't just some piece of eye candy, she's actually a super powerful warrior with skills".

How is that NOT a fighting fucktoy. The entire add pumps up her sex appeal, but puts it over a character who happens to shoot people for a living.

Now before says some inane shit like "oh, so you can't be sexy and competent?" Eh, Look, you even admit that it starts off as such to "raise eyebrows". Simply transitioning her to a combat clothing and pistol wielding, does not subvert the intent of the ad, which was to make you goggle as they drop their pitch.

And on that point, over half the fucking video is spend watching a girl getting dressed and being awfully sultry for someone who just got out of bed.

Look, power to them, I don't give a shit. But don't talk bullshit. It is what it is.

 

[webkilla]

I hope videos will suffice, because I've got two of them right here:
Also "little people" is cute.

Love these vids

These two equally hammer home the same point, more or less - focusing more on her attempt to paint herself as a gamer, and how that doesn't seem correct:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcPIu3sDkEw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzNjmUkPncY


TLR - Hazy's linked vids dismantle Anita's credibility as an academic - the ones I link seem to prove that she is in no way the gamer she claims to be

But hey, girl got paid - and now she's getting to tour colleges and retell the same story over and over. From a purely business standpoint she's got it made.


As for those asking how she falsely frames events in video games as mysoginistic:
- in her second vid, the one with the damsels in the fridge, she mentions the game Prey where the player character's girlfriend/wife is frankenstein'd onto a monster that you have to kill. Afterwards you have to kill her as well to continue in the game, and Anita shows a neat lil clip of the woman pleading "Please Thomy, let me go" as if to beg the player to kill her. And then she cuts to herself saying "and to progress you have to kill", then cuts to the player killing her. Bam, +1 killcount, go you. Problem is, the way she shows it makes it sound as if the game almost rewards you for killing your supposed love interest

Here's the video Anita ripped her clips from (without sourcing them I might add)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8Nl1qo6o4I

Here we see the hero plead with his girlfriend, saying that he CAN'T kill her, that he wants to save her. Anita left that conversation out entirely.

This is just one example

 

[Sepko]

Anita is a proven liar and conartist. You can find the videos on YouTube of her saying that she doesn't care and never cared about video games at all. It's not her thing.

I love the internet, where you can back up your claims with diddly-squat.

 

[sinsfire]

Its an interesting piece but the same problems that I have with her arguments in the past crop up once again.

"an archetype she calls "The Fighting F*ck-Toy" that encapsulates characters that offer an illusion of "empowerment" but in fact merely combine the mostly-male audiences desire to gawk at women with that same audience's desire to be the hero"

How is this not ok in Perfect Dark, but completely ok in her own hypothetical game concept "The Legend of the Last Princess" I find it maddening that she will at the same time decry a trope as harmful while offering up her own version of said trope. In this case she even commissioned the animation and what she got was yet another "Fighting F*ck-toy".

For those of you who have not seen it, here is the vid.

Oh and for those of you blissfully unaware, she is in the editing phase of her next video in the TvsW series so we can all brace for the storm headed our way.

 

[kurupt87]

Heh, gamers either seem to have their tongues up any woman's arse or their hands around their throats.

As long as games don't end up like TV I don't mind, if they do then books are the last bastion.

 

[MegatronScythe]

Initially I liked how Anita presented her case and how her rhetoric (compared to previous videos staring her) has made a conscious effort to remain more or less neutral. I think this was a very wise decision. My real disappointment with the video series so far is that there appears to be a lack of research being integrated into this project. I work at an academic institution, Anita has a masters degree and would have experience in researching topics such as this one. So when Anita identifies herself as a pop culture critic, I'm really hesitant to take this project as an academic endeavor.

I personally did not donate to her kickstarter project since I always want to know where my donation is going and how it will be used. Therefore, I could not in good faith determine whether my money would be spent wisely given the available information. From what I have read about her project it is behind schedule and there has been a dearth of communication between Anita's backers and the project team. Since Anita has stated that she would like this material to be utilized in higher education and given her graduate education I was excited to learn more about her sources, research methods, and collaborators. As far as I can tell though there have been no sources published anywhere, I'm unaware of how she is reaching her conclusions, and it honestly seemed that this project would involve whether directly or indirectly the gaming industry. Focused solely on the research methodology of this project so far how can Anita's research be taken as fact without any sources? This in no way is meant to minimize what Anita is doing, but facts are facts, and it appears that this project is presenting observations and well crafted opinions which in turn are creatively edited in her video series to infer facts. This is not only inaccurate and inappropriate, but would be deemed unethical in reputable academic institutions.

Personally I feel that academia should be a place to promote healthy discord in order to further learning. That's why it appears to be a shame that this series is neither impartial, nor objective. Is this project academic research, journalism, a critique, or documentary? I really can't say other than it would seem to me that Anita's project is not truly research based. Now this could infer that the project is more philosophical in nature, but that answer would need to be confirmed by Anita herself. I truly hope that the project team clarifies what they are basing their findings on, otherwise it appears to be a non-factual project.

 

[Farther than stars]

I believe Bob got suckered in by a live presentation more than anything.
Of course she seems more sympathetic, she's not a monster, like people think her opponents think of her. Of course you can sympathize with what she says, because she's right there in front of you.
I don't think anyone truly believes shat she says is completely false, but there's a way to deliver without starting an attention grabbing fight that destroys any hope of proper discussion, and she didn't go that route.

Since we don't get to see her human side, your words fall on deaf ears Bob.

That's not true. I think it very much depends on the kind of person you are. For you, the message might fall on deaf ears because of who you are, but personally I feel there's quite a lot of truth to her perspective. After all, I've only ever seen her videos and from those I don't think she's the most sympathetic person ever, but I can agree with the basic message beside her person.
MovieBob already admitted in the article that her presentation comes across a lot better in person and, moreover, he was a feminist long before he'd ever heard of Anita Sarkeesian. Your criticism might be valid in some circumstances, but here it just falls on deaf ears.

I will take Anita seriously when she presents more than her opinion. She claims to use her videos and points in academic environments and claims they were intended for use in academia.

Yet she presents no sources, no research, no standard of evidence, not a thing. I have seen all her videos and read a lot of the things she has written. All I ever see is snarky shots taken at an industry using cherry picked examples taken out of context to smear the games industry.

Anita does not need to be discredited by me or by anyone. She had no credit to begin with. She is not an authority on video games and she is not a part of the industry. All I'm doing is pointing out that she has no evidence for any of her assertion that she is an expert in the field she claims to be.

This is everything I dislike about modern academia. The use of sources, research and evidence is supposed to make academic dialog more objective, but it should not be used as an excuse to stifle innovation. After all, Thomas Edison never used a source in his life, but that didn't stop him from - you know - inventing the light bulb. The aim of these videos is to inspire a broader debate about women in video games; Sarkeesian never lied about that. To dismiss her views because she doesn't fit your image of a perfect academic then seems churlish.
After all, the modern state of video games is far from perfect. Just a quick look over my list of Steam games (about 30+) shows just 2 that have a (possible) female protagonist: 'Portal' and 'Saints Row 2'. And Chell doesn't even speak during either of the two games! You don't need cherry-picked examples to show that not everything's peachy for video games, in terms of feminism.
Also, "smearing the games industry" seems a bit strong. Sarkeesian herself likes playing video games and since you've watched all her videos, you know the message she repeats at the start of each video, so I don't need to repeat it here. "Smearing the games industry" implies that she hates all of it, whereas in actuality she just wants to start a discussion about women in games. I don't think that's a goal so bad that it justifies all the resistance against her.