The Most Dangerous Woman in Videogames - Anita Sarkeesian

[Ragsnstitches]

When you deliberately create an image of a sexual nature, whatever subsequently follows on from that does not automatically change the context of what preceded, unless it subverts the SEXUAL aspect (the sexy woman turns out to be a a post-op/pre-op male, or has a hideous scar or disfigurement somewhere the ad concealed up to the reveal).

Never claimed anything happened automatically.

Getting dressed is not subversive.

Yeah, because that was the only thing that happened that caused a complete change in focus and theme. :/

Throwing on a combat uniform does not subvert the sexual theme and, if uniform fetishes were anything to go by, more likely enhances it (She's Hot AND she kicks ass!). Different Strokes and all that shit, doesn't matter, the goal was clear, make her sexy for the hormonally charged audience.

Initially. That was not the end-goal, however, which is a pretty important distinction.

Whether you got randy or not is irrelevant.

Insofar as sex appeal is required for the setup, it's relevant. But beyond that, it is irrelevant.

Whether the ad is good or bad at what it does is irrelevant.

Okay? Never said otherwise.

Whether Joanna Dark is a fleshed out character or 2D cut-out in the game is irrelevant.

Okay? Never said otherwise.

Whether the ad subverts other negative stereotypes or not is irrelevant.

...you mean kind of like these bulletpoints?

The ad, taking as is and without extraneous details (like what the game is actually about), it is the very definition of Fighting fuckdoll. A character who is made to sexually titillate, then being empowered to fight. The empowerment does not counteract the intent to titillate.

Did not say otherwise. A fighting fuckdoll's sexual appeal is a central aspect. In the ad, the sexual appeal was a red herring and ultimately irrelevant. That is not true of a fighting fuckdoll.

You can argue until the sun goes nova whether that is good or bad, just don't say it isn't what it is. The term was made for that usage.

Indeed, but you are the one that doesn't seem to understand what the term means. Though really, this is the best case scenario for this made up term which you seem to think is sacrosanct. Even if "fighting fuckdoll" was so loose as to include something like the Perfect Dark ad were sexuality was a subversive setup tool rather than a core aspect of a character, then it's far too broad to be of much use as you've stripped context(that important thing you mentioned at the beginning of your post) from the use of sex appeal.

Lastly, I don't care about the feminist angle on this subject, but I have serious gripe with people who seem to think language bends to their whim. Whether you like it's usage or not does not mean you can decide what it can be used for.

Funny, I was going to say the same thing to you.

Don't be so freaking pedantic.
* Actually you did say it was, though not in literal terms:
"And completely dropped any appeal to sexuality after the reveal." Your words, not mine.

* Yeah, the theme shifted... doesn't change the context of the ad.

* So you are saying sex appeal wasn't an integral aspect to that minute long ad?

* Just clarifying.

* Just clarifying.

* Unnecessary jab, but I'm starting to see a pattern here.

* Again:
"And completely dropped any appeal to sexuality after the reveal." - You
"A fighting fuckdolls sexual appeal is it's central aspect"
So 60% of the runtime isn't a major margin or anyway central to the marketing plan behind the ad?

*Never alluded to it being sacrosanct and, in fact at multiple points I pointed out how it isn't a good term either, but having you admit that it is rich, since you are telling other people how it can and can't be used.

*You still feeling smug?

 

[LordLundar]

You know how big factories have those days without accident signs?

Spoiler

The Escapist could do with one of those but for Anita Sarkeesian arguments. Who knows, we might even make double digits one day.

They would have to get rid of every current contributor and editor to pull that off. After all, most of the time this crops up is when it's a contributor doing it.

That said, I'm done here. It's gotten to the point that a day can't even go by without some contributor or editor puts something up largely saying if you don't worship at the Shrine of Anita or fall in absolute lockstep with her ideals then you are at best a joke or at worst the enemy. I'm tired of the same argument every day and it's coming from the people running and contributing to the site. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

 

[StHubi]

And thanks again!

I'm not even going to engage with some of the... things... being said in this thread. I've said what I have to say before, and I don't plan to say it again here.

I just wanted to thank you, Bob, and tell you how jealous I am of you for getting to meet her in person.

That was exactly what I wanted to write! Thanks for preparing the words

But you made me curious...
Are there really people in this thread that do not like the option of free speech? That do not understand the intention behind Mrs. Sarkeesian work? Everybody is free to disagree and I hope there is nothing worse here.
I will take a look at the thread - though it may only be a REALLY short one.

 

[Macroplasm]

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

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

Here's the video he was talking about.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcPIu3sDkEw

 

[hentropy]

Personally I have no problems with occasional tropes in the video gaming, if you want to have Princess Peach be the helpless Princess in every one of the Mario games that's fine, that's Mario's shtick. I think the problem most people have is when a lot of these general tropes show up in every game with a female character in them in the respective genres. These are no creative expressions on the behalf of the developers most of the time, they are forced in by the publishers because of focus testing and target audiences. Want to have a strong female character? Better be sexy and/or busty. It's this stuff, which tends to be focus-test driven, which maddens many people who want change in the industry. I just want them to move away from stagnation.

The kicker is that it's not hard at all to create a decent female character, it's been done all across gaming history from Chrono Trigger to Chell (who I reject as being purely a "silent protagonist with no personality" as some have asserted). How Sarkeesian fits into it is somewhat irrelevant, and just distracts from the real issue of the stifling of creativity and move to uniformity exerted by the publishers.

 

[Piecewise]

Anita Sarkeesian lectures about female tropes in games and MovieBob was there to see it.

And thanks again!

I'm not even going to engage with some of the... things... being said in this thread. I've said what I have to say before, and I don't plan to say it again here.

I just wanted to thank you, Bob, and tell you how jealous I am of you for getting to meet her in person.

In other words you don't want to rebut any of the many many MANY well reasoned, concise, and lengthy criticisms leveled against her work, which have nothing to do with her being a woman or are sexist in the least.

Because that would be hard. Better to just assume that arguments against her works are the results of "misogyny" and continue to worship her just as blindly as people worship fox news pundits.

 

[Pat Hulse]

There's a difference between having prejudice as a subject within a piece of fiction and a piece of fiction actually being prejudiced. For example, "12 Years A Slave" is about racism, but it isn't a racist film. Meanwhile "Breakfast At Tiffany's" isn't about racism, but it is a racist film for its infamous portrayal of an asian character played by Mickey Rooney.

Your argument is only valid if Anita Sarkeesian is asking video games to not have any sexist characters or explore sexism as a theme. She hasn't said that. What she's said is that she's against games that perpetuate sexism through the use of various tropes and attitudes within the community.

See there is the thing. Everytime someone actually tries to interpret her thesis it always comes with the response "it isn't that".

Okay so why does one get to exist and one doesn't? Keep in mind that recently the video game industry has recently won a supreme court case that upheld that video games are free speech. In other words the entire debate that makes the claim that playing violent video games makes a person violent has been debunked. So what makes the concept of having to deal with sexist subjects and such make a person sexist in real life? It is just as illogical.

People aren't going to become sexist by playing video games just in the same vein as people aren't going to become violent by playing violent video games. If either were true first Jack Thompson's of the world would of won and the video game industry would then have to drastically censor violence in video games.

I'm sure all of use have read many books, watched many movies and played many games but has that actually changed your mind to the point where you think LESS about women? Something tells me it doesn't no matter how "sexist" the content is or is not. Also what gives her the right to enforce her beliefs over the creative freedoms that writers, developers and directors have in the products they create? Not to mention the fact that we are dealing with fictional characters that are drastically divorced from reality and our modern society.

I mean with all the crap that has been said on here no one, not even Anita has actually explained her thesis in detail so that everyone can understand to actually have a starting point to discuss if her thesis has any sort of merit.. Cause I've seen the changing of the goalposts so many times that it makes my head spin.

This argument comes up a lot and it reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of "free speech". What "free speech" means is that the government has no right to prevent its people from expressing themselves. In that regard, no I don't think the government should have any role in preventing games or any medium from being sexist, racist, homophobic or whatever so long as they aren't hurting anyone or breaking unrelated laws.

What "free speech" DOESN'T mean is that fiction that is in some way sexist, racist, homophobic or in any other way offensive is immune from being criticized for any reason, up to and including being criticized specifically for being offensive.

One could argue that this sort of criticism does result in the silencing of a particular work. Where the producers of said work will avoid certain content in an effort to avoid offending people and reducing sales. But that's just the way popular art works. If I make a movie about how the Nazis were heroes, no one would produce that movie and very few people would see it if it somehow saw the light of day. That's not suppressing free speech or creativity. If I wanted to, I could still make that stupid awful movie and show it to whoever wants to see it and the government would do nothing to stop it, but no one is obligated to give me money to give it a bigger budget and no one is obligated to see it.

When we criticize sexism in games, we aren't asking for these games to be banned. There's a possibility that if games continue to be sexist in spite of criticism or if the sexism is particularly egregious, those of us who would be offended may choose not to buy it, but that's not the same thing as petitioning the government to have it banned.

No one is asking that these games be banned. We are merely saying that when games have sexist elements, it bothers a lot of people, some more than others, and usually for no good reason. We feel that games can do better.

And I'm sorry if you're confused, but it's not that we're changing our goalposts, it's that you keep challenging arguments that we're not making.

You want a thesis? "Video games frequently use sexist tropes of women and that's a bad thing." It isn't "Sexist video games make people sexist" or "Sexist video games should be banned" or "Video games that explore sexism in any way are bad too".

 

[wulf3n]

You want a thesis? "Video games frequently use sexist tropes of women and that's a bad thing."

What does "bad" mean in this context then?

captcha: well done.

Thank you captcha

 

[BreakfastMan]

Most of the retorts are either strawmen/misunderstandings of what she said (she never says video games are inherently sexist), character attacks, or absurd non-sequesters (a storytelling trope isn't poorly used and harmful because people want to protect others IRL? wut?).

Care to elaborate your counterpoints, BreakfastDude? Deconstruct these supposed strawmen/misunderstandings and explain to us the flaws in our arguments if you will. That's why we're all here for, to debate these points.

You have the floor, good sir.

Care to give me specific arguments, or do you want me to rant against the various arguments I have seen that stick out in my mind the most?

 

[Ragsnstitches]

That's still incredibly stupid. "Ha ha we killed your boner," doubly so because 90% of the time the opposite is true. Look at Bridget, Poison or as I meantioned, Skullgirls. Are they still subversive when they prove these generalized, preconceived notions wrong?

What the fuck is skullgirls and why is it the entire pivot point of your hilariously off point comments? Does one incredibly niche game really change the generalised norm? Wow, if only all those social activists of the last century knew all you had to do is make a microcosmic success in a niche entertainment market to make instant and quantifiable change.

Speaking of quantifiable:

90%... citation needed.

Look, you really don't know a thing about me so I suggest you leave me and my preferences out of this, but to be clear, your really off mark when it comes to that image you seem to have of me.

At this stage, I'm just confused. What the fuck is your point?

Where do I talk about your preferences exactly? XD

I hope you know who Bridget is, at least. At any rate, I didn't say anything about mass or niche entertainment causing social change. In fact, I find that notion pretty ridiculous. Hence why I am ridiculing the idea of grossing out heterosexual dudes to subvert the expectation of objectified lust objects. The examples I noted are instances in which the opposite ended up happening. That's why I asked whether such things retroactively qualify as objectification in media.

Bridget?

Man you need to clarify who you are referencing. I read too quickly sometimes and I just assumed Bridget and Poison were Skullgirl characters, despite you making a distinction.

Also, I agree... it is totally stupid. It's a crying shame that it is so common in comedy tropes.

As for you making assumptions about me, at one point in the first post to me you asked a question in an attempt at throwing my logic (in relation to a subversive trope) out the window, without realising the scenario you were describing, described me too (more or less). My last response telling you to stop was part of the confusion on my part, as I just assumed you carried over assumptions into the following comment. My bad.

 

[blackrave]

I wholeheartedly agree. No one should be catering to anyone specifically. Of the games you mentioned, they have relatively little in common in tone, gameplay, objectives, etc. They were mostly done out of the developers interests. But we're not there anymore. I don't really know, so this is all speculation, but I'd venture that back in the late nineties/early 2000s there wasn't as much reliance on focus groups as evidence to push out anything that's not a following the model of CoD or Gears of War out of the spotlight. There were many mid-size studios back then, budgets were more moderate and a lot of experimentation took place. We're not there anymore, and we should try to get somehow back there in terms of diversity in properly funded projects.

In any case, I wasn't talking about coverage as in development but as in media coverage. Many people out there are making some really interesting, weird games that have nothing to do with the current shooter/cover model, yet we only get to know the tip of iceberg of those through the bigger channels. We should ask why that is, since apparently those crowds put a lot of money where they mouth is if Kickstarter donations are to be believed. So, it's wise form a business perspective to try to draw those audiences to your site and stop plastering the page with the same news about the same games. It would a more accurate reporting of the industry than centering on the action white male demographic alone.

Oh, I see, I didn't quite grasped what you meant, sorry.
But again is there any more/less respectable media site that showcases and reviews only AAA dudebro games?
Those few media sites I visit actually talks about wide specter of games- good, bad, meh, well known and obscure.
Not to mention other forms of media (movies, anime, music and even books)
Maybe there are those who fits the description, but I haven't heard of them :/
Could you provide name or link, so I can facepalm too?

 

[QuantumWalker]

You can include sexist/racists/hate of any kind into any artist media and not have the biproduct itself be sexist/racist/hateful. She mentions in one of her videos how she enjoyed the few games that had a sexist theme/trope subverted. (I believe it was one of the women in distress ones). Like you started out as the kidnapped princess and make your way out of the situation on your own. Woman in distress can also have the woman given agency and ability to be the hero as well.

The thing is, this is not the sentiment that Anita wants us to take from her videos. In all three of her DiD videos she presents a conflicting and shifting viewpoint on how this trope interacts with the rest of the world.

She says this quote in her second video immediately after she highlights how some games use violence as a means to bring female characters back to their senses, or to end their suffering is analogous to domestic violence.

It's especially troubling in-light of the serious real life epidemic of violence against women facing the female population on this planet. Every 9 seconds a woman is assaulted or beaten in the United States and on average more than three women are murdered by their boyfriends husbands, or ex-partners every single day. Research consistently shows that people of all genders tend to buy into the myth that women are the ones to blame for the violence men perpetrate against them. In the same vein, abusive men consistently state that their female targets ?deserved it?, ?wanted it? or were ?asking for it?

She then goes on to say a few minutes later

Likewise engaging with these games is not going to magically transform players into raging sexists. We typically don?t have a monkey-see monkey-do, direct cause and effect relationship with the media we consume.

She will juxtapose information and statistics with the clear intention of trying to demonstrate that x leads to y, but will fail to correlate this information to the problem at hand. As with Jack Thompson and violence, the same is true for Anita Sarkeesian and domestic violence in video games. Their is no direct link between the instances of violence we see in media and it's occurrence in real life.

This same phenomenon of flip flopping on terms and statements can be seen throughout her entire video series so far. She will make generalizations about the gaming community and then say that not all people are like that. She will say that the DiD trope is terrible because it forces women to need help, but then says that helping people is a good thing.

And as far as Anita has told us, the only time that being a damsel is acceptable is when the trope is being subverted and the woman is able to free herself. She tries to say that this is because subverting the trope gives agency to the damsel, but them by definition of what a damsel in distress which, as defined by Anita, is:

the damsel in distress is a plot device in which a female character is placed in a perilous situation from which she cannot escape on her own and then must be rescued by a male character, usually providing an incentive or motivation for the protagonist?s quest.

So if the damsel is able to free herself and exercise agency independent of the player character is she really a damsel in distress or just a woman who got kidnapped?

 

[LetalisK]

*You still feeling smug?

Never felt smug, but I am bored with your antics towards not just myself, but others in this thread. You have not brought up anything I haven't already addressed, so I'm assuming you're just ignoring what I'm actually saying now. I'll be getting off this merry-go-round before it spins out of control. Have a nice day. (And that's not sarcasm, btw).

 

[Ipsen]

I didn't (and don't) really want to get into another Sarkeesian discussion which almost inevitably seems to resolve with polar camps becoming even more entrenched in what they already believe.

But I feel like I do need to say this much: if Anita Sarkeesian is "the most dangerous woman in videogames"... Man, we've really got to up our game.

Which is not to say anything about the quality of her work, one way or another. Take that as you will, good, bad, or indifferent. Just that no one can really, credibly say that Anita Sarkeesian is in video games.

She's a critic. A commentator. A sideliner. One more chatterer in the chattering throng, as it were, enjoying her moment in the spotlight for however long it might last. She might be an irritating rabble rouser mouthing off her own opinion or she might be the spearhead of a growing movement, but in either case, she as an individual means very little to video games, either individually or as a whole.

As hard as it may be for some people to believe, there are actual women making actual video games- from Rhianna Pratchett writing for Tomb raider to transexual activist and game designer Anna Anthropy. If an "armchair quarterback" like Sarkeesian is the the woman influencing the face of video games the most, the figure of doom foretelling the new face of the medium... I'm less than convinced that the revolution is imminent. Sarkeesian's influence on the medium ends with a flick of an off switch and an Amazon purchase of the next Suda 51 game. Someone who's actually in the medium is far more likely to actually bring about change.



But apparently there's no one all that "dangerous", there.

So, off topic (I've said my piece today), but just wanted to say...

I like your posts, man. Stay classy, and on The Escapist!

-runs away in embarrassment-

 

[StHubi]

Are there really people in this thread that do not like the option of free speech?

Nope.

Disagreeing with one another does not mean we're stifling anyone's free speech FFS. Free speech is more than just "I can say what I want and you can't challenge me on it because I'm entitled to my opinion [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%27m_entitled_to_my_opinion] and you're an asshole if you do!"

So I do implore you to actually read what's been said here with a fair and open mind, StHubi. You just might get learn'd a-somethin.

I just learned that not everybody reads a complete post and quotes parts to give other posts a different sound/meaning There is another sentence behind the one you quoted from my post. It said basically the same as you just did?!? I have not read yet all of the thread and I was just wondering if there was already a lot of threats and hate here again... That's all what I was wondering about.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

In other words you don't want to rebut any of the many many MANY well reasoned, concise, and lengthy criticisms leveled against her work, which have nothing to do with her being a woman or are sexist in the least.

If you've ever read my response before, you know I have done just that.

Most of the "well reasoned criticisms" against her amount to "I am not aware of feminist theory - therefore it does not exist and she's wrong."

A person being ignorant of the lens through which the material is being viewed does not make her wrong.

A person having the opinion that no art should be viewed through a lens (like feminism or many other philosophical lenses) does not mean that the person is using the technique incorrectly.

If someone disagrees with the basic tenants of Feminism (particularly second wave feminism), then fine. Anita did not invent feminism, second wave or otherwise.

 

[AstaresPanda]

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.

i agree, its never been an issue as its only just recently gaming culture has really become main stream and not just for kids and or guys. Lets face it its always been considered an immature activity, women would also think a man childish if they enjoy video games. But these people could never understand (pc gaming for me with my 56kmodem ) that the games were much more then kids stuff. So like i said only NOW are more people open to it and now a wider audience would like to be portrayed in some form or another. So NO its not that the video game culture is broken, it needs work now that its mainstream and things are changing more female characters etc. The overwhelming amount of hate she got was due to her blatant lack of knowledge on the subject despite what her kick starter might say, and come on have you watched any of her videos lots of long words and buzz words with flimsy evidence to back up her crap.

 

[Someone Depressing]

Under all of the whiny crap and desperate grabs for attention, she actually has a point.

That's shocking yet pleasant.

 

[StHubi]

Whoa whoa what? You haven't even looked at the thread, but you jump to the conclusion that Sarkeesian's detractors probably hate free speech? The actual hell?

I just asked a question. That was not a conclusion...

And when her person is attacked it's because the poster thinks that she's scamming the very people that support her.

"The ends justify the means!"

 

[Ticklefist]

This woman has never affected my life in any way. I assume she's the typical e-crusader. Probably says a lot of things we can all agree with then takes the crazy train off the rails a minute later.