The Most Dangerous Woman in Videogames - Anita Sarkeesian

[Aardvaarkman]

Okay once again it goes back to writing. Every piece of medium will always have a script. Some characters will always have a bigger part to play than others. The same happens in books, movies, and television, and even theatre.

Right. And some scripts are shitty. Some scripts show what a bigot the author is.

I mean literally what we are talking about is the fundamentals of creative writing and the conceptual idea of who should be controlling the content produced, the consumer or the creator.

How is that even a question? The creator controls how they create their creation. That doesn't mean that the consumers have to agree with the way they created it.

I mean if I don't like the way vampires are being treated in the twilight series I'm not going to complain about how they aren't truthful to the original lore. I'm just not going to read the book because it is fictional content and letting vampires allowed to be in the sun is what she decided it was something vampires could do.

Or you could read the books and then complain about them. How are you supposed to know what's wrong with them if you don't read them? The only way to do so is to rely on second-hand sources.

It's the same as how I can play GTA V to 100% completion and still complain that it was really shittily written. None of the things you bring up make a creation immune from criticism. You keep saying "that's about the writing/narrative" - and I agree that it is. But since when was writing and narrative off the table for critical discourse? It's usually right at the center of it.

 

[Karadalis]

She got threats from 4chan, and presumably because she went there and kicked up the hornets nest on launching her video..

Why do you presume this?

4chan is a hotbed of trolling - so why would you presume it was Sarkeesian herself going there, rather than one of the 4chan trolls trolling the other 4chan trolls?

Cause no one on 4chan had even heard of her before? Because for only her introduction video she allowed comments to be posted while on every other video she made till that date she either shut comments off completly or heavily moderated them?

Just some markers that point into a certain direction.

No one said that she is a fool... pulling off such a stunt would be genius from a marketing campaign viewpoint.. and she did get all that money only after all the gaming sites reported on 4chan lashing out at her.

Before that no one had heard of her or was interested in her. This was simply one brilliant marketing stunt to raise attention to her kickstarter.. and it seriously payed out for her in the end no?

 

[JonnWood]

Wow, 17 minutes and no comments yet? I wholly believed this place would be World War 5 by now, congratulations. As much as I believe her kickstarter was an unnecessary and dishonest cash grab, the notoriety it earned her is now letting her reach people academically, so that's a good thing.

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

Precesly, I personally don't sympathise with her, but she's bringing more good than harm to the industry, if simply by making consumers and developers think about the issue.

My problem is that she's wrong. The claims she makes are often objectively wrong. They're self-contradictory (saying Violence Against Women is a serious problem that needs to be addressed, but objecting to actual depictions of it in games), they're based on incorrect facts and assumptions (saying Jenny's death in the Darkness was about objectifying her, when the person who referred to her as an object is clearly the bad guy and the narrative makes it perfectly clear Jackie cares about her as a person), and their logic is generally a shambles at best (implying Damsel in Distress narratives - you know, the ones about men protecting women - promote Violence Against Women).

People were talking about sexism in games before Anita came along. My biggest problem with her is both that she's not the critic the subject needs not deserves, and that her patented brand of nonsense is spreading [http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-sexist-video-game-problems-even-bigger-than-breasts/]. Even our own dear Jim Sterling used a picture of Rachel from Ninja Gaiden that cropped out the giant LMG and Waraxe she was weilding in order to say she was objectified. Pay no mind that Rachel is portrayed as a capable character with her own gameplay segments; she's sexy, that means she's just an object. The funny thing is that to claim she was objectified, he had to, well, objectify her. Along with the DOAX girls, who can apply boot to rear in their own games just fine, despite their skimpy clothing.

Moreover, she's painted the negative criticism of her as entirely misogynist, anti-feminist harassment from men, when there are plenty of people, including women and feminists, who have provided more constructive negative criticism. For someone who, IIRC, claims to have academic aims, and talks about opening dialogues and having "conversations with pop culture", her studious avoidance of "peer review" seems very suspect. Even the organized conspiracy- sorry, campaign of thousands of gamers she claims sent her harassment in her TED talk represents less than 1% of even male gamers alone, yet she claims its representative. Moreover, she got harassed largely because someone spammed her KS on 4chan, which is famously misogynist. Either that person was a moron, or they were actively trying to bait 4chan into retaliating. Then she parlayed the harassment into publicity, which lead to more harassment, which led to more publicity, etc.

I really, really hate the idea that criticism of a poor critic can be excused by "well, at least they're getting people talking about the issue!" Especially when said critic seems to want a monologue, not a dialogue. Oh, and to endorse fanfics where she murders people in cold blood, despite claiming that people doing comparable things to her was Not Okay (which it's not) [http://femfreq.tumblr.com/post/58161053721/spider-man-recruits-the-help-of-anita-sarkeesian-to]. Oddly enough, the last time I posted that link in a thread discussing her, her defenders absolutely refused to talk about it, even when I directly asked them if it was okay for her to endorse it.

I suppose this is the part where her more rabid defenders accuse me of being an "MRA troll" (both wrong, even by the Manboobz version of the term*) or other such demonization, while strawmanning or outright ignoring the points I'm making, but doing it in a ~*sardonic*~ manner so they don't get called on it. You can tell whose doing that because they refuse to talk about the matter seriously or admit when they're wrong.
/rant

* IE "Says something I don't like". I'm not exaggerating.

 

[Ukomba]

She got threats from 4chan, and presumably because she went there and kicked up the hornets nest on launching her video..

Why do you presume this?

4chan is a hotbed of trolling - so why would you presume it was Sarkeesian herself going there, rather than one of the 4chan trolls trolling the other 4chan trolls?

Have you seen the archive of the post?

http://archive.foolz.us/v/thread/139813364/

It could have been an attempt to troll. The troll failed and the poster had to bump it twice before getting attention. Again, could have been a troll, but seems far more likely to either an honest attempt to drum up support for the kickstarter, or an attempt to get exactly the kind of reaction she got so she could play the victim some more. Either of those would be helpful to her.

 

[Farther than stars]

I figured it was probably inevitable that MovieBob would say something on this subject after the Digital Gonzo Podcast on Fan Response. For those of you haven't heard it yet, here's a link:

Spoiler: Digital Gonzo Podcast

[link]http://www.gonzoplanet.com/2013/09/digital-gonzo-149-fan-response/[/link]

The play-button for the audiofile is at the bottom of the page (above the comments), but be warned, it is four hours long; the part on Anita Sarkeesian is somewhere in the middle (before the two-hour mark, if I remember correctly).

It's not a bad piece, despite its length. It also has Dan and LeeLee from Extra Credits and the podcast let me know about some really greats artists, including a musician and webcomic creator.

Thanks for the link. Love the other people, but haven't heard of the host before.
Seems like a nice guy. At the very least, entertaining.

Oh, you're very welcome. I'd forgotten I even posted this, since all of my other posts on this forum have been about shooting down educating people with everything from a twelve-year-old mentality to misunderstandings about feminism. But I'm glad about the security that something good came out of one of these posts. Enjoy Digital Gonzo.

 

[AdagioBoognish]

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.

Which I'd be more inclined to blame on the jerks in those circlejerks than on her. I just don't really understand the backlash against her opinions. As a white guy, what do I lose if a bunch of women hold feminist discussions and host a video series? Girls might eventually make games that feature their ideal protagonist? Some day women might get paid the same wages as a man when working the same job? I would understand the negative outbursts if there was some threat against men, but so far nothing really warrants the posts telling her to eat shit.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

And yet, there's no further information to substantiate her feminist views or even justify her arguments (such as taking pot shots at Samus, again, but failing to mention how a woman expressing her sexuality by wearing a bikini is, without fail, objectifying and sexist)...

Wait, how is a woman wearing a bikini "expressing her sexuality" - and what is it that you feel that bikini-wearers are trying to express? I always thought it was about going swimming or going to the beach.

Does a man wearing Speedos say something about his sexuality? If so, what?

 

[AdagioBoognish]

She got threats from 4chan, and presumably because she went there and kicked up the hornets nest on launching her video..

Why do you presume this?

4chan is a hotbed of trolling - so why would you presume it was Sarkeesian herself going there, rather than one of the 4chan trolls trolling the other 4chan trolls?

Have you seen the archive of the post?

http://archive.foolz.us/v/thread/139813364/

It could have been an attempt to troll. The troll failed and the poster had to bump it twice before getting attention. Again, could have been a troll, but seems far more likely to either an honest attempt to drum up support for the kickstarter, or an attempt to get exactly the kind of reaction she got so she could play the victim some more. Either of those would be helpful to her.

If you read further down you find this. Looks like a fan of hers made the post.

anita sarkeesian !!OhXn0YoGyYK Thu May 17 2012 17:04:00 No.139815453 Report
Quoted By: >>139816763 >>139817037
>>139815178

Expenses for the five-part series include:

>research
>lighting
>hiring a good DP
>post-production
>editor
>make-up

And no I'm not Anita. Glad you like the videos, though!

 

[Farther than stars]

I mean we are even talking about GTA 5, a series that is parody of the absurd and you are taking all of this seriously as somehow detrimental to women.

No, it's legitimate criticism. Everyone from Alex Shaw to our own Greg Tito has decried - about GTA 5 - that parody without a message is merely repetition. And repetition of women being marginalized (or even being subjected to cruelty) in video games is specifically what we need less of. And bear in mind these are people who actually like the game, but you can like something while also being aware of its flaws (something that is specifically what Anita Sarkeesian aims to do as well).
Also, considering the amount of abuse that there was against Carolyn Petit, who made this same criticism in the Gamespot review of this game, I would say that this is a fairly legitimate criticism, because these abusers are exactly the kind of people who are being fueled by the depiction of women in games like GTA 5. Parody is fine, but then it needs to be a lot clearer that what is being parodied is not OK. (For another example of "parody" being done badly, see 'Duke Nukem Forever', which draws similar criticism from Yahtzee of Zero Punctuation.)

There undoubtably are problems with gender issues in video games, as there is in ALL GOD DAMN ASPECTS IN LIFE, but Anita Sarkeesian's... well anything she has done, proves nothing one way or the other. She has only succeeded in starting flame wars which also don't help, and only hurt.

Well, proving anything in a gender debate is tricky business from the start. But I don't think that means that we should ignore people who feel marginalized or offended. And I definitely don't think that means that we should scold them for speaking up. That's what most of the flame wars have been about: the fact that Anita even dared to bring up the issue of women in video games in the first place. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't have this debate.
I'll give you an analogy: when black parents first suggested that their children should go to school with white children, there was a huge outcry. But just because there was an outcry, that doesn't mean that those parents were wrong for speaking up in the first place.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

Except the whole point is that you started by asking for the game to have a female character and to give the female characters to have more agency. That is what started this conversation between us.

No, it was me stating that the game has very little female agency.

Because what you wrote just results in a reflection that you would control the creative control of developers and writers instead of granting them the creative freedom to succeed or fail.

When did I ever say that I should have control over the creative output of game developers?

I mean we are even talking about GTA 5, a series that is parody of the absurd and you are taking all of this seriously as somehow detrimental to women.

But the problem is that it doesn't come across as a parody of the absurd. It comes across more as a fantasy of how things should be. For example, things like awarding a trophy for doing a "booty call" by having sex with a stripper, cementing the notion that women working at strip clubs secretly want to have sex with the patrons, that they are actually prostitutes. Note that completing this action is required for 100% completion. Also notice how while you supposedly develop deep and complex friendships with your male partners, the only role women serve is either penis holes, or bitchy wives.

Is that detrimental to women? Not in itself, but the fact that a large number of pubescent boys play this game while their hormones are in overdrive, and they are only just developing their conception of male-female relationships certainly could be. Do you think it's implausible that any of the players of this game would develop misogynistic ideas from the game's portrayal of women and men?

 

[Farther than stars]

--snip--

On the Samus thing: I don't think the issue is that Samus is wearing a bikini. I think the issue is more that she can't be counted as "a good female character", since she's not really a character at all. Sure, the bikini makes her a woman, but there's nothing there to show how her personality is influenced by her femininity.

P.S. I am actively disregarding 'Metroid: Other M', like most writers do on this topic. The only contributions that game makes to her character is to make her (1) submissive to male authority and (2) yearning to be a mother. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that not being a character is probably better (from a feminist's perspective).

 

[infinity_turtles]

Which I'd be more inclined to blame on the jerks in those circlejerks than on her. I just don't really understand the backlash against her opinions. As a white guy, what do I lose if a bunch of women hold feminist discussions and host a video series? Girls might eventually make games that feature their ideal protagonist? Some day women might get paid the same wages as a man when working the same job? I would understand the negative outbursts if there was some threat against men, but so far nothing really warrants the posts telling her to eat shit.

To a certain degree that's true, but I think your post is actually pretty indicative of why I'd say she's doing harm. Your post is associating the issue of women in games with her, as if they're part and parcel. She's been turned into the voice of the issue and that, not that the issue is being discussed, is the problem a lot of people have.

Women in games is an important issue that deserved to be talked about, but if you want to talk about it and someone in discussion agrees with her? The discussion is going to melt down, because she's done such a good job of associating anyone who disagrees with her with the trolls and assholes that attacked her. By painting all opposition to her as opposition to solving the issue, she implicitly makes it appear as though her side is the only side wanting to deal with it. Polarizing a nuanced issue destroys discussion.

Before Anita showed up, people did roll their eyes at DoA, they complained about all the samey brown-haired rugged male heroes, they celebrated heroines like Jade from Beyond Good & Evil, and they groaned at the overuse of captured damsels. And most important of all they could discuss the issues without being thrown into one of two camps.

 

[IceForce]

Who's the person filming her? Does Anita have paid, hired help as well as all that equipment?

 

[wulf3n]

On the Samus thing: I don't think the issue is that Samus is wearing a bikini. I think the issue is more that she can't be counted as "a good female character", since she's not really a character at all.

It all depends on how one defines characterisation. Say what you may about Extra Credits [http://extra-credits.net/episodes/learning-from-other-m/] they raised some interesting points regarding what can be inferred about a character without the need for dialog/text.