The Most Dangerous Woman in Videogames - Anita Sarkeesian

Seydaman

New member
Nov 21, 2008
2,494
0
0
It strikes me as somewhat strange how close Bob lives to me.

OT: Neat, this happened on Monday right?
 

Karadalis

New member
Apr 26, 2011
1,065
0
0
Goliath100 said:
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....
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?
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.

Simply put.. she criticises a medium she does not use herself.

Thats literrary judging a book by its cover.

So yeah.. any point she might have had gets decredited by the simple fact that she actually does not concern herself with actually researching the material shes judging.

She is no better then a certain lawyer who tried to take rockstar to court.
 

Psychobabble

. . . . . . . .
Aug 3, 2013
525
0
0
Well she's certainly the most dangerous person who TALKS about video games anyway. Sadly I feel the demographic she poses the most danger to are the very subjects of her diatribe. IE Women and how they are currently and will in the future be treated in video games and other entertainment media.

She cites no sources for data. Consorts with no experts about her theories, or at least fails to give them any credit if she does. In fact the only qualification I can find she has is a major in political science. Which kind of fits quite well with what she has accomplished. She espoused a lot of unfounded opinions which were exactly what one group wanted to hear, got everyone yelling at each other, got a lot of money, then has pretty much fucked off to let someone else actually fix the mess she brought up in the first place. And of course when calmer, more rational, better educated experts do, she'll get quite a lot of the credit for their work when she's done not very much useful herself, except to help create an atmosphere of divisional anger and fear. Typical politician.

Okay back to demonizing media figures where I can feel good about doing so and get a big pat on the back for my troubles. FUCK YOU ORSON SCOT CARD YOU HORRIBLE LITTLE GAY BASHER YOU!!!
 

Gethsemani_v1legacy

New member
Oct 1, 2009
2,552
0
0
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.
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.
 

DonTsetsi

New member
May 22, 2009
262
0
0
Why keep defending her? She scammed you! She's not a gamer, she's not a feminist, she purposefully started the trolling against herself. She is a scam artist.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqJCCnued6c&list=FLmb8hO2ilV9vRa8cilis88A
 

walruss

New member
Feb 11, 2013
14
0
0
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.
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.
 

Yuuki

New member
Mar 19, 2013
995
0
0
I can't fathom how people in universities attend SEMINARS listening to a woman lecturing them about ABC and 1+1 (i.e. the most obvious and basic shit ever) while apparently nodding meaningfully at her, as if her points hold any intellectual weight. I mean look at this one:
...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...
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).
 

webkilla

New member
Feb 2, 2011
594
0
0
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.
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.

This isn't to say that there isn't merit to her topic of choice, there is - but her approach to it is basically the equivalent of a hobo walking into a hospital, snatching a lab-coat off a rack and claiming to be an expert in medicine. Only here replace medicine with gaming.

The only video game EVER mentioned on social media prior to her kickstarter was angry birds - yet in her videos she claims to have been avid gamers since she was a kid. Oh, and there's a video recording of her giving a presentation in a university class from back when she studied, where she flat out states that she doesn't play video games. All of these things have been linked in earlier posts.

TL:DR - Her choice of topic has merit to it. But she is going about talking about it in a way that academically renders her opinions moot, because she's not being truthful about her own experiences regarding the topic plus she basically lies in her videos.

I'm a teacher. If I had to grade her work I would fail it, for being untruthful.
 
Apr 24, 2008
3,912
0
0
Slow news week?

I don't know why I just read what I just read, and that goes double for why it was written. Are we worried about waning relevancy?
 

mdqp

New member
Oct 21, 2011
190
0
0
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.
An article against what she is doing (making videos which talk about her opinion about female portrayal in videogames)?

That would be silly (although I don't doubt that there are many articles about that), as there is little to say, she is basically doing what thousands of people already do on the internet everyday, there is nothing bad you can say about that.

Now, if you are talking about the content of the videos, there is a lot to argue, as they contain little amount of facts, and tend to be very repetitive (I watched the first 2 videos of the series she crowdfunded, and I have a lot of objections I could raise about their content). There are also problems in how she seems to always try to interpret whatever situation is presented in a game as mysogenistic, despite the fact that often such observations need to be twisted in order to fit her narrative.

And this is coming from someone that actually believes there should be more female characters, and that their portrayal could really do with some improvements. I don't argue for developers to stop doing what they like (if that's what motivates them to design this or that character in a certain way), but I would like more diversity.

She got attacked in a vitriolic way, and while such behaviour should always be chastised, I don't think there is much difference compared to how public figures in general are mistreated on the internet.
 

runic knight

New member
Mar 26, 2011
1,118
0
0
I have been saying Anita is a cancer in the industry for a while now, and I stand behind that. Sadly, my opinion that character and motivations of the individual are horrible, and the arguments massively flawed seems to instantly mean I must be against the underlying message she claims to stand behind. After all, one knows it it impossible to attack someone on your own side...
I consider myself a bit of a liberal, but I can still point out Alex Jones as a cancer to political discourse. From the tactics and behavior, to the baseless claims and preaching, Anita is just nothing more then that same level of ideologue, one that doesn't help the industry or the community and doesn't make the discussion deeper or farther reaching. One merely have to look at the forums around here to see exactly how much her influences has affected the discussions, and I could even argue that her presence actively damages the discussion and impedes progress by creating more crap to shovel through before getting back to what can and could be fixed.

She is nothing more then a conspiracy theorist with an ax to grind and unassailable victim status, and while that doesn't mean her opinions are any less valid then my own, it does mean they are not representative of the intellectual honesty that the industry and community would need in order to try to address the issues of women and gaming. I wouldn't trust Alex Jones to be the face of the discussion about government and civil liberties, I wouldn't trust Bill O'Rilely to be the face of the discussion about partisanship within government, I sure as hell don't trust Anita to be the face of the discussion on women in gaming.
 

hentropy

New member
Feb 25, 2012
737
0
0
I've never seen one of her videos in its entirety, only snippets of the videos and quotes. As far as I'm concerned, she doesn't work in the industry, was never really a mainstream or respected gaming journalist, and as such is little more than the multitudes of people who put opinionated videos on Youtube. Personally, I would like to see an actual expert talk about these issues in gaming, unfortunately publishers and developers have most of their employees in a metaphorical cage when it comes to talking to the media or publicly expressing their opinions outside of pre-scripted PR events.

In the end, these issues were not being talked about publicly before her, and regardless of the academic nature or lack thereof, I think it's a good thing that people can state the obvious (that there are well-used tropes in the gaming industry that are not terribly favorable to women, despite women taking up a larger amount of the gaming populace every day), and that something might actually be done about it.
 

shiajun

New member
Jun 12, 2008
578
0
0
Kumagawa Misogi said:
shiajun said:
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.
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.

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.

"Life is not fair, simple?"

So? What then? "Deal with it?"

I'm sorry, but that mentality is too close to mediocrity, even from a business standpoint. You have to invest money to make money, and the women demographic is growing and is quite profitable, if the reports I'm seeing are correct. In your scenario, a site should just sit and wait until the economic advantage of courting women gamers (in this particular topic) is too big to ignore and only then start covering that segment of the industry. A good business doesn't react, it leads. Getting ahead of the curve (and a very noticeable upwards trend) should be in their interest so that the site gets the scoop of being a reference for that demographic, not an also-ran. In fact, for a site like the Escapist, that was from its origin conceived as a magazine for more "heady" discussion of gaming, more inclusive than what was on offer at say IGN, it's even in their roots to push for more adequate representation of the industry as a whole, not just that wedge that screams oh so loud.

All of this is just an extension of the excuses EA, Ubisoft and all the AAA publishers are using for sequelitis and crushing originality in their IPs. They are spending waaaaaaay too much for diminshing returns, while the niche and excluded genres seem to be doing quite fine and making a killing. Why not invest just a little (in comparison) to get in on that game? Because...you know...status quo.
 

sinsfire

New member
Nov 17, 2009
228
0
0
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.
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?
 

Goliath100

New member
Sep 29, 2009
437
0
0
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...
What? You want her to do a let's play? Exactly how much do someone need to experience of something before judging?
 

DonTsetsi

New member
May 22, 2009
262
0
0
Goliath100 said:
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...
What? You want her to do a let's play? Exactly how much do someone need to experience of something before judging?
Well... some, at least.
 

Goliath100

New member
Sep 29, 2009
437
0
0
DonTsetsi said:
Goliath100 said:
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...
What? You want her to do a let's play? Exactly how much do someone need to experience of something before judging?
Well... some, at least.
"Some" is what amount?
 

ForumSafari

New member
Sep 25, 2012
572
0
0
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.
A couple of points;

1. I don't give a fuck about her either way, I like gaming and I like a few gaming related web series but this entire blogosphere thing is infinitely tedious but realistically I did have to point these few things out.

2. The videos are supposed to be an academic resource, not a Plinkett review. They may be entertaining but their initial purpose is to be factual and usefully informative. To put it in perspective there might be gaming students writing their dissertations and using her in their literary review. If these videos are going to be entered into academia then it is totally OK to question the findings therein and to identify biases in sampling, analysis and conclusions. This is part and parcel of writing things for academic use and is to be expected. This is a valid criticism and arguably should be the only criticism she cares about.

3. You can't hold people responsible for not being outraged about other kickstarters that hadn't happened yet, they aren't farseers. As for ones that had happened before I remember one; the Pebble. Kickstarter wasn't what it is today when she started her campaign, it was much smaller and much less well known.