The problem here is that her most recent videos show no footage of her actually playing any game or showing any footage that she herselfe recorded, infact this only shows that she hasnt changed her stance on the issue.Goliath100 said: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?MrMan999 said:...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....
Conventionally attractive does not make a female character a FTT or automatically disqualifies that character from being a good character. Do note that making your argument against most male characters just becomes silly: "Angel is a FFT because he's an attractive guy fighting vampires", "James Bond is a FFT because he's good looking and saves the world from bad guys". Both those characters are known to provide some fanservice (Sean Connery in speedos, anyone?) but wouldn't qualify as FFT as they dress appropriately for the situation at hand.sinsfire said: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 issue is the continuing acceptance of sub-par commentary in the name of progressiveness. There are plenty of commentators I dislike (on this site alone, I'm not a huge fan of Jim Sterling), but nobody ever accuses me of having deep-seated hatred for half of the population because of it. Sarkeesian might as well be reading the TV tropes page, and consistently compiles the most obvious examples of video game sexism (there is no shortage of video game sexism, so she has an easy time finding it), and then performing the most superficial analysis of it, yet if I point that out, or just prefer not to watch her stuff, I'm apparently a misogynist. The message is clear: If the commentator claims a progressive cause and paints themselves as a victim, then his or her commentary must be accepted regardless of quality. I find that to be problematic.Oskuro said: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.
Illusion of empowerment? Was anyone actually dense enough to get deceived by said illusion? Because even when I was a little kid I was smart enough to realize that when a woman wearing a bikini turns up in a fighting tournament, it's obviously to cater to a certain demographic and for no other fucking reason. But for me such a thing is perfectly fine with nothing negative about it, it has a right to exist just like anything else (and it has a right to be criticized, but don't say it shouldn't exist)....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...
I am a university grad. Her methodology is atrocious. I've posted earlier in the thread on why, as have many others. If you seek out post nr. 74 in this thread (its a bit up on page 3, if this post ends up on page 4) by Dead Raen it will link you a number of youtube videoes that quite thoroughly explain how she's not being honest in her work.Oskuro said: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.
An article against what she is doing (making videos which talk about her opinion about female portrayal in videogames)?Houseman said: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.
Kumagawa Misogi said:shiajun said: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.Kumagawa Misogi said: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.
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.
Life is not fair simple.
Lets say the Escapist want's to get more women visiting this site. Well first it has to give coverage to the parts of gaming that it currently ignores which will cost money for very little return at first because the current audience won't be that interested. And this is true for all the main gaming sites.
Then if it does increase female viewership all well and good but gaming sites are a business that needs a return on investment in the short term otherwise "bang" straight back to the status quo.
I actually get that, but it brings me back to the question of why use Perfect Dark. The critique has nothing to do with the game or the game play. At all times Janna Dark remains appropriately attired for the job she is doing. The only time she is not properly attired is for the live action marketing campaign. I have already stated my objections to the marketing campaign so again I ask, how is Joanna Dark (the video game character not the human model) an FFT but The Last Princess is not?Gethsemani said:Conventionally attractive does not make a female character a FTT or automatically disqualifies that character from being a good character. Do note that making your argument against most male characters just becomes silly: "Angel is a FFT because he's an attractive guy fighting vampires", "James Bond is a FFT because he's good looking and saves the world from bad guys". Both those characters are known to provide some fanservice (Sean Connery in speedos, anyone?) but wouldn't qualify as FFT as they dress appropriately for the situation at hand.
The difference between an attractive protagonist, of which there are many of both genders, and a FFT is that one looks good (Rebooted Lara Croft, Elizabeth in Bioshock: Infinite) while the other has a design that's obviously meant to win over media consumers based on the sexualization of the character (Juliet Starling, Catwoman). Attractive characters are par for the course in all media and isn't in itself a bad thing.
Honestly, at this point I am getting the feeling that you really haven't dug that deep into the arguments that Sarkeesian or other critics of contemporary portrayal of women in gaming have made. So far it's two for two that you've misunderstood, and that's fine really but it would be better if you admitted to having misunderstood instead of continuing with your misinterpretations.
What? You want her to do a let's play? Exactly how much do someone need to experience of something before judging?Karadalis said:The problem here is that her most recent videos show no footage of her actually playing any game or showing any footage that she herselfe recorded...
Well... some, at least.Goliath100 said:What? You want her to do a let's play? Exactly how much do someone need to experience of something before judging?Karadalis said:The problem here is that her most recent videos show no footage of her actually playing any game or showing any footage that she herselfe recorded...
"Some" is what amount?DonTsetsi said:Well... some, at least.Goliath100 said:What? You want her to do a let's play? Exactly how much do someone need to experience of something before judging?Karadalis said:The problem here is that her most recent videos show no footage of her actually playing any game or showing any footage that she herselfe recorded...
A couple of points;Oskuro said: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.