The Most Dangerous Woman in Videogames - Anita Sarkeesian

[Aardvaarkman]

He didn't say a one piece suit was a bikini, he was using it as an example for the bigger picture.

Except that he did. Read the paragraph beginning with "Go ahead and take a look at the preferred styles of bikini that you'll most often see being worn..." where he clearly refers to a one-piece swimsuit a "style of bikini." This wasn't an example of a broader argument about swimsuits, it was an example of not knowing what a bikini is.

Aren't you being overly analytic to disprove his point?

I don't think it's possible to be overly analytical. Technically correct is the best kind of correct!

We should strive to take people for their general meaning, not what we can try to break down as being "irrelevant" when they give an example. It makes for a much smoother debate.

But this way, people might learn some interesting facts, such as the history of the bikini. And they might stop referring to swimsuits incorrectly. Where's the downside?

 

[Artemicion]

A one-piece swimsuit is not a bikini, by definition. The term refers explicitly to a two-piece swimsuit.

You really blew my whole argument out of the water with that revelation. If it pains you so much to compare those swimsuits, then compare the bikini and microbikini. It's the same argument. Besides, you brought up the Speedo, I was under the impression that this was all-encompassing. Is it only all-encompassing for you?

So, other than revealing a lot of skin, what does it express about sexuality? Perhaps she is trying to attract other women?

I like how you're ignoring the elephant in the room here, acting like the act of showing an increased amount of one's body that isn't normally seen (for instance, by wearing a microbikini) isn't related to sexuality. It's like you're actively denying that that basic concept of sexuality exists.

I really don't see what a bikini specifically says about sexuality - such as how the woman likes her sex. Does she like it soft, or hard? Does she like BDSM? A bikini says practically nothing useful about her sexuality. All it says it she likes to expose skin. She might even be asexual, and is just wearing the bikini to get maximum sun coverage for her tan.

My favorite part of your response is right here:

You said it yourself - sexuality is very complicated, and the mere wearing of a bikini doesn't express anything of significant meaning with regards to sexuality.

because you agree with me that sexuality is complicated, and then ask me what wearing a bikini says about someone. Specifically, you ask what is says about their sexual preferences, honing in on that one subject, and then insisting that you can't tell what kind of sex someone likes based on what they're wearing.

You're aware that sexuality and sex are two different things, right? You didn't misinterpret my saying sexuality is diverse as me saying "some people like BDSM", did you? Because that's not what I said, and it looks like you think it is. That's humorous to me.

Sexuality and sex are two different things. Here's a quick breakdown courtesy of Planned Parenthood:

Sexuality: In addition to us all being human beings, we also are all sexual beings! Sexuality is a normal, healthy, natural part of who we are throughout every stage our lives. It is not one defined thing, but a combination of many aspects of our lives. Our sexuality includes not only sexual behavior but also our genders, our bodies and how they work, and our values, attitudes, beliefs and feelings about life, love, and the people our lives touch...

Sex: Usually involves touching oneself or another person in ways that stimulate sexual feelings and pleasure...

(Source) [http://www.plannedparenthood.org/ma/definitions-sex-sexuality-20484.htm]
[small](most of the content on the page was related to pregnancy, which is not strictly relevant to the conversation (it sort of is, actually, but I digress) so I cut it.)[/small]

So the gal in question could indeed be wearing the smallest bikini possible to get the most tan she can and get those tan lines she loves so she can feel good about the way she looks - which is part of sexuality. Or she could be wearing it to garner the attention of the opposite (or same, as you, for reasons undetermined, pointed out) gender by wearing clothing guaranteed to turn heads - also a part of sexuality. Regardless, it's not necessarily about sex, and while I've no data to back it up, I'd say most aspects of sexuality are only tangentially related to the act, and most are related closer to an overall lifestyle. So no, the bikini may not be saying whether or not she likes BDSM - but it's most definitely saying something, even if you refuse to acknowledge it.

This is all deviating pretty far from the topic, however, and the mods are swarming, so I'll leave off here.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

:/ Ever heard of "vote with your wallet"? I'm going to assume any major problem that would turn you off of a game would be able to be known about beforehand or from game reviews/questioning owners of the game.

I didn't even mention perfection so I can't really respond to that?

You said that we shouldn't buy a game that has problems. A game without any problems would be perfect. That's how you mentioned perfection.

And how are we supposed to vote with our wallets, unless we have already played the game in its entirety? The only (legal) way to find out about what's in a game before purchase is via reviews or word-of-mouth. But we then might buy the game to find out that there are problems that the reviewer or our word-of-mouth friends didn't mention, or didn't find to be problems.

What you are suggesting is essentially impossible. We can't know for sure before we buy something if it is going to have problems or not. And in any case, we still might enjoy something enough that we would still buy it, even if it does have known problems. That doesn't mean we shouldn't talk about those problems.

 

[MrMan999]

People please. I implore civility. Surely we are mature enough to discuss this in a mature, civil manner without letting the extremists and idiots on both sides drown out the sane, rational posts?

 

[Aardvaarkman]

You're aware that sexuality and sex are two different things, right? You didn't misinterpret my saying sexuality is diverse as me saying "some people like BDSM", did you? Because that's not what I said, and it looks like you think it is. That's humorous to me.

Well, "liking BDSM" is much more about sexuality than sex. If anything, wearing a bikini is more about sex than sexuality. Which is why your comment confused me. You were saying that the bikini was about "expressing sexuality" - which as your definition suggests is a complex cluster of beliefs, attitude and self-image. Not something a bikini is very good at expressing.

So the gal in question could indeed be wearing the smallest bikini possible to get the most tan she can and get those tan lines she loves so she can feel good about the way she looks - which is part of sexuality.

Not necessarily. A lot of people are concerned about the way they look for reasons other than sexuality, such as social acceptance or career aspirations.

So no, the bikini may not be saying whether or not she likes BDSM - but it's most definitely saying something, even if you refuse to acknowledge it.

It certainly could be saying something, but not necessarily. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and a bikini is just a bikini. Perhaps the bikini was just what her parents gave her when she went swimming as a child, so she just got used to wearing a bikini, and it says nothing about her sexuality?

 

[Tumedus]

No, I am not. What I'm saying is that strip clubs have a policy of "no touching" and typically, women who work in strip clubs are not working there as prostitutes. However, GTAV makes every single stripper available to you for sex, if you touch them enough. Not a very "mature" depiction of seduction right there. Keep feeling them up, and you are guaranteed sex.

Late to this and not going to get into the broader debate but this is incorrect. While you can seduce most of the strippers, not all of them can be used as a booty call. There are a few of them that, once you fill the like bar, will refuse to take you home with them.

Further, every single person in the GTA V universe, at least the ones with any character beyond "random pedestrian", is a degenerate. There is no way you can think that they are trying to depict a fantasy utopia as every person you meet is reprehensible and most of them try to screw you over. The whole framework of the game is as satire and anyone who played the game to a real extent should know that.

Also, it shows a clear bias to distill Andrea down to a "bitchy wife" and I generally believe anyone who thinks that didn't play through the game. She is actually a really well done character in the universe and her relationship with Michael, while completely messed up, makes perfect sense in the context of the game world. She is way more than a one dimensional annoyance of a female character. She just isn't the protagonist, so you only see her through the lens of Michael and team.

 

[Artemicion]

People please. I implore civility. Surely we are mature enough to discuss this in a mature, civil manner without letting the extremists and idiots on both sides drown out the sane, rational posts?

You're 22 pages too late, friend, but the gesture is certainly welcome.

Well, "liking BDSM" is much more about sexuality than sex.

Elaborate.

If anything, wearing a bikini is more about sex than sexuality.

It certainly could be saying something, but not necessarily. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and a bikini is just a bikini. Perhaps the bikini was just what her parents gave her when she went swimming as a child, so she just got used to wearing a bikini, and it says nothing about her sexuality?

You've contradicted yourself. A bikini is more about sex than sexuality, so you agree that bikinis have an inherent sex-related nature to them, but then deny that they mean anything at all. Also, elaborate on why you think bikinis are more sex-based then sexuality-based.

Which is why your comment confused me. You were saying that the bikini was about "expressing sexuality" - which as your definition suggests is a complex cluster of beliefs, attitude and self-image. Not something a bikini is very good at expressing.

You're not understanding sexuality at all. It doesn't get expressed in clusters, it gets expressed in individual parts. A bikini isn't going to give you a life story, but it's going to transmit information. A hot-pink, low-cut number? It's saying "hey, look at me. I'm grabbing attention." Something darker red might indeed be expressing a more modest intent, but there it is: it's still saying something about the wearer's sexuality, even if it's "I'm not showing off my body to others because I'm more interested in this tan for me".

Not necessarily. A lot of people are concerned about the way they look for reasons other than sexuality, such as social acceptance or career aspirations.

Because social acceptance and sexuality are most definitely mutually exclusive. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_Movement] Also, please be specific when citing groups or other entities. "A lot of people" is not an acceptable argument.

 

[QuantumWalker]

Your evidence that she's grossly misinformed is twofold: she correctly asserted that a game that was meant to feature a playable female main character, ended up without one; and that she calls Princess Peach a damsel and you consider her not to be -- counter to the actual definition of the word.

Wow. I'd say nice try, but it's not even a nice try.

While I agree with the facts regarding Krystal being a playable character in Dinosaur planet and her change in roles in Starfox Adventures I should point out why Anita's statements on the matter are misinformed. From her episode Anita says these final words about Krystal's transition

The tale of how Krystal went from protagonist of her own epic adventure to passive victim in someone else's game illustrates how the Damsel in Distress trope disempowers female characters and robs them of the chance to be heroes in their own rite.

The assumption made by Anita here is that being a damsel robbed Krystal of her chance to be a hero. This highlights one of the more glaring problems with Anita's analysis. By her own assertion, if a female character is made into a damsel for any reason throughout the course of a story she loses her opportunity to be a positive member of the cast.

In the case of Krystal, you play her in the opening sequence of the game where it is clear that she is one of the few people with the skills and courage to take on General Scales and try to protect her planet. Even after her capture she still aids Fox by giving him advice on how to use her staff (which she lost in the previous section of the game) and guides him to the Krazoa spirits you need to complete the game. Even after she if freed she does not submit to the ultimate bad guy and even fights back against him after taking her staff from Fox. Her actions and advice throughout the game directly lead to the player being able to beat it. Krystal's courage, tenacity, and sheer drive to bring peace to her planet are heroic qualities that are reduced to nothing under Anita's analysis. Just because Krystal wears a two-piece and gets stuck in a crystal doesn't inherently de-value her actions in the game. And the existence of Dinosaur Planet does not really change how anyone should view Krystal as a character because ultimately only one of the two games saw release.

As a history lesson on how development cycles can change the overall vision and direction of a project, Dinosaur Planet and Rare serve as a great example. But to somehow try to equate this into an indictment that simply being a damsel dis-empowers female characters shows just how black and white this issue is for Anita.

Not once does she really show an understanding of how character attributes work within fictional narratives. You can have characters whose only defining trait is being a damsel. But a lot of the characters she brings up in her video series are not solely defined by their status as a damsel. Princess Zelda in most games she shows up in following A Link to the Past plays a more active role in Link's adventures and provides him with tools and direction. She is also depicted in those stories as being a more prominent and active member of the plot. Actively working to undermine the actions of the villain of whatever game she is in. Does the fact that Zelda get's captured by Ganon in the third act a sign that she is a weak character? Or does it serve to highlight just how much of a threat the bad guy is leading into the final confrontation.

I think if anything Anita is too hung up on the idea that not being the protagonist of a video game diminishes the importance of female characters within gaming.

 

[wulf3n]

snip

snip

Call me a nitpicking nerd if you must but this has been bugging me.

Why do you keep referring to what Samus was wearing at the end of Metroid [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQppamJoDqc] as a Bikini, as in swim wear?

Wouldn't the much simpler explanation be that under her armour she is wearing underwear?

 

[IceForce]

Who's the person filming her? Does Anita have paid, hired help as well as all that equipment?

I would assume that before the whole kickstarter thing she would of have had help from staff and family such as her husband in producing her content. But yes, in terms of getting help for the kickstarter, she has asked for help from her supporters and I'm certain that she could of enlisted help from volunteers or interns.

Ah thanks, that makes sense.

EDIT: Posting this here because it seems the report spam is happening now in this thread. I always find this tragic when people disagree and the reaction instead of coming to an agree to disagree people here would rather just go back and report all the posts.

I must say, the number of warnings, suspensions, and complete bans in this thread is absolutely unreal.

 

[I.Muir]

Posting this here because it seems the report spam is happening now in this thread. I always find this tragic when people disagree and the reaction instead of coming to an agree to disagree people here would rather just go back and report all the posts.

I must say, the number of warnings, suspensions, and complete bans in this thread is absolutely unreal.

Is there a common theme as to why?

I would hate to think the escapist was turning into yet another politically correct echo box forum.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

Well, "liking BDSM" is much more about sexuality than sex.

Elaborate.

BDSM is an expression of sexuality, not sex. It is about a person's preference for how they are treated and treat others in an erotic situation. Sexuality.

You've contradicted yourself. A bikini is more about sex than sexuality, so you agree that bikinis have an inherent sex-related nature to them, but then deny that they mean anything at all. Also, elaborate on why you think bikinis are more sex-based then sexuality-based.

I didn't contradict myself. A bikini is more about sex than sexuality, because they are specifically designed for the female sex. Most women tend to have vaginas and breasts, while men don't.

A bikini is designed to cover the anatomical parts that people of the female sex have. Sex.

A bikini isn't going to give you a life story, but it's going to transmit information. A hot-pink, low-cut number? It's saying "hey, look at me. I'm grabbing attention."

What she's just wearing it because her favorite colour is pink? I don't think you can infer much about the wearer's intent just from a color.

Not necessarily. A lot of people are concerned about the way they look for reasons other than sexuality, such as social acceptance or career aspirations.

Because social acceptance and sexuality are most definitely mutually exclusive. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_Movement] Also, please be specific when citing groups or other entities. "A lot of people" is not an acceptable argument.

I never said sexuality and social acceptance were mutually exclusive. And why would I have to cite specific people? It's a general phenomenon in society - society expects certain conventions about people's appearances. People tend to conform to those conventions, even though it might not reflect their sexuality.

Hell, I'd rather show up to work naked, but I don't because that isn't socially acceptable. Much like wearing a bikini to work isn't, or turning up to the beach in a three-piece suit isn't.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

Call me a nitpicking nerd if you must but this has been bugging me.

Why do you keep referring to what Samus was wearing at the end of Metroid [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQppamJoDqc] as a Bikini, as in swim wear?

Wouldn't the much simpler explanation be that under her armour she is wearing underwear?

You're a nitpicking nerd. And that's a good thing to be!

EDIT:

On this topic, are there really people who didn't recognize my "technically correct is the best kind of correct" comment as a quote from Futurama? It was supposed to be humour, people!

All of you need to watch more Futurama. Why aren't you watching Futurama right now? Why am I not watching Futurama right now?

 

[Aardvaarkman]

EDIT: You wanna see how strict it is? IT seems like someone is report spamming. Look at some of the posts that are resulting in people being permabanned. It is pretty scary honestly. There are some posts that are causing permabans that have no insults, no swear words, but just a solid disagreement of the topic at hand.

I'll agree with this.

I have no problems with hearty disagreement. However, I will report posts that contain blatant personal attacks, trolling or other abuse. But I won't report posts that I simply disagree with. It seems that some of the recent deletions have not actually been abuse.

 

[Tsun Tzu]

EDIT: You wanna see how strict it is? IT seems like someone is report spamming. Look at some of the posts that are resulting in people being permabanned. It is pretty scary honestly. There are some posts that are causing permabans that have no insults, no swear words, but just a solid disagreement of the topic at hand.

I'll agree with this.

I have no problems with hearty disagreement. However, I will report posts that contain blatant personal attacks, trolling or other abuse. But I won't report posts that I simply disagree with. It seems that some of the recent deletions have not actually been abuse.

I don't report. *shrug*

As for the topic at hand...since the other thread was locked for reasons unknown-

In her second Tropes vs Women video, this person inferred a connection between the attitudes of domestic abusers - "She was asking for it!" - and narratives in which a protagonist is forced to kill their loved one/friend in order to save them - "Please, kill me. It's the only way."

This is a direct quote from the video. Sarkeesian states,

"Although the narratives all differ slightly, the core element remains the same; in each case, violence is used to bring these women back to their senses."

She goes on to say,

"These stories conjure up supernatural situations in which domestic violence perpetrated by men against women who have lost control of themselves not only appears justified, but is presented as an altruistic act done for the woman's own good."

I find this...not only incredibly irresponsible, but utterly reprehensible in both the way that it flagrantly ignores context and completely ignores the well trodden concept of the "other," as well as equally numerous equivalent examples involving males, in favor of sensationalism.

I enjoy discourse and thoughtful evaluation of subject matter.

I do not enjoy sensationalism with little to no substance.

Sarkeesian rests firmly in the second camp.

I genuinely don't know how to respond to earnest supporters of this woman.

 

[Elf Defiler Korgan]

Wow, a lot of permabannings over this. Surprising really, that and that people can get so worked up on Anita and these issues.

I've watched her vids, I like her work. She makes some errors and exaggerates a fair bit, but this is not at all usual in academia, and she is certainly more interesting than many others I could listen to.

Basically I don't see a problem with her basic thesis on the sexism, objectification and damseling in gaming. Kind of obvious guys, and a reason she should go further with even better analysis and avoid repetition (also a very academic habit, repeating a half decent point that has a fair bit of evidence).

Aardvarkman, goodo, but not sure why trolling should be reported, since trolling is merely disagreement designed to get a rile out of a poster or posters and make them angry and reply back. Getting baited is the fault of those that take the bate. A shame so often posts are reported because of disagreement. Forums should be for discussion.

 

[IceForce]

Personally I blame the fact that people take disagreements to their extreme. It also doesn't help that you get people who are so entrenched in their beliefs that it is essentially their religion. So when you do get that dissent it often results in hostility when in reality it is often just a person saying I disagree. Yet you've seen this topic that some posters here have actually slandered people because of a disagreement.

You're right.

More often than not, I find myself shying away from discussions here, simply because people are so entrenched in their views, they won't even consider an opposing opinion.
In situations like that, no minds are ever changed, and no one budges an inch from their position. So there's really no point in even engaging at all with such people.

EDIT: You wanna see how strict it is? IT seems like someone is report spamming. Look at some of the posts that are resulting in people being permabanned. It is pretty scary honestly. There are some posts that are causing permabans that have no insults, no swear words, but just a solid disagreement of the topic at hand.

Indeed. Seeing so many bans in a single thread, for seemingly fairly benign things, makes me pretty nervous and paranoid.

I'm not sure if that's the feeling the mods are trying to instil in people, but that feeling is certainly happening to me.

Is there a common theme as to why?

Not that I can see, at a glance anyway.

Longevity of users doesn't seem to have any clear patten to it. For example, someone got banned in this thread here, even though they've been a member of this site since 2008.
And someone on the previous page of this thread, joined just today, and is already banned.