The Most Dangerous Woman in Videogames - Anita Sarkeesian

[Gindil]

1: The first giant bomb list is hillariously short. I think you meant the long unsorted list that goes back to the dawn of gaming and counts games where you have to play the game first as a guy to unlock a woman to play as, or play as a woman for even the briefrst part of the game. Pretty sure foreign language games are in there, too. That's not really helpful, nor does it offer a lot of hope for the future.
http://www.giantbomb.com/female-protagonists/3015-2287/characters/

Did you really not see the 345 results on the right from Ada Wong to Zelda? That is quite a lot of characters to write off.

2: The second list counts women who aren't the main boss, and also counts women that join your party, and stop being antagonists and become NPCs in your group. That wasn't quite what the guy was getting at, I think, when he said women as the main villain, plus you play as a woman.

Yes, because the opposite of the protagonist is the antagonist. A boss is nothing more than someone that opposes the player for their own aims. And since I got a message from the person about how the game Portal was a "point taken", particularly with a popular game that fits the qualifications I think this is more what you want in games.

The third list is pretty short, and repeditive, too. Most of the games are on steam, though there are some that have gotten to consoles. Not sure if I mentioned it, but my laptop isn't exactly a gaming machine, and I utilize it more for social matters, and work than gaming.

Ok... There's a list for you of games that fit your standards.

What's sexist about princess maker? I'm more irritated that it's basically PC exclusive. But do you play as the princess, or the guy raising her? I forget. pretty sure it's the latter.

You get a lot of people not enjoying the game for whatever reason and you play as a counselor. Imagine the counselor being male or female, but you never see yourself.

I'm not really looking at AAA so much as wanting to focus on console games, to be blunt. I recently got a 2ds to try and get away from my problems with console games.
Not everyone wants to game purely on the indie circuit either. Believe me, i don't. Do note I said purely. Doesn't mean I won't play an indie game.

I do know of games women like to play, being one.
Gender neutral genres are murky, and generally not what I'm talking about in games with female protagonists.

Yes, my list is very selective. It's about female protagonists in games where you only play as female. That's the whole point of what I'm talking about. It certainly helps to have sights set on console games that came out in the past 5 years, and games coming out.

All of this still doesn't say much about genres preferred or anything about gameplay that people like, just that the criteria is limited.

And why not play as an ugly woman every once in a while?

Been there, done that...

http://finalfantasy.wikia.com/wiki/Quina_Quen

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

While some of the points she's made in the past have been her misunderstanding the story or characters (Zia from Bastion for example), her overall goal really is for the good of the industry.

Sure, I mean... Unless what is being proposed isn't what the people who spend the money want. In which case, no... Very bad.

 

[Durgiun]

I've yet to see any well-written article against what she's doing. As far as I know, the only hate comes from the "little people" of the internet.

If there is one, I'd be interested in reading it.

''Against what she's doing''. Nice attempt there, buckaroo. Subtle enough so that on a first read through it goes by unnoticed, but it was still too blatant for anyone who wants to post a reply. Work on that.

Oh, and there's a Youtuber, JordanOwen42, who pretty much takes his time dismantling Sarkeesian's arguments and her tactics, along with a few other feminists.

 

[Gindil]

I've yet to see any well-written article against what she's doing. As far as I know, the only hate comes from the "little people" of the internet.

If there is one, I'd be interested in reading it.

I know Jim Sterling did an episode about it, but I think that focused more on the community and their insults than it did her arguments or agenda.

http://www.destructoid.com/blogs/Elsa/feminist-frequency-and-relevance--260518.phtml

http://www.1up.com/do/blogEntry?bId=9116076

Oh, and Anita got criticism from Danielle D when she created her Bayonetta video:

http://www.videogameologists.com/2012/01/23/small-rant-about-feminist-who-frequent-games/

And the gamers didn't exactly insult Anita. She was focused on 4chan since the beginning:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSoDEA6yw24

 

[Smeatza]

I don't agree with your views on one, and 2. It's reasonable to me since guys get 1, and 2 all the time.

1 on it's own is reasonable. Add point two into the equation and you're excluding loads of games arbitrarily.

On 3, Gears of war you might have a point on.
Farcry 3? I think it'd make a huge difference what with Citra, and the pregnancy theme here, and there.

Well for my example I was assuming Citra would be a man in this case in which case the game would remain pretty much unchanged.

The recent Tomb Raider seemed like it took too much from the Uncharted series to the point you're probably right on that.
I don't agree that applies equally.
Lets look at Red Dead Redemption. Jane marston having her wife, and son held hostage while Jane Marston has to do the government's bidding? Maybe if it were her husband instead of wife. Then there's Bonnie's flirting with John which would prolly have to be altered. I really don't think they'd interact the same if John were Jane.

You thought Bonnie was flirting with Marston? I saw it as the other way round. I've not played the game in years anyway so maybe I'm remembering that wrong. But same as above, it would be Jane Marston having her husband and daughter held hostage.

Similar comes up when we come up to Michael in GTAV.

Same as above.

Getting away from Rockstar, Catherine would definitely get a bit warped if the protagonist were a woman, wouldn't it?

Not if it were Valerie Brooks dealing with an incubus called Christopher.

God of War? Again, family would have to be altered, wouldn't it? And the orgies. Unless there's going to be a somewhat rampant lesbian theme through the series, anyhow. I wouldn't complain, personally.

You see the running theme here? I'll elaborate next.

There's a lot of games where gender isn't interchangeable as freely as you insist. At least for guy protagonist games. mainly the ones where the guy has a romantic relationship with a woman, which is quite a few of them. As much of a fan as I am of LGBT themes, another area I think is sorely underserved, I don't think these plots would be what was envisioned for the male protagonists.

And that's my point, the only thing that would change about these games the only thing would be their sexual preference, and to prevent that changing all you have to do is gender swap their love interest.
They remain the same character with the same motivations, skills, flaws and strengths.

4: Because there's games out there that are male power fantasies told from a male point of view, seen through a male view.
Few games feel really neutral.
Basically it's a matter of experiencing the game as a female character. Not being reminded you're playing as a guy every second you're on the screen, and by every NPC that ever speaks to you. Yeah, it's tolerable every now and then to play as the opposite gender, but almost all the time?
I mean how is it neutral that you're reminded of the gender of the character you're playing all the time?

Please note, the following refers to gender neutral games where you can play as either gender.
I see this as a cop-out. You're using an arbitrary, general, partially subjective and easily manipulated term to group together a bunch of games where the only similarity is saving the world/country/whatever. The term "male power fantasy" not only assumes great swathes of things about the games themselves and why they were designed that way, but also on how the user consumes them.

The gender neutral games I was referring to were Mass Effect, Dragon Age Origins type games. Where you can play as either gender and like above, the only thing that changes is your potential love interests (and in some of the "everybody is bi" games that doesn't even change.

5: You're probably right as far as PC gaming being more mature, but that doesn't mean the console market can't catch up.

It might catch up the level PC gaming was on but if the trend continues then PC gaming will always be ahead of the curve in this regard.

I'd PC game if I felt like it was as easy as Console gaming, but most of my stints in PC gaming show that's not the case. Torchlight had issues with going into windowed mode, I can't run Vindictus worth a damn, I can't run warframe worth a damn, I tried to emulate road war 2000, a game from the Dos days, and it went hillariously bad. I got several free games from GoG, and most wouldn't run on my laptop, and I found out I miss a controller a lot. That said, controller compatibility is never guarenteed without possibly a program that's spyware for some place in china.
Modding wasn't as quick and easy as people make it out to be.
I'd have to use the PC exclusively for gaming. Heaven help me if I catch a virus on it somehow. And I'll have to remember to keep it optimized as PC performance tends to degrade as it keeps a lot of junk to take up space, fragment the disk, and slow it down in general.
Maybe next time I get a system, I'll get a more gaming aimed PC instead, though I doubt I'll have a ton to spend on it, and put up with all the headaches that come with PC gaming.
Oh, is it just me, or is it hard to get PC games from a brick, and mortar store?

A sacrifice I might willingly make in your situation.
If you want to avoid issues running games you will have invest significantly for your initial purchase, but it becomes much cheaper from then on out as you wont have to buy a new system for a very long time and can simply upgrade parts as required. Factor in the reduced cost of the games themselves an, well it's like insulating your house. Yes it will cost a fair chunk of money, but you'll make that back in reduced costs over a year or two, and then it's all profit.
This is a bit off topic though.

The thing about making -a- game towards my request is that, well, like anyone, I'd assume, one game will never really cut it. Not forever. New experiences wil be craved, and it's unlikely a single game will ever cover them all. If such a perfect game were made, then the industry would prolly go broke.
So, yeah, you're right. I'd prolly be dissapointed on some levels with the game no matter what. It's why I'd want multiple games.

Fair point.

I mean, has any game ever perfectly suited all your needs from a videogame? If you ever wanted to hit some virutal person with a baseball bat, or you just wanted to sit down and admire your work sculpting a landscape, or build a home, or stealthily sneak into a building to steal someting valueable, play an RTS, amd so forth, would one game cover all of that?

You are correct, but there's a point where this stops being an gender related ethical issue and becomes simply an issue of personal preference, I think you have crossed that line.

I liek a wide variety of things in gaming. I'll play most any game under the sun if I can get my hands on it, even if I don't think I'll like it. It helps to have something I want, though. NBA Jam's a male dominated game as one would expect, but there's Team EA, and SSX, both of which have women, which brightened the hell out of my mood.

Did you not play NBA Jam because it's male dominated? As somebody who loves that game it seems like cutting off your nose to spite your face. The gender has nothing to do with the gameplay, the game has no story to be gender weighted. If you like basketball or even Looney Tunes cartoons, that game should appeal to you.
If you couldn't enjoy that game because the NBA characters were (naturally) male then I would say the problem is with you, not the game or the industry. Beside the character models, there would be literally no difference between an NBA Jam game and a WNBA Jam game. It isn't a game where you're supposed to empathise or identify with your character, they are simply a tool for putting a ball through a hole.
It's like not playing pong because you can't play as a female paddle.

Racing games, tactical games, sims, RPGs, T/FPSes I love diversity. The only thing I don't dig is straight PvP. It tends to lead to me meeting a buncha people that give gaming a bad name. I'm unlucky like that.

It's a sad fact that people often get nasty when things get competitive. You only have to look at Football (or soccer) teams to see that.

 

[Lictor Face]

Well, Wikipedia and TVTropes go uncited for her "research" as well so...

Wikipedia is kind of a deplorable place for you to get citations from though. TVTropes too to an extent.


DAMMIT THIS IS COLLEGE LEVEL STUFF. HOW CAN SHE NOT KNOW THIS.

 

[shrekfan246]

Wikipedia is kind of a deplorable place for you to get citations from though. TVTropes too to an extent.


DAMMIT THIS IS COLLEGE LEVEL STUFF. HOW CAN SHE NOT KNOW THIS.

Actually, high school just perpetuates that idea because of reasons.

Wikipedia is basically like Metacritic; So long as what you're reading is accurately cited and you can go check out the original source for yourself, it's pretty much the best aggregate of general knowledge you could hope to find. Most of the time random trolling gets shut down and reversed pretty quickly. I imagine most schools don't want you relying on Wikipedia just because it's simply the "lazy" option.

 

[Atmos Duality]

I doubt it's reason 1, because they don't run those kinds of ads on text articles, they'll get just as much from that as they will from other people visiting the site, not to mention anybody who wants to comment can skip the article entirely by just clicking the "comments" button instead of the article.

Seems counter-productive, given that it's an ad-driven site.

The reason people aren't talking avout the article is because they've already said what they thought of it about twenty pages back, and are more interested in discussing things relating to the article rather than the article itself.

"Discussion" that has been beaten to death. It's not just that people stopped commenting 20 pages back, it's that most never started, because the character of Anita Sarkeesian is just that much of a hot button topic.

Personally I didn't bother commenting on the article when it was put out, my opinion is the article is shit, it's horribly written, for example, if we were to remove unnecessary description the entire first page of the article would be gone.

Now having said that, the only other reason I'd post would be to reply to other people who have also posted, I wouldn't comment on the article itself any more.

I agree. The article reeks of tabloid-grade sensationalist "journalism".

Now, Anita taking time off to give one of her talks is fine; it's what an advocate does.
I was initially baffled as to how her broken rhetoric and dishonest methodology became the catalyst propelling her into such a position to begin with. But upon reflection, I realized I was looking at Anita in the completely wrong way.

She isn't academic, as Mr. Chipman has ignorantly asserted before; she's political.
And as such, I can't see this article as anything less than useless political bandwagoning.

EDIT: Found this nugget of nonsense on page 18

They attacked her for "stealing" let's play footage, even though, A.) she has the right to use this footage under Fair Use and B.) Let's Player are breaking copyright laws and are the real thieves.

You assert that The Lets Play footage is copyright infringement and therefore ILLEGAL.
(Whether Lets Play footage is actual infringement or not is currently in a legal grey area but that's another topic entirely)

But in the same line, you assert that it's OK for Anita Sarkeesian to use THIS SAME EXACT ILLEGAL FOOTAGE?

"Wow! This smoking gun I found next to a corpse would be perfect for skeet shooting! Imma take it! Why are the cops so mad? I didn't shoot the guy and I'm just skeet shooting! It's not illegal!"

But this is all conjecture: Fact is, Anita didn't use her own footage and she doesn't cite ANY of her sources anyway. She has no confidence in her evidence, and that alone is more than sufficient to dismiss her work AND her "opinion".

 

[Pat Hulse]

Another part of the issue is that "sexist" has become synonymous with "bad" but really it just means an assumption based on gender.

See me without a beard and assumed I shaved... Sexist.

It's actually more than just making an assumption based on gender. It's specifically about assuming that a particular person is inherently inferior in some way specifically because of their sex. Assuming a person is a woman because of the way they dress is not sexist. Assuming a woman is less qualified to be President than a man because she might make bad decisions due to her period or menopause is sexist.

Again, "bad" here isn't clearly defined. One could argue that "bad" simply means less inclusive? When i see the term I assume it refers to the influence sexist games has on the person, and how that translates to real life.

If we were to argue this point without clearing up the definition, we would never reach an agreement because we're not arguing the same thing.

I don't think "bad" is necessarily worth defining because "bad" just means that its existence has stronger negative consequences than positive ones. Keeping it broad allows for both sides to discuss the wide multitudes of possible and perceived consequences of it without having to restrict the discussion to a narrow few based on some arbitrary decision.

I see the argument "It reinforces negative stereotypes" and my first thought is "does it?" What does reinforcing a stereotype mean? Are we talking harder to convince otherwise? or take greater action because of that stereotype?

A stereotype is a culturally assumed norm associated with people of a particular group within society. A negative stereotype assumes that people of a particular group are more likely than average to have a particular negative trait, such as something like "Black people are more likely to mug you." Reinforcing that stereotype is when you present examples of that stereotype in media to someone who may not have a wealth of examples to refer to that subvert or ignore said stereotype. If I grow up in a town without black people and my understanding of black people is entirely based on their presentation in media and their presentation in media more often than not refers to that stereotype, then that stereotype will act as my basis of understanding when it comes to black people. Even if I'm consciously aware of the fact that they are just stereotypes and may or may not be accurate, my brain would still be working from the stereotypes as a basis that I would have to consciously discard or ignore. And if people see real life people fulfill a certain stereotype, confirmation bias may lead them to believe it is true.

Maybe I'm just an aberration, provided what ever stereotype they wish to view/perpetuate of me doesn't negatively effect their perception of reality, I don't really care.

Well that would be what the kids on Tumblr would refer to as "privilege". As (I'm assuming, sorry) heterosexual white men in North America, people's negative opinions of us don't really bother us. As Louis C.K. would put it, "You can't even hurt my feelings." That's because even if we don't like people making negative assumptions about us, those negative assumptions will probably never prevent us from getting a job or hold us up in the airport or make us more likely to get pulled over. However, if a society has a general subconscious assumption that black people who behave a certain way are more likely to be drug addicts and/or criminals, a black person just as qualified as a white person would probably be less likely to be hired for the same job if he didn't behave in a way that was consciously countering the stereotypes. It's why some black comedians will often joke about having a different way of behaving around white people. If they behaved naturally, a more ignorant white person might subconsciously assume that they're an "average" black person and therefore more likely to fit the assumed stereotypes.

Similarly, if women are assumed to be more emotional or less ruthless than their male counterparts, they may be less likely to be chosen for a position of leadership unless they present themselves in a manner counter to assumed stereotypes. Or to put it more simply, they must act like a "*****". This is only necessary because we as a culture by default believe that an average woman lacks constitution or agency. That's why tropes and stereotypes that suggest that "normal" women are weak and strong women behave differently (i.e. they wear tight leather, cut their hair short, and behave like a stereotypical dude) can be negative.

So sexism in video games is bad because it suggests that sexist behavior is normal and OK,

Does it though?

Assuming the game never chastises the player or character for the sexist behavior or that it never subverts the tropes in some clear way... yeah, it does. We are meant to enjoy a game and identify with the protagonist we control. If that protagonist does sexist things and the game rewards you for it, the player is given little incentive to feel negatively towards that behavior. Again, I'm not trying to tap into the "murder simulation" argument here. Just because GTA has a mechanic where you can run over a hooker to get your money back doesn't mean that everyone who plays that game will suddenly think that sort of behavior is OK. But if someone already has tendencies towards that sort of thinking, the game is basically giving them a mechanic to embrace that kind of behavior without it negatively impacting the player in any significant way.

sexism is still institutionally reinforced in many ways that negatively impact the well-being of women in our society,

Does it?

This is another argument entirely, but yes, it does. Women still get paid far less than men. Women are still far less prevalent in a large number of fields and high ranking positions. Women's reproductive rights are still being fought against on the basis that they can't be trusted to decide what to do with their own bodies. Adult women are still significantly more likely to be sexually assaulted or raped than an adult man, oftentimes by someone they know. This is to say nothing of the more subtle negative impact of living in a society where every aspect of your appearance is scrutinized to determine your area of perceived "worth". Attractive and aware of it? "Slut". Attractive but hiding it? "Prude" or "Tease". Unattractive and self-conscious about it? "Cow". Unattractive and don't care? "Dyke". Unwilling to put up with this kind of evaluation? "*****". This is something that women in our society deal with every day. Part of it is just from their own insituationalization, yes, but even though most men don't usually carry these assumptions forward consciously, when a handful do, it causes women to believe that their assumptions that the entire world is constantly evaluating them is true, particularly when other men either silently consent to it by doing nothing or even encourage and rally behind someone who treats women that way.

That's one reason I'm not big on harshly criticizing Anita Sarkeesian. Her arguments are far from perfect and are worth debating, but by overreacting to the implications of her message or attacking her character, I would feel as though I'm throwing my lot in with the people who originally attacked her simply for being a woman who dared to examine tropes in video games on her YouTube channel. Anita may have some flawed arguments, but I'm far less concerned with her over-simplification of certain issues than I am with the fact that so many men in our community think her treatment should either be ignored or assumed to be exaggerated. People can go ahead and argue her points, but I really can't stand people acting like she's some kind of overblown idiot or scam artist or poses some kind of threat. It lends credence to the people who attacked her in the beginning and that sort of behavior is far more toxic than anything Anita Sarkeesian has ever said or done.

and there's really no good reason not to change it.

Nor do those with the power have any incentive to do so it would seem.

That's why feminists feel the need to make themselves heard like this. To provide that incentive. To make the people with the power to make those decisions aware of it so they might decide for themselves to do things differently. To convince consumers to be more critical of the games they play and to get them to ask for a better product. Because the women in our community deserve better than they've been getting.

Some say that they should simply make their own games rather than convince others to change for them, but there aren't a lot of women in the video game industry. Some may then suggest that this is because women aren't interested in video games and thus shouldn't have a say in how they should be created, but this is just a cyclical argument. Why aren't more women making video games? Because not a lot of women are avid gamers. Why aren't a lot of women avid gamers? Because there aren't a lot of games that provide them with the same feelings of inclusiveness or agency that their male counterparts often get. Why is that? Because current game devs aren't interested in deliberately making women feel more included. Why is that? Because they believe not a lot of women are avid gamers. Can we change their minds? Only if more women start becoming avid gamers. Well, can they make more games with women in mind? Not without the proper incentive. So what should we do? Well, maybe more women should make games. But why aren't a lot of women making video games?

Do you see what I mean? It's a pile of assumptions all essentially making it impossible for the industry as it is to change to become more inclusive for women. The only way women in our community can change that is by making themselves heard. They have to show that they are an important and valuable part of the community and their desires for the path this medium evolves towards are just as valid as anyone else's. Their desires to see more inclusive games are no less valid than someone's desire to see fewer brown modern military shooters.

This is about making the community a more inclusive place and trying to make games more inclusive and to have them explore a wider range of characters and experiences than they currently do.

 

[Karadalis]

I agree that they don't get as much flak with male models as they do female models. And you're right. Odds are males have never been handled like that.
Maybe if females weren't handled like that, and more like guys, something positive could happen? Have they ever been handled like the guys get handled?
That fear is going to have to be gotten over, IMO, or else the gaming industry will never get passed being called sexist, and what not.

Women's representation in games is a mess for certain.

But Arnita says that treating them like males is also just mysoginistic and sexist.. because its simply attributing masculine criteria to a female character.. thus making it a male with tits basicly.

See even if you try to find a solution you can shoot it down with her argumentation in an instant. There is no room whatsoever for female chars to shine if you really follow her arguments taking her entire work and not only tropes vs. women into account.

And you cant have one without the other, after all that would be rather dishonest now wouldnt it?

According to ms Sarkesian her opinions are also undeniable "FACTS":

There IS a patriarchy entitiy at work trying to actively surpress womens rights in everydays live.

It DOES use video games to reinforce gender biased stereotypes and thus influences people to treat females negatively in RL.

Violence against women IS ALLWAYS not acceptable no matter the context.

Attributing male positive qualities to a female IS mysoginistic.

These extremes all leave no room to move for anyone and sound more like the ramblings of a fanatic then a real critic.

No matter what you do.. even if youre a female developer writing a female char you will be sexist to Arnita Sarkesian. Why?

Because she said so! Thats why.

She didn't pose herself as anything. People were more than happy to attack her.

Besides, the people selling blessed water are actually lying. Anita's previous works can be seen in full. I honestly can't believe you're trying to equate the two. Are you that desperate to find something wrong with her?

She didnt? She didnt allow comments openly on her kickstarter video? Something she has NEVER done for any of her previous videos? Something she admitted herselfe she would never do? Since she moderates ALL comments according to her own words for this very reason?

Or how about that NO ONE even knew about her before 4chan lashed out at her AFTER "someone" provoked them? If that provocation hadnt existed she would still be completly unkown. She only got that huge sum AFTER her publicity stunt using 4chans trolling. Not only that but she applies this little vocal minority of 4chan to the entirety of the gaming culture.

Or how about after 2 years the first thing she tends to talk about still is about all the hate and bile she received and not once in those 2 years adressed all her other critics that dont use death threats and insults to proof that she is simply wrong on most of her assertions?

She is lying to anyone who is not familiar with the topic and pulls wool over their eyes. I dont see any difference between her and the guy who sells magic snake oil.

People like bob make her look like some sort of internet gaming jesus feminist when the only person who has profited off this whole debacle is herselfe. She has done jack and shit for women rights in real life and jack just left town!

Tell me what has she actually personally invested into all this that makes her "the most dangerous woman in gaming"?

Meanwhile real opression still happens in the real world and it is not video games that are the cause of that.

Also how is it that women in first world nation are soooo opressed when the most powerfull person in europe is a woman? Yes there are still issues with payments and higher up positions in comanies but again those have nothing to do with videogames and more to do with old farts still ruling the manager scene. But even as we speak these things slowly change.

A couple dozen years ago women didnt even had the right to vote or drive a car! THAT was real opression, that was something worth fighting against.

All sarkesian does is ***** and moan that a certain form of art is not catering to her own social political agenda that is so backwards logic that it argues against itselfe like i pointed out several times allready.

She detracts from real problems women have to face in RL and makes them look less important comparable to her perceived sexism in video games.

Even if we did away with everything that seemed even slightly sexist in video games.. all these problems of women getting paid less, having a harder time to achieve higher ranks in the management world... these wouldnt go away.. because these things are not somehow linked to video games.

She is fighting windmills here. She would have a better case if she would rally against the britney spears and other "twerks" of the music industry.. who actually have a negative impact on how women are seen in the media.. cause they are real people you know?

And not a pink princess ruling over a mushroom kingdom that get kindapped by giant fire breathing spiky dragon turtles.. and have to be rescued by short fat italian plumbers that eat all kinds of weird stuff to gain superpowers.

 

[Quadocky]

I'm sorry but as a person who has been physically bullied and harassed for a timespan of oh about 15 years growing up and even today for the jobs I've had with the exception of one I've been socially ostracized and I would trade in a HEARTBEAT for the type of online harassment and abuse that she has received.

While that is tragic, you seem to be missing the bigger issue in regards to harassment online. What Anita has experienced is the norm for many women online, in Anita's case however it was just much more visible and relevant.

Okay prove that your claim is scientifically true. Because no one should concede to your presupposition that by virtue of one's gender that one receives the same quantity of harassment that Anita has.

At the same time do one for those of the male gender as well. As well as one for those who are anonymous in their gender and utilize gender neutrality.

While certainly not a thesis in itself it could be an interesting aspect of discussion. But also consider during the study if possible the gender of those that are posting positive, neutral and negative, and the harassment.

Here is a comprehensive article that I found to help lead in the right direction: http://www.theverge.com/2013/9/12/4693710/the-end-of-kindness-weev-and-the-cult-of-the-angry-young-man

Some Specific Points:

Danielle Citron, a law professor at the University of Maryland, lays out some of the numbers in her upcoming book, Hatred 3.0. Citron writes that the US National Violence Against Women Survey reports 60 percent of cyberstalking victims are women. A group called Working to Halt Online Abuse studied 3,787 cases of cyberharassment, and found that 72.5 percent were female, 22.5 percent were male and 5 percent unknown. A study of Internet Relay Chat showed male users receive only four abusive or threatening messages for every 100 received by women.

Of course this all new stuff in terms of statistical relevance or science so its not as comprehensive as you may like.

Otherwise you can always go to fatuglyorslutty.com

 

[QuantumWalker]

I noticed that Metroid Other M was brought up a couple of pages ago and some people seemed to be arguing that Samus did not have much of a character until that game. While Extra Credits did do a nice video outlining how lack of exposition =/= lack of character I feel like the argument for Samus's character ignores a few facts.

1) At the time of it's release in 2010 Metroid: other M was not the first game to attempt to give Samus more of a personality and backstory.

- Prior to MM you had the Prime trilogy which offered several looks into the history of Samus (Prime 1 in 2002) and established her relationship with the galactic federation a bit more verbally (Prime 3 in 2007). So the way she is treated by the GF at the end of other M is ridiculous because even in the original Metroid game they establish that Samus is their goto person for incredibly dangerous and top secret missions. The fact that she would have to take orders and willingly restrict her powers and capabilities just because a former CO told her too casts Samus an unprofessional. The reason being it says that she is unable to exercise her own judgement on where and when to use her more devastating weapons in high -pressure situations. Samus was up till this point portrayed as a responsible, highly skilled, and very experienced bounty hunter who was capable of handling situations on her own. In the few games where she has to work alongside anyone else she complements their forces without having to be mollycoddled or forced to do so. She helps the Luminoth in Prime 2 (2004) with no extra questions asked and when ordered to help clean up the Aurora units in Prime 3 she accepts even before the plot kicks in proper and gives her further personal incentives to end the threat of the game.

2) Even if the Prime Trilogy are somehow discounted from the timeline due to Sakamoto's assertions you still have Metroid Fusion (released in 2002) and Metroid Zero Mission (released in 2004).

- Adam Malcovich was not an unfamiliar game to fans of the Metroid franchise. His name got center stage in Metroid Fusion as the nickname for the AI that acts as your manager throughout the game. At first he is incredibly helpful to the player and gives detailed information regarding mission objectives and timely power-ups to allow you to keep up with the growing threats of the X parasite. However after a certain point it becomes clear that the AI Samus nicknames "Adam" is more interested in keeping the secrets of the Galactic Federation's research base than giving Samus immediate aid. This is almost identical to the plot of Other M in terms of setting and themes. The key difference is how the game allows Samus to handle this situation.

In Other M you only get access to maybe 2 of Samus' powers without authorization from Adam. Even when those power-ups would have been incredibly useful and presented no danger to the research facility. (Looking at you Hell run with no Varia Suit). This plot is incredibly de-powering to Samus as a character because it says the she regards personal sentiments more highly than her own safety. Her relationship with Adam in this game is troubling because she lets him get away with essentially telling her to put herself in unnecessarily dangerous situations without properly protecting herself first. It is also relevant to note that Samus as a character does not object too much to this within the game's story.

In Fusion the player is given the ability to get access to suit powers they do not have without "Adam's" approval and thereby subvert his restrictive authority. This is a much better way of empowering the player because it rewards them (and by extension Samus) for going against the restrictive nature of the story and gaining more power. In Fusion Samus is clearly not happy with having someone tell her where to go and what to do. And when it becomes apparent to her that "Adam" is hiding information from her she is quick to question it and even quicker to tell him about it. This relationship is what a lot of people saw and it helped to paint Samus as a no-nonsense type of character and very strong willed at that.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

While some of the points she's made in the past have been her misunderstanding the story or characters (Zia from Bastion for example), her overall goal really is for the good of the industry.

Sure, I mean... Unless what is being proposed isn't what the people who spend the money want. In which case, no... Very bad.

Yeah, SHP's right, I always get terrified when self-appointed zealots are deemed to be working for "the good of the XXX" in any sphere of life. There was a chap from the Labour party in the UK the other day who said "people needed to be protected from their own prejudices" and a cold shiver ran down my spine. Nowt worse that someone who really believes they should be allowed to ban, control or influence what other people watch, do, say or produce. Who protects us from their prejudices?

It just seems like a silly claim to make. If people are arguing that it'll make games better, I might not entirely believe that... but it's a perfectly acceptable opinion. When people say it'll be for the good of the industry they lose me. You can't know that unless you have some kind of genuine clairvoyance. In which case, I'd be grateful if they took a look into the old crystal-ball and let me know if I keep my hair as I age.

 

[wulf3n]

It's actually more than just making an assumption based on gender. It's specifically about assuming that a particular person is inherently inferior in some way specifically because of their sex. Assuming a person is a woman because of the way they dress is not sexist. Assuming a woman is less qualified to be President than a man because she might make bad decisions due to her period or menopause is sexist.

Negative assumption is a part of sexism but it is not all of sexism.

Sexism [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexism] is prejudice or discrimination based on a person's sex.
prejudice [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prejudice] refers to prejudgment: i.e. making a decision before becoming aware of the relevant facts of a case. Not inherently negative.

I don't think "bad" is necessarily worth defining because "bad" just means that its existence has stronger negative consequences than positive ones. Keeping it broad allows for both sides to discuss the wide multitudes of possible and perceived consequences of it without having to restrict the discussion to a narrow few based on some arbitrary decision.

A stereotype is a culturally assumed norm associated with people of a particular group within society. A negative stereotype assumes that people of a particular group are more likely than average to have a particular negative trait, such as something like "Black people are more likely to mug you." Reinforcing that stereotype is when you present examples of that stereotype in media to someone who may not have a wealth of examples to refer to that subvert or ignore said stereotype. If I grow up in a town without black people and my understanding of black people is entirely based on their presentation in media and their presentation in media more often than not refers to that stereotype, then that stereotype will act as my basis of understanding when it comes to black people. Even if I'm consciously aware of the fact that they are just stereotypes and may or may not be accurate, my brain would still be working from the stereotypes as a basis that I would have to consciously discard or ignore. And if people see real life people fulfill a certain stereotype, confirmation bias may lead them to believe it is true.

Well that would be what the kids on Tumblr would refer to as "privilege". As (I'm assuming, sorry) heterosexual white men in North America, people's negative opinions of us don't really bother us. As Louis C.K. would put it, "You can't even hurt my feelings." That's because even if we don't like people making negative assumptions about us, those negative assumptions will probably never prevent us from getting a job or hold us up in the airport or make us more likely to get pulled over. However, if a society has a general subconscious assumption that black people who behave a certain way are more likely to be drug addicts and/or criminals, a black person just as qualified as a white person would probably be less likely to be hired for the same job if he didn't behave in a way that was consciously countering the stereotypes. It's why some black comedians will often joke about having a different way of behaving around white people. If they behaved naturally, a more ignorant white person might subconsciously assume that they're an "average" black person and therefore more likely to fit the assumed stereotypes.

Similarly, if women are assumed to be more emotional or less ruthless than their male counterparts, they may be less likely to be chosen for a position of leadership unless they present themselves in a manner counter to assumed stereotypes. Or to put it more simply, they must act like a "*****". This is only necessary because we as a culture by default believe that an average woman lacks constitution or agency. That's why tropes and stereotypes that suggest that "normal" women are weak and strong women behave differently (i.e. they wear tight leather, cut their hair short, and behave like a stereotypical dude) can be negative.

Assuming the game never chastises the player or character for the sexist behavior or that it never subverts the tropes in some clear way... yeah, it does. We are meant to enjoy a game and identify with the protagonist we control. If that protagonist does sexist things and the game rewards you for it, the player is given little incentive to feel negatively towards that behavior. Again, I'm not trying to tap into the "murder simulation" argument here. Just because GTA has a mechanic where you can run over a hooker to get your money back doesn't mean that everyone who plays that game will suddenly think that sort of behavior is OK. But if someone already has tendencies towards that sort of thinking, the game is basically giving them a mechanic to embrace that kind of behavior without it negatively impacting the player in any significant way.

This is another argument entirely, but yes, it does. Women still get paid far less than men. Women are still far less prevalent in a large number of fields and high ranking positions. Women's reproductive rights are still being fought against on the basis that they can't be trusted to decide what to do with their own bodies. Adult women are still significantly more likely to be sexually assaulted or raped than an adult man, oftentimes by someone they know. This is to say nothing of the more subtle negative impact of living in a society where every aspect of your appearance is scrutinized to determine your area of perceived "worth". Attractive and aware of it? "Slut". Attractive but hiding it? "Prude" or "Tease". Unattractive and self-conscious about it? "Cow". Unattractive and don't care? "Dyke". Unwilling to put up with this kind of evaluation? "*****". This is something that women in our society deal with every day. Part of it is just from their own insituationalization, yes, but even though most men don't usually carry these assumptions forward consciously, when a handful do, it causes women to believe that their assumptions that the entire world is constantly evaluating them is true, particularly when other men either silently consent to it by doing nothing or even encourage and rally behind someone who treats women that way.

That's one reason I'm not big on harshly criticizing Anita Sarkeesian. Her arguments are far from perfect and are worth debating, but by overreacting to the implications of her message or attacking her character, I would feel as though I'm throwing my lot in with the people who originally attacked her simply for being a woman who dared to examine tropes in video games on her YouTube channel. Anita may have some flawed arguments, but I'm far less concerned with her over-simplification of certain issues than I am with the fact that so many men in our community think her treatment should either be ignored or assumed to be exaggerated. People can go ahead and argue her points, but I really can't stand people acting like she's some kind of overblown idiot or scam artist or poses some kind of threat. It lends credence to the people who attacked her in the beginning and that sort of behavior is far more toxic than anything Anita Sarkeesian has ever said or done.

That's why feminists feel the need to make themselves heard like this. To provide that incentive. To make the people with the power to make those decisions aware of it so they might decide for themselves to do things differently. To convince consumers to be more critical of the games they play and to get them to ask for a better product. Because the women in our community deserve better than they've been getting.

Some say that they should simply make their own games rather than convince others to change for them, but there aren't a lot of women in the video game industry. Some may then suggest that this is because women aren't interested in video games and thus shouldn't have a say in how they should be created, but this is just a cyclical argument. Why aren't more women making video games? Because not a lot of women are avid gamers. Why aren't a lot of women avid gamers? Because there aren't a lot of games that provide them with the same feelings of inclusiveness or agency that their male counterparts often get. Why is that? Because current game devs aren't interested in deliberately making women feel more included. Why is that? Because they believe not a lot of women are avid gamers. Can we change their minds? Only if more women start becoming avid gamers. Well, can they make more games with women in mind? Not without the proper incentive. So what should we do? Well, maybe more women should make games. But why aren't a lot of women making video games?

Do you see what I mean? It's a pile of assumptions all essentially making it impossible for the industry as it is to change to become more inclusive for women. The only way women in our community can change that is by making themselves heard. They have to show that they are an important and valuable part of the community and their desires for the path this medium evolves towards are just as valid as anyone else's. Their desires to see more inclusive games are no less valid than someone's desire to see fewer brown modern military shooters.

This is about making the community a more inclusive place and trying to make games more inclusive and to have them explore a wider range of characters and experiences than they currently do.

I see a lot of well reasoned, seemingly logical arguments. But what I don't see is evidence. Just like the "violent video games cause real violence" argument, it seems logical but there's no evidence.

 

[sky14kemea]

I've got a lovely bunch of coconuts, fee-dee-dee-dee
There they are standing in a row,
bum-de-bum-de-dum...

Big ones, small ones,
Some as big as your head!

...Just thought I'd lighten the mood around here. Give the mods something kinda happy to read before they lock this thread

Sadly we can't lock Featured Content/News Threads, but thank you for the smile while I was clearing the queue.

 

[generals3]

Well that would be what the kids on Tumblr would refer to as "privilege". As (I'm assuming, sorry) heterosexual white men in North America, people's negative opinions of us don't really bother us. As Louis C.K. would put it, "You can't even hurt my feelings." That's because even if we don't like people making negative assumptions about us, those negative assumptions will probably never prevent us from getting a job or hold us up in the airport or make us more likely to get pulled over.

But is that entirely true though? There are stereotypes which actually do have negative consequences in RL. As a man it would for instance take more trust for someone to trust you with their children or trust that you won't cause harm. For instance i have a male housekeeper and i already have friends who told me they found that weird and wouldn't ever feel comfortable with a random man around the house like that. Than as a white person you're also much more likely to be assumed to be a racist when foreigners are involved. Ironically the prejudice and negative consequences coming from them towards white men (i'll admit being straight doesn't seem to have any) are often overlooked because no one cares and bothers thinking about them. (and some people probably do it on purpose in order to be able to keep throwing the word "privilege" around)

 

[DaMan1500]

I don't really know much about her views, to be honest, but I can't help but be a bit concerned that some random lady on YouTube is now the de facto authority on gender representation in video games. Yeah, it was bullshit that she got flamed like she did, but I don't see how that makes her qualified to give a friggin' TED talk.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

I don't really know much about her views, to be honest, but I can't help but be a bit concerned that some random lady on YouTube is now the de facto authority on gender representation in video games. Yeah, it was bullshit that she got flamed like she did, but I don't see how that makes her qualified to give a friggin' TED talk.

It's not really validation.

TED has it's moments. They're just few and far between, floating in a sea of self-congratulating twoddle with delusions of grandeur. Anita gave a TEDx talk. TEDx is independently organised, meaning the standards are even lower...

Thanks for the warning, Mod. I "insulted a contributor". Was it calling the article "drivel" or Bob unexceptional that earned me your attention?