The Most Dangerous Woman in Videogames - Anita Sarkeesian

[Rebel_Raven]

/rant

By all accounts you are right.

Yes the video game industry is laughably clumsy in their portraial of female protagonists. But intentionaly suggesting that the industry is out to surpress female rights is an entirely different beast.

All those "sexist" tropes she has listed just make my eyes roll.

Where are all the Dead or alive beach volleyball examples?

Its not like real objectivication doesnt exist in games.. its a very real thing. But those are made to sell a game to a certain demographic... not to destroy womens rights like arnita keeps claiming over and over again.

If that market didnt exist so wouldnt those games. These games are ment for that audience and not to make a political statement. That is why people feel personaly attacked by her... because basically she tells people that they are bad evil women hating monsters for enjoying their particular brand of fantasy.

.. But they are out to suppress female representation in videogames.

Spoiler

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2006/10/7922/
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2008/mar/06/women.games

http://www.giantbomb.com/sleeping-dogs/3030-29441/
http://www.gamecritics.com/brad-gallaway/brink-no-girls-allowed
http://www.penny-arcade.com/report/article/games-with-female-heroes-dont-sell-because-publishers-dont-support-them
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/123139-Devs-Had-to-Demand-Female-Focus-Testers-for-The-Last-of-Us
http://www.penny-arcade.com/report/article/remember-mes-surprising-connection-to-facebook-and-why-its-protagonist-had

http://kotaku.com/investigation-a-video-game-studio-from-hell-511872642
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/123139-Devs-Had-to-Demand-Female-Focus-Testers-for-The-Last-of-Us
http://www.penny-arcade.com/report/article/remember-mes-surprising-connection-to-facebook-and-why-its-protagonist-had
http://popwatch.ew.com/2012/05/01/god-of-war-ascension-multiplayer/
http://uk.gamespot.com/features/fear-of-a-woman-warrior-6404142/
http://www.gamespot.com/news/naughty-dog-insisted-on-female-testers-for-the-last-of-us-6406619
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evI5pF5h8Ck
http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=252 a point made in the form of a joke
http://indigitainment.com/2013/05/08/indigenous-determination-in-game-space/
http://www.toybox-games.jp/english0107.html
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2013-03-20-bastion-developer-teases-transistor-for-pax-east
http://lesbiangamers.com/2008/05/farcry-2-female-character-fiasco/

See? A whole lot of "no girls allowed" vibes.

Anita's points seem to focus on how women are pretty much always being saved by a guy, and, well, the women don't even have to be women sometimes.

They may not be violating women's rights, or trying to (aside, maybe the right for women to exist in sensible clothes in their games, or the right to not look like trophy wives. <.<) but I'm wondering if they're really helping anything? I mean games don't necessarily have a lot of great rolemodels, but that doesn't mean they can't exist.

Honestly, I'm not gunna argue the market for looking at hot women doesn't exist. I know it exists. Every now and then, I'm part of it. Not only because I don't really have a choice most of the time, but I appreciate looking good, and playing dressup virtually. Being lesbian, it kinda panders to me.
Still, like I said, that market is about all there is as far as women go. Frankly that "market" isn't saving the game industry it seems.

 

[Story]

Sorry if I didn't quote some of the people who answered me, this thread is moving pretty quickly.

Yet who is to say Anita didn't notice this trend in video games, decided to explore it farther and found the evidence she needed to support it?

If this were the case, she'd have sources to site, since she'd have done actual research. And so many of her points wouldn't be taken out of context.

This is also a form of cherry picking. As someone in this thread said earlier, I can easily say that Story "is a neo-nazi and supports child prostitution" then look over all of your comments, pick them apart and arrange them in a way that supports my claim.

Cherry picking is also dishonest.

Lastly, she's not working with literature. Her subject matter might be games, but the overarching message is social political in nature.

Ah I see now. However, how is it that Anita is able to look at the whole context of her arguments in a video format? More over, if her point is that many women are kidnapped in video games just to drive the plot why do these other contexts matter so long as they aren't contradictory to what she is supporting?

Edit:
Though I do very much agree with her social political argument being pretty weak.

I think that's probably what she did! It isn't difficult to notice some of the less female friendly aspects of games, or the predisposition towards white male protagonists. But don't you agree that it's kind of pathetic to go from a screenshot of Princess Zelda being held captive by Ganondorf, to a conclusion that she's a passive piece of property, without ever mentioning that she's also a ninja-wizard?

Actually she did mention that to be fair. Only she claimed it was short lived as, after Zelda resumed her more stereotypical female look, she was taken out of the action almost immediately.

 

[Draconalis]

Ah I see now. However, how is it that Anita is able to look at the whole context of her arguments in a video format? More over, if her point is that many women are kidnapped in video games just to drive the plot why do these other contexts matter so long as they aren't contradictory to what she is supporting?

Honestly, allow me to re-link something to you. I'm watching it now as we speak.

It can explain matters much better than I, as they followed Anita much closer than I do. She's pretty much a non-entity on my radar. I watched her video once, a long time ago, and I barely remember the details.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGFWQEQUT5g

 

[SummerOtaku]

Eh. I dislike feminism because even moderate feminists tends to just assume that 'men are teh evulz' is the default way to contextualise everything, and either cherry-pick facts that support this, or skew things that don't support it so they seem like they do. It's a dogmatic approach and not at all in step with proper critical thinking. Or err... honesty. Plus I'm frankly fucking tired of people telling me that my internal motivations are sex and subjugating women (for the lulz or something?) and nothing else.

'Men are evil' is not feminism. That is like saying christians hate the gays. Some who claim to be christian do but that's not a principal of christianity at all. In fact, isn't it 'judge not and love thy neighbor' more in line with christian thought?

So NO. If someone says they are a feminist and hate men and find men evil or whatever, they are not really feminists. Feminists feel men and women are EQUAL so saying men are evil is right out the window on the very first point.

So you do not dislike feminism.

In fact the whole 'your internal motivations are sex and subjugating women' is exactly the sort of thing feminisim is fighting against (gender roles and stereotypes of patriarchy).

Therefore, my friend, you might actually be a feminist yourself.

 

[wulf3n]

Spoiler

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2006/10/7922/
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2008/mar/06/women.games

http://www.giantbomb.com/sleeping-dogs/3030-29441/
http://www.gamecritics.com/brad-gallaway/brink-no-girls-allowed
http://www.penny-arcade.com/report/article/games-with-female-heroes-dont-sell-because-publishers-dont-support-them
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/123139-Devs-Had-to-Demand-Female-Focus-Testers-for-The-Last-of-Us
http://www.penny-arcade.com/report/article/remember-mes-surprising-connection-to-facebook-and-why-its-protagonist-had

http://kotaku.com/investigation-a-video-game-studio-from-hell-511872642
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/123139-Devs-Had-to-Demand-Female-Focus-Testers-for-The-Last-of-Us
http://www.penny-arcade.com/report/article/remember-mes-surprising-connection-to-facebook-and-why-its-protagonist-had
http://popwatch.ew.com/2012/05/01/god-of-war-ascension-multiplayer/
http://uk.gamespot.com/features/fear-of-a-woman-warrior-6404142/
http://www.gamespot.com/news/naughty-dog-insisted-on-female-testers-for-the-last-of-us-6406619
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evI5pF5h8Ck
http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=252 a point made in the form of a joke
http://indigitainment.com/2013/05/08/indigenous-determination-in-game-space/
http://www.toybox-games.jp/english0107.html
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2013-03-20-bastion-developer-teases-transistor-for-pax-east
http://lesbiangamers.com/2008/05/farcry-2-female-character-fiasco/

See? A whole lot of "no girls allowed" vibes.

I've always seen it as a more "don't care if your here" vibe. Which is arguably more insulting.

 

[Story]

Ah I see now. However, how is it that Anita is able to look at the whole context of her arguments in a video format? More over, if her point is that many women are kidnapped in video games just to drive the plot why do these other contexts matter so long as they aren't contradictory to what she is supporting?

Honestly, allow me to re-link something to you. I'm watching it now as we speak.

It can explain matters much better than I, as they followed Anita much closer than I do. She's pretty much a non-entity on my radar. I watched her video once, a long time ago, and I barely remember the details.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGFWQEQUT5g

Thanks for the link, but I just watched this video, and disagreed with most of it.
Plus, to be honest, I didn't particularity care for the way he addressed Anita. He felt the need to pointlessly insult her many times which tarnished even his truly valid points.

 

[blackrave]

Ok, I've just read few pages of this thread and now my head hurts.
I fell for trap of That-who-shall-not-be-named
FUCK IT!!!
It was the last goddamn time!
I was the earliest person who said that "defiance is our greatest weapon"
So please stop react to this subpar person
Let her persona dissolve.

NO MORE!
NO MORE!
NO MORE!
NO MORE!
NO MORE!
NO MORE!
NO MORE!

 

[Draconalis]

Thanks for the link, but I just watched this video, and disagreed with most of it.
Plus, to be honest, I didn't particularity care for the way he addressed Anita. He felt the need to pointlessly insult her many times which tarnished even his truly valid points.

I've been pausing alot and haven't encountered any insults yet.

So far, I agree with what he's said though.

 

[Farther than stars]

This is everything I dislike about modern academia. The use of sources, research and evidence is supposed to make academic dialog more objective, but it should not be used as an excuse to stifle innovation. After all, Thomas Edison never used a source in his life, but that didn't stop him from - you know - inventing the light bulb. The aim of these videos is to inspire a broader debate about women in video games; Sarkeesian never lied about that. To dismiss her views because she doesn't fit your image of a perfect academic then seems churlish.

Wasn't Edison like, a douchebag thief who stole everything he claimed to invent? I don't feel like doing the research to back up that claim. Notice how that makes it less believable? In any case...

The inventor of the lightbulb created something which did not exist before.

The only thing Sarkeesian invented is her OPINION.

How are these things even remotely comparable? Good lord...

OK, somehow, just after I hit the send button, I knew could expect an illicit-major argument as an easy cop-out. I listed the invention of the light bulb as an example of innovation to support the rule I had formulated in the previous sentence. That does not mean that I believe Anita Sarkeesian's opinion is comparable to the invention of the light bulb. I do, however, believe that it is subject to that same rule.* Just because she doesn't follow academic form doesn't mean that her views are entirely invalid. But the fact that we've now been able to have an entire debate about this, rather than those views themselves, shows just how broken the academic system really is.

*So, yes, "remotely comparable" in the same sense that you and I are remotely comparable for both breathing oxygen and drinking water.

 

[BreakfastMan]

So many replies, so little time... Okay, let's do this, for as long as I can stand talking at all of you.

A) Violent behavior and Sexist behavior are both states of ones mind. The act of violence might be an action but this is about teaching people through video games to behave violent/sexist so in this context it is exactly the same. Your little differntiation that one thing is an idea and the other is an action holds absolutely no meaning when it comes to the basic question of video games actually affecting peoples behavior. Heres a hint: They dont.

Yes, the actually do. All media does. Or, to state it more correctly, media effects how people think and their preconceptions. However, there is a difference between saying "Doom made my son shoot up a school!" and "All these sexist stereotypes have shifted how culture views women and their place in society". Anita is talking about the later, not the former.

B)Lets start off with all the nonsense she spouts about the "patriarchy" that she fights so hard. Is there actual proof that political figures actually are in cahoots with the creators of video games to surpress women throughout the world by implementing tropes of female chars into their game? How about giving credit to all the game footage she has stolen and not recorded herself? All she does is bring forth her own conspiracy theories that lack any sort of footing in the real world and tries to picture this universal boogyman for women that is "the patriarchy". As if there is actually some james bond villain like organisation that actively works against females.

Look up what the feminist theory of patriarchy actually is before you spout of nonsense next time, alright? Because you obviously didn't here.

C)Yes she does and it has been prooven numerous times and actually has been stated by her herself that she moderates every single comment. Saying that she doesnt moderate them is calling her a liar and i think as one of her supporters you surely arent going to call the person you try to stubbornly defend a liar.

Oh no, moderation on a single internet forum. The thing that threatens free speech the most. However shall we all cope?

D) She should come out and admit that she set this all up. Only for that one video she did not moderate all the comments and let the BS vitriol flow freely.. whats more is that "someone" went to 4chan.. a place that makes mos eisly look like friggin kindergarden and spammed the site with her kickstarter project.

Before that basicly no one in the gigantic community of gaming even knew about her. But suddenly BAM every gaming news website reported on the incident.

That is why i said she is a very smart women.. she knows how to attract attention and it literally paid out for her very well.

Right, so she forced people to threaten her with rape because she did a kickstarter and she apparently did this all on purpose to scam people out of moneys. What proof do you have that it was actually her that went to 4chan, again?

E) Uhm yeah... her entire videos up till now? But thats a bit to easy. How about that one time she talked about that star trek episode where Dana Troy is "impregnated" by some cosmic space energy entity? She claimed that the baby dies at the end of the episode and that the topic of emotional trauma isnt even touched upon. When in truth the baby does not die but turns back into the cosmic energy space entity because its existance threatens the enterprise or some such nonsense. Fact is she has no problem with lying or withholding information to further her agenda. Or about that time she said zelda is a powerless entity in the games when in truth zelda is actually a badass girl who for the most part is very competent.

So... She mistook something that seems a lot like dying (but technically isn't even though it has similiar effects) for dying. Wow. All those lies. Amazing.

Also, Zelda is powerless or made powerless in nearly all of the Zelda games. So, I really don't see how that point doesn't carry weight.

Got any more terrible examples, buster?

F) Im really scratching my head about this one... so basically what youre saying is that its okay for her to pretent as if no one disagrees with her?

Where did I say that? And where does she pretend that no one disagrees with her?

G)Then wheres the money? Clearly not in the video series thats for sure.. she doesnt even use game footage recorded by herselfe and isntead rips off lets players. So the question stands... where did the money go to?

Towards camera and sound equipment, rendering software, a studio, that stack of games she made a picture with once, and the like? That shit don't come cheap.

H) She said that she isnt a fan of gaming and that she doesnt like to play games because they are to violent. In her kickstarter video and in her media apearances thought she claims to be a long time player who played games as soon as the age of 10. Something does not add up here and either way she is lying. The argument also wasnt about her being a "gamer" as being part of the community or not.. but if she actually plays games to be qualified to even talk about them in the way she does. And all evidence points to her not playing games.

A: A lot of female gamers I know don't like super violent games. And B: I am not a fan of gaming a lot of the time either. The same has been repeated over and over by a lot of game critics.

I) I havent seen anyone actually claiming that... but its not hard to see because basically everything containing women in games is sexist according to her. She has both stated that powerless women are sexist because they are obviously powerless, and that empowered women are sexist because they are just tits tagged onto "positive" male criteria.. so again she has herselfe to blame for this one.

You are massively oversimplifying arguments there.

J) When moviebob points out flaws in movies he doesnt ramble on about how holywood tries to brainwash the masses. Unlike Arnita here who claims that these video games are trying to enforce their sexist view on their audience. Not only that but she doesnt even care for the success of these games or if they where actually good games or just trash. Again the problem is not with that she critisizes games for perceived sexism... its how she does it.

Strawman. She has outright stated in her videos that she doesn't believe in a schemeing cabal of men trying to keep women down. And I have no idea why success of the game matters or not.

K) You seriously just shot yourselfe in the foot here. Yes it is not real life.. and that is EXACTLY why it does not have this brainwashing effect on people that arnita claims video games have. People KNOW that super mario is not the real live and KNOW that peach is not a real person.. so why should they attribute peachs personality to women in REAL life?

Because the themes in works of fiction effect our preconceptions and how we think?

L) Because this trope was used during a time when the biggest games where as data intensive as 80 seconds of a MP3. You HAD to work with that, there was no way for elaborate storylines or character depth. And that was all she was harping about... old ass games that where made during the very beginning of gamer culture.

I have no idea why this disproves anything. Also, did you actually watch the videos? She said she was going to talk about old games first, then new games later. Which she has done in the most recent videos.

M) Again i have no one here or on youtube ever state that "she doesnt like sex" in any of the many many well thought out response videos to her claims. And we asked you for arguments raised in those responses and NOT from those 4chan 1 braincellers. Straw man.

I pulled this argument directly from this thread. If you want to ignore it, fine, but it exists outside of 4chan.

N)Again.. what? Effect change? Again... a point not brought up. The actuall point is WHERE DID THE DAMN MONEY GO? It is not in the videos who quality wise are little different from the stuff she did before the kickstarter... it wasnt spend on research material or footage because she just uses wikipedia/TV tropes and footage from LPs... so again where did all the money go?

Again, see above.

 

[Rebel_Raven]

Spoiler

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2006/10/7922/
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2008/mar/06/women.games

http://www.giantbomb.com/sleeping-dogs/3030-29441/
http://www.gamecritics.com/brad-gallaway/brink-no-girls-allowed
http://www.penny-arcade.com/report/article/games-with-female-heroes-dont-sell-because-publishers-dont-support-them
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/123139-Devs-Had-to-Demand-Female-Focus-Testers-for-The-Last-of-Us
http://www.penny-arcade.com/report/article/remember-mes-surprising-connection-to-facebook-and-why-its-protagonist-had

http://kotaku.com/investigation-a-video-game-studio-from-hell-511872642
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/123139-Devs-Had-to-Demand-Female-Focus-Testers-for-The-Last-of-Us
http://www.penny-arcade.com/report/article/remember-mes-surprising-connection-to-facebook-and-why-its-protagonist-had
http://popwatch.ew.com/2012/05/01/god-of-war-ascension-multiplayer/
http://uk.gamespot.com/features/fear-of-a-woman-warrior-6404142/
http://www.gamespot.com/news/naughty-dog-insisted-on-female-testers-for-the-last-of-us-6406619
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evI5pF5h8Ck
http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=252 a point made in the form of a joke
http://indigitainment.com/2013/05/08/indigenous-determination-in-game-space/
http://www.toybox-games.jp/english0107.html
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2013-03-20-bastion-developer-teases-transistor-for-pax-east
http://lesbiangamers.com/2008/05/farcry-2-female-character-fiasco/

See? A whole lot of "no girls allowed" vibes.

I've always seen it as a more "don't care if your here" vibe. Which is arguably more insulting.

*Adjusts my view...* Oh your god... you have a point. :/ Honestly it feels like both "no girls allowed" and "we don't care if you're here." Which might sound weird, but actively being blocked, and apathy...

Way too long to fully quote, but I see your point

Would more creative diversity be good? Of course. I don't think anyone would argue that. Would it be cool to see better, interesting, well-written lead female characters? Sure.

...but honestly most of this kind of talks just reeks of some Game Of Thrones jockeying-for-power kinda political bullshit. Like being in a supporting role is somehow worse than being in the lead role because THE LEAD ROLE IS ALL THAT MATTERS...yeah ask the likes Johnny Depp, Harrison Ford, Chloe Grace Moretz, etc etc. how important the "lead roles" mattered in their respective film franchises. They became stars because they had the best characters in their films and had the talent to back it up. Yeah Aaron Johnson got top billing, but Chloe is the one walking out of Kick-Ass 2 with the bigger career ahead of her. And just this year Ellie and Elizabeth are far more beloved than Booker Dewitt or Joel. So I can't really buy the "lead role is what matters the most" argument because...it's not all that true =/

Speaking just for myself, as long as you're interesting and contribute to the story in a meaningful way, I don't give a damn what gender/age/race/species you are or where you are on this "patriarchal ladder" everyone goes on and on about. Protagonist, Antagonist, sidekick, Magical Mystical Mentor, Redshirt, no matter role you're in, whatever you do just don't suck. *shrugs*

Quality > Quantity should be the focus first and for most. Cranking out boring, generic, butt kicking machine female leads just to match the number of boring, generic, butt kicking machine male leads would be pretty counterproductive, no?

*looking at you, Resident Evil movies*

Yeah, the supporting role is frikking terrible as far as games go. If I see someone -awesome- in a supporting role, that means I can't play as that awesome person, and learn more about them. It's kinda weird that there are plenty of NPCs who're worth having their own game, yet don't.

In real life, the supporting role gets looked down on. You're seen as looking at the leader of the wolf pack's ass all the time. This holds true in a lot of multiplayer games, too. And sooner or later, I'd think a person might snap, swear vehemently, and wanna do something different.

Sure, people love Ellie, and Elisabeth, but how often does this phenomena happen?
And sadly, no matter how often is it, the problem with your movie metaphor is that Elisabeth, Ellie, and all the beloved NPCs -don't- have a career ahead of them. We'll likely never see them in the next game, and they don't get promoted to star/lead role in DLC. They're thrown away once the game is no longer supported, and then the process repeats. You're the dude in the lead role making almost all the difference in the world, and at best, a woman supports you along the way. We see the occassional iconic woman that's an NPC, and never really play as them. Yeah, you play as Ellie in TLOU, but it's temporary. A fraction of the entire game. That's not really all -that- great. Better than nothing, but not as good as playing as her through more than some hour.

I agree. I do adore an awesome game, and will play regardless of gender, but those, IMO are really far and few in between. At best I tolerate more or less mediocre games with marginally, at best, interesting characters, or characters I respect enough.

Honestly, I'd settle for a few more female protagonists if even if they were just more or less generic action movie stars. I.E. Lara Croft in the reboot, and Nilin.
To be honest, a bland female lead > bland male lead as far as I'm concerned. At least with the former, I get the thrill of playing a female character. Like I said, it's rare, and rare adds some spice.

As heretical as it might be to say, I really wouldn't mind playing Alice in a resident evil movie game. I mean, yeah, it'll be farther away from the horror theme of Resident Evil than it's ever been unless there's some credible threats to ratchet up the tension or something, but well, I like the movies. Alice is about the only woman in movies to star in a movie that gets sequels.

It wouldn't necessarily be counter productive to just crank out more action star women games. If they dress like women we see in real life, or at least more practical than sexy, that'd be a step up from where they are.
It'd help acclimate gamers to the idea of playing women. There's more than a few people who don't want to play as women. I've seen them in threads about gender equality in games. I'm not saying they have to play as women, but it's kinda screwed up they'd expect others to play as guys on that same token.
And in the end, churning out some seemingly meaningless female protagonists will be more equal to guys since it happens to guys.

Still, I'd hope for variety in future female protagonists. The wider the variety of women we get in ethnicity, race, appearance, personality, likes/wants/needs, etc. the less of a lightning rod the few we get become, and the more options gamers get to find a game that suits them better.

 

[Worgen]

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.

How is it a good thing? I would understand it as such, if her videos had any academic research backing it. From what I've watched of her games series, all I could say with every point she had was, "Citation needed".

Everything that has come out of her mouth is opinion and instances of "I have experienced this".

If she had handed work like her videos to any professor I had when I was in college, they would have looked at her work and told her she failed the assignment because she didn't cite anything and brought now proof, the nicer ones would have given her and extra couple of days and told her to start over and actually do some real research and work.

If there are actual professors that brought her to that university to speak "academically", I would have to cross that university off as a place of proper learning.

What is it about Anita Sarkeesian that makes people really really stupid? I mean seriously, it seems like people are just bitching about her to ***** and have paid no attention to anything shes said. "Oh a woman is talking about vida james, RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE BURN STAKE RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!"

Granted that is the reason for a small few, but it has nothing to do with why I can't stand her. Her being a woman has nothing to do about it. I have clearly watched and listened to what she says.

It's the fact that she her work gives off the obvious air of "I did zero real academic research" or "I don't care about real research because it doesn't help my cause."

She talks about in-depth looks at the "issues", but from what I've seen of her videos, to her, in-depth is looking at the surface of and thick shell of information and reporting bias opinion/observation.

Observation is not research. It is a part of research, but only a very small part of it. There has to be cold hard facts to back her research, cited sources and studies. Reading off basic wiki descriptions and saying while playing this game I saw this, is not research.

As I said in my other above comment in this comment, the professors I had in college would have failed her or told her to start over and hand in her assignment in a couple more days(if she was lucky).

It is very troublesome that universities are actually inviting her to speak and calling it an academic lecture. Calling what she is putting forth "research", is sad and laughable.

*Bangs head on desk* I like how you said that she did no research and didn't provide any sources or anything and then proceeded to not give any examples from her videos that prove your point.

 

[JazzJack2]

Yikes are people still pretending Sarkessian actually has anything to say that is of any interest or relevance? she's just another Mary Whitehouse or Jack Thompson type character, the only reason gamers pay attention to her is because she instead markets her censorship not as against social liberalism (which is what it undoubtedly is) but under the guise the that it is progressive (which of course is lapped up by the many gamers who feel this bizzare desperate urge for games to be taken 'seriously' as a 'mature' medium.)

 

[Worgen]

I haven't watched those specific vids but I have watched a few that claimed to refute her and they were full of shit. They only took the most superficial aspects of her argument or just went with what people thought she was saying and went with it, most of them looked like they were just fishing for page views. I'm not saying your links are full of shit, but for all I care they are. Since Anita isn't wrong about the portrayal of women and for the most part her vids are accurate, really the only leap in logic I could find in hers was when she brought up Ghost Trick. Although if I remember right the only time you had to save someone from getting killed was when it was a women, might be wrong about that, been awhile since I played it.

Yeah, not going to hound you about it. The first video I linked actually uses her own words, not specifically to debunk whatever she has to say about how women are depicted in video games, it even specifically says that it isn't the point, but it demonstrates that the the field in which she's risen to fame is one she actually doesn't really enjoy and didn't know a lot about to begin with. She says this, we see her saying this, there is video footage of it right there. Kind of smacks of the same things we got from people like Martha MacCallum claiming that Mass Effect was pornography, or every politician, parent, and anti-gun lobbyist that has ever attempted to link video games to mass shootings and other types of violence; they didn't play games, they didn't know much about games personally, they just drew sweeping conclusions based on assumption or they very plainly lied. In other words they didn't even know what they were talking about.

All personal feelings aside, one way or the other, in most cases like the topic of politics, religion, gun control, and racism, this is one where nobody is changing anyone's mind, people just become more entrenched when the issue, or in this case the woman emerges as the discussion.

For what it's worth I think any women's rights movements out there could probably do better than get angry about Mario recusing a princess, or other generic Macguffins. But what do I know?

The problem with the first video is that any video that's whole point is that "shes not a gamer so she cant talk about games" pretty much just shoots itself in the face. Assuming that she isn't a gamer, which is pretty much impossible nowadays since everyone plays games, that means that the person making that video can't talk about women's issues since they aren't a women (most likely).

I don't think shes trying to start a women's rights movement with her tropes vs women vids. I think she just wants women to be able to feel at home in games as much as men do. And right now, you will most likely see a women as some object to save instead of as a player character.

 

[BreakfastMan]

Round 2, fight!

"She presents no sources!" For what? What does she have to present sources for?

For any claim she makes. In several videos she liked to use numbers, and kept re-affirming she did research on the subject, without so much as a link to this research. Another group that practices this is Fox news...

Any specific examples of claims you believe need to be sourced?

"She takes everything out of context and lies all the time!" Any specific examples?

She uses Borderlands 2 as an example of Damsel in distress, using the female character Lilith out of context. She only falls victim to Jack because he knows how to deal with Sirens seeing as he had one for a daughter his entire life, so it stands to reason how he was easily able to capture her. Despite that though, Lilith is still a strong character, as demonstrated nearly every time she is given 'screen time' so to speak. Even when captured she fights against Jack, teleportng you away instead of vaporizing you like Jack commanded her. Yet Anita didn't bring any of this up.

I don't see why? She is talking about a certain trope. Other lore doesn't effect that the trope is still there.

"She refuses to debate the subject!" Everyone is not owed a response.

But debate is the best way to change opinion. Yes there are those that don't deserve a response, namely those who argue for the sake of arguing, but how about those that have a clear viewpoint that conflicts with hers? Maybe she can convice them to her side, or possible even alter her own because one of these people saw something she didn't.

So... What makes you believe that she hasn't already done this? Should see post a video to her youtube channel about her debating the points of her videos (you know, if she could actually find someone with good points)?

"She said she doesn't identify as a gamer in this one video!" I don't always identify as a gamer either. Doesn't mean I don't like games.

Yeah but it does help that if you are going to critique something that you have some experience with it. In essence, critiquing basic concepts of gaming as a whole can earn some serious ire if you cannot claim to be a gamer. Much in the same way Fox News had some psychologist prove Mass Effect as some 'XXX' game despite never once touching it. Some people may view her on that same spectrum, that she doesn't know what she's talking about and may be stretching the truth for shock value or something.

People don't have to be able to self-identify as a gamer in order to critique gaming. Especially when she isn't critiquing mechanics, but common storytelling tropes.

"She doesn't present any solutions!" Why should she? She is a critic, her job is to point out the flaws. Or do you get upset when moviebob doesn't explain how to fix movies in his reviews?

Well some critics do point out what was missing, and that in itself is how to fix a problem. Kinda like Yahtzee when he explains why Final Fantasy lost its impact with each new addition to the franchise.

Yeah, but I don't understand why that is a knock against her. Because some critics do it doesn't mean all critics need to or that plain criticism can't be valuable.

 

[wulf3n]

*Adjusts my view...* Oh your god... you have a point. :/ Honestly it feels like both "no girls allowed" and "we don't care if you're here." Which might sound weird, but actively being blocked, and apathy...

I just don't see anything within the games industry that would indicate that "no girls allowed" is the intent.

 

[Icehearted]

Anita is one of the reasons non-white feminists are getting so angry at "privileged white girl" feminists, who state their opinions wrapped in the cause of feminisim, drawing attention away from important issues over stupid things like what fictional characters wear in video games. Never mind that women have been a big part of gaming for 40+ years, she acts like they didn't exist before her.

I would agree but only in the spirit of feminism as it is needed to equal rights for the sexes, and not as the hate group that seeks supremacy and exception. The latter part of your comment I think might be where quite a bit of the newest wave of backlash over all of this is coming from.

But here is the thing with that. Where exactly do you have to enforce legal equality in the genders when it comes to the development or business of video games?

Because isn't the point of feminism to ensure that women have the same legal rights as men under the law?

It has only been this generation of feminism do I actually see actual laws like Roe V. Wade slowly get appealed across the USA but more energy is put towards things like well...this.

I get that the industry could use more female developers, writers, and just people interested in developing games. But then you are left with the question that should we force people into an industry or learning an occupation even if they don't want to for the sake of representation? Or should we enable people to be able to pursue and have access to the tools required to learn and apply for the occupation they desire?

I mean it is hard enough at least in the USA to actually convince people in general to fund public schools to teach students hard skills after the backlash of removing workshop classes, automotive classes, and yes even cooking classes from schools. How are people even going to get those opportunities for that education when the most critical part of the local community won't even fund or have the facility to support people learning hard skills.

Hell I just learned that the entire county I'm living in just dropped ALL computer science classes outright on the college level. That means no windows server classes, no programming classes, no linux or even A+ certification courses.

But I'm rambling a bit. But the point is that we should be able to separate what feminism should be fighting for which belongs in the realm of the law from the actual conceptual idea or question as to why certain individuals will or can pursue a career in the video game industry.

Heck of a post.

I can only speak for myself as perspectives go, so all can offer is that the industry is what those in power choose to make it. If more women want into the industry creatively or technically, I do not see the issue. It was my understanding that women have been involved in video game development on practically every level for decades, that woman are not sidelined or relegated to some form of position deigned worthy of their attributes based exclusively on their gender. What we have now are radicals that have picked a fight where a fight was not necessary. In many cases it seems that outside of a very vocal vocal minority women have been largely happy with the industry as it exists, and have been for a long time. Diversity is a strength when it is a naturally occurring diversity, and people are simply allowed to gravitate toward their preferences. When diversity is forced it weakens and erodes everything. Then there is the shaming, the purposeful pandering to a guilt-driven demographic that appears to want to support the cause for equality but misplaces this energy toward people that will not use this as a means for change, but as a means for personal gain. Any woman that claims she's out to further a cause, then does so with misinformation has not only lost my attention, she has also hurt the cause she claims she supports in much the same way a radical cultist leader has hurt spirituality or religion by exploiting others and misrepresenting their causes to further personal agendas.

These are just my personal thoughts on the matter though.

Factually, women are more than just eye candy, anyone with half a brain knows this. They aren't there to just be a trophy in a video game, the token sexy character, or a showcase for jiggle physics. Anyone with any insight at all can see this, but there are people that pick and choose their examples and exploit that to justify a preconceived point, or to validate a single-sided very subjective message.

I agree that women and men should be completely permitted to seek out whatever they wish as a career goal, and do so without criticism or judgement, but I was not under the impression this was a problem to begin with. Last I checked women had the right to go into programming and design video games at just about any level. In many cases it may be more of a personal choice than a matter of rights. It reminds me of the debate about the gender wage gap, which erroneously charges that women do not get equal pay for the same kinds of work, when in fact this is not only false, but in some cases quite the opposite. A woman may not be the CEO of Blizzard or Microsoft, not because she is a woman, but because either persons better qualified have taken this job, or simply that it's not a job any woman has really put effort into having at this time, and I see no problem with either scenario.

But then you are left with the question that should we force people into an industry or learning an occupation even if they don't want to for the sake of representation?

That seems to be only part of the argument, and I don't think it's a valid thing to even attempt for obvious reasons. This is also a contradictory concept in that it insists that some people may not choose their careers but must instead, regardless of qualifications or interest, take on a task assigned to them. Sound familiar? Pretty sure that's (in part) how sexism worked in the first place.

 

[IceForce]

I figured there would at least be some strong debate but, with a few exceptions, this whole thread is basically a bunch of close-minded people shitting on their keyboards.

You know guys, if we want to get anywhere with anything, the first step is going to require us to stop trying to tear each others throats out the second someone actually has a different opinion. People who like her aren't mindlessly kissing up to her and people that don't like her aren't sexist MRA activists, ok? Can we please talk about this WITHOUT getting pissed off in five seconds?

I think we should rename this thread, because in all honesty this thread is really of absolutely no relation to the article it is tied to. May be should call it "Smug Self-Satisfaction and Moral Outrage; a Tragey in 30 pages." Seriously people, grow the fuck up.

Honestly, this thread should just be locked.
I really can't see the point in keeping it open and allowing it to accrue 20+ bans like that other thread did, a few weeks back.

Does the Escapist have a minimum ban quota they must meet every year or month or something?

 

[BreakfastMan]

I don't point to a single leader. I point to a number of influential people in their community which the community likes.

Leader or leaders, it doesn't matter, still silly. My reason for bringing up Dawkins is that he isn't the 'leader' of atheism and that you can perfectly well be an atheist without liking him or even knowing who he is.

The difference being that Dawkins theories aren't considered some of the foundation of the movement. Warren Farrel's (and others) are.

Also, so far I don't think anyone in this thread knows who the people you brought up even are. Much less oppose equal suffrage.

If they are in the MRA community, they do. One person who has replied to me as named one of the guys who wrote those articles, when I never specifically did.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

I'm pretty sure that despite it coming from a history book the definition of a thesis does not change from subject to subject.

Actually it does.

Or, rather, the "definition" you listed was specific to the field.

What you described was an "explanatory thesis" - a thesis that asks a question and relies on existing facts to be explored.

As opposed to an "argumentative thesis" - a thesis which supports a proposed argument.

A thesis is the core idea of an essay (or similar work). The focus.

Think about it this way. When you're writing a history paper, there is nothing up for debate (or almost nothing). What you are doing is finding a new way to interpret the existing facts. You are generally using other people's research and facts to support your ideas and citing them for accuracy.

Meanwhile, in a Biology (or other science) essay, you are typically reporting facts from your own research. You do an experiment and report on the results. You are reporting - accurately, one hopes - on the results you observed.

Whereas, when writing about a work of fiction, there are no facts. Two people reading/watching/playing the same work will have different interpretations of that work - possibly very different.

You get a lot of perspective when you have to teach essay writing to a half-a-dozen different majors - English, History, Biology, Cosmetology, Education, Philosophy, Pre-Law.... That's why the definition of a thesis has to be fairly vague when you're teaching for all kinds of writing. "The Focus" is the definition typically used in English 101 type classes. Just that - the focus.

Each student is going to be given specific about what is required in their Major classes anyway. As long as they know the basics, they can take those basics to any of the more specific styles.