The Most Dangerous Woman in Videogames - Anita Sarkeesian

[SlightlyEvil]

I was intrigued by the mention of a future episode on the exotification of women of color. My biggest criticism of Ms. Sarkeesian is that while the portrayal of women in gaming is, on average, far from acceptable, she didn't seem to be saying anything we hadn't already heard a thousand times. This actually is a topic definitely worth discussing, that hasn't already been talked to death. Also, I've heard a lot of criticism of her presentation style as bland, so hearing that she's much better live makes a lot of sense. She does come from the world of academia, after all, so she's used to an audience. I've never felt much genuine dislike for Ms Sarkeesian's work, just a general reaction of "so what else is new?" For once, I feel like she's actually saying something that not only needs to be said, but hasn't been said already.

 

[Artemicion]

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.

If there is one, I'd be interested in reading it.

I hope videos will suffice, because I've got two of them right here:

Also "little people" is cute.

I'm disappointed you were able to post Instigative Journalism's work before I had a chance to.

A previous quote from another topic that I wrote:

I encourage everyone who still thinks Sarkeesian's arguments have merit to review Thunderf00t's Feminism versus FACTS [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJeX6F-Q63I&list=PLQJW3WMsx1q3BAZh3XsK1cSwCiaqjSulc] series, Inuitlnua's three [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cj29-hepBiA] part [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07keXDCPXtw] review [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OLdWrVjILg] of the Tropes versus Women series, Instig8iveJournalism's two part evaluation of Sarkeesian's work (here [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6gLmcS3-NI] and here [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpFk5F-S_hI]), MrRepzion's breakdown of her videos (here [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=la9i2np0WTU] and here [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCsfXkbzRI4]), and lastly, but most importantly, the recent video revealing that Sarkeesian is, by her own admission and contrary to her statements for the last two years, not a gamer [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcPIu3sDkEw].

Sarkeesian goes out of her way to find the touch of the patriarchy in absolutely any game that has a women under any form of duress. She calls out Mario for chrissake. If there's a woman in a videogame, there's some reason why she's being oppressed, objectified and generally mistreated by men.

It's frequently said that Sarkeesian just hates men, but after watching all of her videos to date, as well as the responses I've linked above, I think it's more accurate to say that Sarkeesian actually hates women.

Supplement: Moviebob managed to identify and add to one of the most prevalent problems in the Sarkeesian debates, though I'm sure he doesn't realize it: Her supporters use the wide amounts of verbal hatred and abuse she's received on the internet as a way to somehow validate her arguments, and completely fail to mention (or severely downplay) actual arguments and criticisms leveled against her and her feminism. This entire article was one big feelgood piece for her. "Oh, she's received so much hatred that she should be wearing a bulletproof vest! And she's still pointing out how many problems with the gaming industry there are!" And yet, there's no further information to substantiate her feminist views or even justify her arguments (such as taking pot shots at Samus, again, but failing to mention how a woman expressing her sexuality by wearing a bikini is, without fail, objectifying and sexist), and there's sure as hell no appearance of any counterarguments to her claims or her actions. Her supporters refuse to focus on the actual talking points she brings up, the tons of educated, paced and perfectly acceptable responses to her arguments available on YouTube and the internet at large, and instead rally behind her under the flag of the mistreatment by the internet she's received.

 

[kenu12345]

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.

Oh don't you start the gamespot review stuff. Its only slightly related and the reviewer gave it a 9 for bloody sake. Sorry it just annoys me when I see people complain about that cause you know "Other opinions arent allowed!"

 

[Farther than stars]

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

Last bastion of what, exactly?

I was wondering that as well, but if this is a quality debate, then games already have gone to way of TV or, rather, always were that way. The same thing goes for books, come to think of it. Just go into a bookshop - do it, I dare you - it's not all Hemingway and Lawrence.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

The first 45 seconds are a live model. So what she really has a problem with is male centered marketing. I can accept that, but in that case she isn't complaining about the fighting f*ck-toy. She is complaining about how the fighting f*ck-toy gets sold. Just because her FFT is sold with animation and less skin doesn't change or affect the trope itself. I maintain that she cannot decry a trope and then attempt to use it in making a female centered game when really all she did was gender swap the prince of Persia.

And what did you ever think the FFT was other than a way to market a female protagonist to a male audience? You are missing the essential point of the FFT: That it has to be a female character (generally a protagonist) that's characterized as good at fighting but looks more like she desperately want sexual attention (with or without in-game justification). You'd have to squint very hard or have very loose standards of what constitutes sexually enticing outfits to fit that definition onto Sarkeesian's Princess of Persia.

 

[Sofus]

I don't care what this Anita does or says. There might be a worthy debate about protagonists or npc's, but I have yet to see it. Perhaps if some of the well respected people in the gaming industry entered the discussion it might get slightly interestng.

 

[Oskuro]

I find it highly suspect when people criticise Miss Sarkeesian based on her methodology (because hey, there are no popular video series out there based solely on the author's opinion, or using flawed methodology), or the perception that the Kickstarter campaign was a "cash grab" (because no frivolous kickstarter campaigns had existed prior or since).

It feels as much of an evasion as the very typical "I don't like her but..." phrase preceding many comments on this very thread.

In my opinion, Miss Sarkeesian has hit the nail on the head, and made a lot of people feel threatened. It's like someone having their secret porn stash discovered: Suddenly they are faced with the moral implications of that thing they used to enjoy shamelessly, and that leads to shame and guilt, something no one likes to feel.

Videogames have been exceedingly shameless about objectification (in every sense) for a very long time, to the point that publishers have openly claimed that inclusiveness is not profitable, even resorting to banning content such as, for example, female protagonists that don't tickle heterosexual-young-white-male sensitivities.

This is a reality, and many of our cherised memories (like Princess Peach) are very very flawed, they always were, we just keep trying to convince ourselves they aren't to avoid admitting to ourselves that we've liked morally questionable content for so long.


The internet can try to rationalize their aversion to Miss Sarkeesian all they want, but in the end it all comes as an attempt to evade the shame and guilt brought up by her pointing at the aforementioned moral implications.


For my part, I'm male, white and middle class (Thus incredibly privileged as far as the majority of the planet is concerned). I do enjoy shameless content, yet recognize the moral implications and my personal responsibility. I sincerely agree with Miss Sarkeesian's purpose, and I did support her Kickstarter.


And I think it's about time people start talking about what she's trying to talk about, instead of focusing on how she's talking about it.


But hey, I'm a little person who doesn't scream loudly enough to ever be listened. Maybe I should do a kickstarter.

 

[josemlopes]

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.

Oh don't you start the gamespot review stuff. Its only slightly related and the reviewer gave it a 9 for bloody sake. Sorry it just annoys me when I see people complain about that cause you know "Other opinions arent allowed!"

It has nothing to do with the score, its about the fact that if I worked at Rockstar it wouldnt be nice to call my work sexist when its the other way around.

Its like if I made a 5 second video of a man and a woman getting both punched in the face and someone would call me sexist for having a woman being punched in the face, didnt anyone see the guy getting punched too? Why shouldnt she get the punch? Where is equality on that? That is what bugged me on the review, not the score but that mentality that is present in a lot of other articles.

 

[Karadalis]

I feel like I'm walking into a shitstorm, but I feel like it has to be said: why is it that that every time Anita articles come up it gets hijacked by hatred? Bob's article obviously shows that Anita is well loved out of the digital realm. idk, maybe it's just the escapist, because smaller, more mature communities treat her with respect.

Hate? So far this thread has been very very civil compared to when she first showed up on the scene. It rather sounds like you want to create an elephant out of a mosquito.

And those "smaller" communities? You should think about why they are "small" to begin with...

But lets get down to it shall we?

How about that shes more hurting the feminist movement then shes helping?

She rants and raves about the "patriarchy" in the western world when she seems to have no idea about the real problems women face in the rest of the world.

She makes it sound like videogames actively try to undermine the position of women in society... sounding like some conspiracy lunatic trying to convince everyone that the illuminati really exist and try to undermine society. But since video games are a real thing and she uses alot of buzzwords she gets a broader audience.

And she does it with such a smuggness even thought its so piss easy point out how poorly and outright lazy and most often nonsensical the points are she makes. Heck in most cases she goes against her own points as pointed out by most youtube videos that where posted as reaction to her vids.

But mostly i think its the same as with the "scientists" who claim that violent videogames promote violence in RL.

Gaming as it is has already to deal with alot of BS because its an easy scapegoat to blame for human nature. I mean who wants to look in the mirror if we can blame the worlds problems on something else? Was the same with books, movies, music. Heck at one point academics claimed that the beatles would be harmfull for the youth, listening to them would lead a young teenager to violence and drug abuse for sure! We dont need some self proclaimed "pop culture critic feminist" to go around claiming that games actively try to enforce the "patriarch system"

Thunderf00t said it best... shes serving the market of "feminists that want to be told they are opressed".. she does not actively try to change anything or else she would actually come up with solutions instead of "pointing out" every single marginable questionable story or design choice in games.. especialy those of an age long gone.

Now mind you she pulls off all this brilliantly and makes boatloads of cash with that and gets admittedly some internet fame from it.. but she does so at the expense of real feminists and takes away awareness from real problems women face in this world and gives gaming a bad name for her own gain.

Theres a reason why she has no other "famous" feminists storming to her arguments aid.

But "hate"?

I havent seen anything outright hatefull in this thread or the last couple of threads that stared her in some sort of fassion. You should really look up the word "hate" and its meaning before claiming people who call her out on her BS are hatefull towards her.

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

Bob, I'd really just like to know what the point of this article was.

You seem to bring forward zero new information on a topic/person almost everyone knows plenty about. You didn't really even seem to present any arguments for one side or another here. Just "Hey, this one thing happened with that lady so many of you are mad at!"

To respond a bit to the talk itself, the point about "Objectification sells" was absolute nonsense. First, it's silly to deny the sex sells claim just because things with relationships and sexuality discussion don't sell. Those are two completely different things. Yeah, creepy Japanese visual novels about disabled girls aside, relationships don't sell. But that wasn't the question. Second, saying "Objectification sells" is essentially directly insulting any and all guys who have enjoyed a part of a game with naked ladies.

I'm just going to say that I disagree that she's doing more good than harm. The lack of diversity in female characters was something talked about. It just wasn't some huge polarizing issue. I feel like she's poisoned the well, and that what could be discussion of the issue and those surrounding it has mostly become two circlejerks attacking each other.

While I was typing I also saw this which is an excellent point. The issue of women in games [i/]does[/i] need to be addressed. But it shouldn't be addressed by her.

 

[QuantumWalker]

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.

If there is one, I'd be interested in reading it.

I know Jim Sterling did an episode about it, but I think that focused more on the community and their insults than it did her arguments or agenda.

Here are a couple article/videos worth looking at:

1) A response to some arguments in Anita Sarkeesian's interview by Chris Carter from Destructoid, in response to a previous interview conducted on the site
2) Response to Anita Sarkeesian Damsels in Distress Part One - Tropes vs. Women in Video games by thegaminggoose. This video looks at some of the same points Anita made regarding the history of the DiD trope and it's presence in gaming. But honestly this guy does his research and his conclusions are far more balanced.

 

[kenu12345]

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.

Oh don't you start the gamespot review stuff. Its only slightly related and the reviewer gave it a 9 for bloody sake. Sorry it just annoys me when I see people complain about that cause you know "Other opinions arent allowed!"

It has nothing to do with the score, its about the fact that if I worked at Rockstar it wouldnt be nice to call my work sexist when its the other way around.

Its like if I made a 5 second video of a man and a woman getting both punched in the face and someone would call me sexist for having a woman being punched in the face, didnt anyone see the guy getting punched too? Why shouldnt she get the punch? Where is equality on that? That is what bugged me on the review, not the score but that mentality that is present in a lot of other articles.

Except sexism against women wasn't the only thing the person talked about in the review but because they used the word sexism its the only thing people pay attention to. Listen what do you say we discuss this in private for I do not believe it really fits much into this topic

 

[sinsfire]

The first 45 seconds are a live model. So what she really has a problem with is male centered marketing. I can accept that, but in that case she isn't complaining about the fighting f*ck-toy. She is complaining about how the fighting f*ck-toy gets sold. Just because her FFT is sold with animation and less skin doesn't change or affect the trope itself. I maintain that she cannot decry a trope and then attempt to use it in making a female centered game when really all she did was gender swap the prince of Persia.

And what did you ever think the FFT was other than a way to market a female protagonist to a male audience? You are missing the essential point of the FFT: That it has to be a female character (generally a protagonist) that's characterized as good at fighting but looks more like she desperately want sexual attention (with or without in-game justification). You'd have to squint very hard or have very loose standards of what constitutes sexually enticing outfits to fit that definition onto Sarkeesian's Princess of Persia.

I think there is a slight difference between having a female character in a game that is sexualized in that game, vs. the game being marked in a sexual way. If the argument is that the FFT is a poor trope within the game itself that is one thing. But it appears that the argument here has nothing to do with the game, but with what the marketing department used to sell the game. If the complaint is just about the marketing, yes its a bad commercial that overuses female sexuality. However, that has no basis on the actual game play which is far less sexualized and is basically a female James Bond clone (James Bond also being a hyper sexualized male fantasy).

I guess the question would be, which is it that Ms. Sarkeesian is objecting to? Of course you can't ask her because her comments are always turned off (yes I get that if the comments were on there would be no way to cypher out logical questioning of her views given the drek that would pollute the comments section).

As far as Princess of Persia goes, its a body type that can clearly be seen. She isn't Rambo, she's Princess Jasmine with a cloak and sword. She is attractive for no other purpose then to be attractive to male and female viewers.

 

[the December King]

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.

I had never seen that clip before. I don't see what this game concept offers - aside from the obvious fact that the protagonist is a woman, of course. She has that angry, bad-ass attitude of the hero... that Lara Croft had in the first Tomb Raiders. The guards are all still men, for what that's worth, which feels more like another gender-based competition.

I don't personally like to play games that feature a woman as the protagonist, but I do believe that people who want to play as such should have the option- I certainly wouldn't want to take the option away from anyone, or eliminate or marginalize games that offer female protagonists or perspectives.

In some games that don't offer a specific narrative defined in part by the gender of the protagonist, as in most action adventure and sandbox games, you can choose your character's gender. That seems to be a solution that would easily please Anita and myself. That is, based on the game she herself would make.

 

[Tanis]

I'd like to fix that title for you:
"The-Most-Damaging-Woman-in-Videogames-Anita-Sarkeesian'

Sarkeesian is no more 'dangerous' than someone over at Fox News, well, doing what they do best:
Mixing half truths and playing the victim card whenever someone doesn't agree with them.

Thus far Miss Sarkeesian has done nothing to further the cause of female characters in gaming.
Her videos have been a mixture of lies/misinformation with just enough truth peppered in to make them seem 'legit'.

She's all but admitted that she's never beaten many of the games she's thus far 'reported on'.

Sarkeesian is nothing more than Megyn Kelly without a dental plan.

 

[PunkRex]

Whats wrong with wonder pink?

That was my first thought too, I havn't got around to playing Wonder 101 yet but thats due to money restraints not lack of wanting to.

I think it may be one of those cases of looking to into it but it's not like it's gonna hurt anyone by simply asking that question. Wonder 101, from what i've seen, has alot of cliched character designs to make them identifiable to the culture they belong to, in Pinks case the eastern european super petite gymnast, but I don't necessarily see it as bad, I havn't played it yet so I can't really say.

One thing similar to this i've noticed is the way Japan may perceive Europeans after playing pokemon Y. Don't get me wrong, the design of the buildings and the war torn history is really great but there seems to be an excess of pompous, rich ass, nobility running around. I mean if theres one cliche I don't mind being part of it's one that calls me a vistorian pimp and I know there's been ass holes in pokemon games before and that Europe does indeed have nobles still present, just something I noticed... as well as all the tourists in the game... that I can definatly agree with.

 

[shiajun]

Hey you know Extra Credits already did a video on the whole games for women thing and you know what they found? there are lots of them out there.

But you know why the don't appear on sites like the Escapist? because this site is geared for a male audience and so focuses on games that appeal to the 12 and up male audience.

It's like when Bob complains that the films that women and ethnic minority's like and make profitable are to him terrible and then says that the mainstream white male films should change to appeal more to others.

But this won't work because films/games made for either women or ethnic minorities won't in most cases appeal to the white male audience.

Because different audiences want different things "shock"

Look I go to English language websites which because they are English language will focus on a primary white audience as that is the largest audience for them which also means that all the largest and most well known English language websites will also be geared toward a white male audience.

It's very circular a White English speaking US gamer goes on the internet and looks for websites for there hobby they will quickly find the biggest sites all geared toward him which all then go on about no women or ethnic minority's and you start to think they don't exist meanwhile there are smaller less well known sites (to white male English speakers) that focus only on games for women or games for non English speakers.

I'd like to know why you say that the largest audience for English gaming sites is white males? Do non-white, non-male gamers not speak English? Do English speaking countries have a significant population skew towards white males? This just feeds into what I'll say below.

In your example, a random google search for gaming will most likely syphoon you into a 20 something white-male centered site. Given the size and number of sites catored to that demographic you'd be allowed to think that the gaming medium audience would reflect that distribution. By your own admission (and the search the EC guys did, which I also saw), it turns out it's not that way. The coverage this portion of the audience is getting is way out of proportion, pushing everyone else into niches and doing so rabidly and loudly. Don't you feel that's kind of twisted? Huge amounts of space and resources are catored to a demographic that is smaller every day. I feel the tension currently felt in the industry (like the female represenation issue) comes from this disconnect in proportions of mainstream focus and the people actually gaming. Half of humanity are women. They shouldn't have to go digging for a niche that speaks to them. Maybe the proportion is not yet 50-50 in gaming circles, but it's no longer the ratio that critics of the likes of Anita seem to think there is.

 

[Amir Kondori]

"These kids look like, well, kids. Fresh-faced, restless and eager; was I ever this young?"

Um, Bob, aren't you like 32?

OT: Anita does not bother me one bit. She has no real sway over publishers and the if she makes people think about women's roles in video games than I think that is a good thing, even if I a disagree with some of her conclusions.

 

[Goliath100]

If we first have started to post videos, here is a massive series of takedowns of Feminist Frequency, starting here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjJBMfoN6GI&list=PL9IOjFRFjrOnuzSm_E95EOI0uVsZrAlsN&index=1
But after that, please watch this takedown of "haters" here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wu-0jEhavOs&list=PL9IOjFRFjrOku8aTCwfL4MXi_e7gZYXwf&index=1

...the fact that her game footage was stolen from lets plays, the fact that she admitted herself in 2010 that she does not play videogames....

Taking footage from let's players is a standard practice, so why is this a big deal? Or relevant? (I want another answer than "because she lied")And the same questions goes from that 2010 clip + A Person can change their outlook on something over one well made argument, why can't they change in over 2 years?

...I think are actually rather good for a Feminist 101 type of thing. I mean pretty all of the things she mentioned were literally discussed in my Feminist 101 class...

That maybe the main problem with Sarkeesian's videos: They only make sense if you have taken (or is familiar with the material) a feminism 101 class. That pretty much guarantee to split the audience in to 2 main factions that can't understand what the other don't get.

 

[Metalix Knightmare]

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.

Yeah, we may disagree on methods and points but I have a feeling that a lot of people do notice that our perception of women in games is not good to say the least. I honestly don't know why there was so much rage at the initial kickstarter when people make jokes and comments about these issues all the time.

I think most of that came about after the Kickstarter was advertised of 4chan of all places. It's honestly why I'm not too sympathetic to Anita on the odd times she brings it up. She, or someone affiliated with her project, essentially went to 4chan, the armpit of the internet, and asked for money for a feminist project. That's a level of stupid that I didn't think existed before.

Not to mention other aspects of her big project and kickstarter. Such as the fact that, despite attempting to portray the whole thing as an academic thing, her references were only shown to people who donated a certain amount to the thing. Just for reference, you need those references to allow peers to check your work and make sure you aren't just talking out of your fart hole. The fact that she limited who could see her references like this is very telling and it's not saying anything good.

Not to mention she went WAY over-budget with this thing and by all accounts she hasn't done much with it that was any different from her older shows beyond buying a bunch of videogames for research. I know she's not entitled to do anything else with that money, but he could still get some VERY interesting things done. Get some interviews with developers or other people in the industry, send out surveys, SOMETHING!