This is Why Criticizing Anita Sarkheesian is Irrelevant and Pointless

[generals3]

CNN isn't the media, the media in this case is TV. Much like TV, games can cover a range of topics.

You missed the point, my point was that media =/= media. You can't just assume different types of media have the same effects because they're totally different in so many ways.

Science doesn't really work on proof, it works on evidence and as far as that is concerned, okay:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0001879178900386

Too bad this is about TV and not video games so I didn't even have to read the study.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-007-9278-1

"A limitation of this research is that it does not test for effects of stereotyping and aggression in video games. "

I don't think I need to add anything to that.

Stereotyping is a form of trope, so there are two citations right there.

Nonono. A trope is merely an overused story element. You see you could have a game with 99 strong women and 1 damsel in distress and the game would still be using the DiD trope. And surely you'll agree with me that it wouldn't be stereotyping than?

Isn't this the exact same argument that was used by people sneering at the Retake Mass Effect movement? That it would set a horrible precedent for games companies?

I didn't come across that argument and which precedent would that be?

If her ideas lead to better games, then I am not that bothered if gaming companies listen to her. If they lead to worse games, well the market will out and no lasting harm will be done. It is nothing to be afraid of.

Nothing suggests she has good ideas, she's using a horrible method to get where she wants, she's often bitching for the sake of bitching and as such I see no reason whatsoever to support her.

In her second video she briefly touches on Marian from Double Dragon. She clearly did this because of Thunderf00t's video criticising hers. She is listening, she just isn't agreeing.

Ok, she listened once and that was probably the most unnecessary response needed. I guess at least her mention of marian in the 2nd video just showed how silly she is. "What do you mean the fact the game clearly shows she can kick ass doesn't mean the game portrays her as weak and pathetic?! that one scene doesn't matter hur dur dur".

 

[Bruce]

[blockquote]They are very different actually. You can't for instance compare Call Of Duty with CNN. You can't just lump all the media in one category. And nobody has ever managed to show any citation proving this effect tropes supposedly have.[/blockquote]

CNN isn't the media, the media in this case is TV. Much like TV, games can cover a range of topics.

Science doesn't really work on proof, it works on evidence and as far as that is concerned, okay:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0001879178900386

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-007-9278-1

Stereotyping is a form of trope, so there are two citations right there.

Thanks for the links. They're both behind paywalls (not a criticism of you at all, most academic research is these days - sad fact) which makes them difficult to evaluate beyond their abstracts.

Unfortunately they don't really prove what you're claiming they do in a strict scientific sense. At best, the first proves that when you expose very young children to certain depictions over and over again they learn enough about those depictions to color their own opinions and ideas.

This isn't particularly helpful when examining media as a whole or how the expression of ideas in it affects adults, unfortunately. Children are, for lack of a better term, 'built' to learn. Certainly it suggests and supports that media can influence us, but it doesn't really move beyond that.

The second is a survey study which appears to focus on what people believe and not why they believe it. Clearly the authors attempt to make a connection between depictions in games and social attitudes among gamers, but even in the abstract they qualify that the attitudes shown in the survey appear to a significant degree in non-gamers.

Honestly, no surprises. If there were a study that could strongly connect media and sexism (or any other ism for that matter) it would be very big news. At best, we have studies that suggest connections, which tend to break down in various ways.

Mostly because humans are very complicated, and doing ethical research on them is extraordinarily difficult.

But again all of this only frustrates me when it's brought back to the subject at hand. If you, a casually motivated random (to me) internet poster can do some rudimentary research and post some citations to back up your arguments, why can't Anita who has funds for the project? If she didn't care to do it herself she could always hire an intern.

As I said, it doesn't really prove but it provides evidence. What got me was it didn't even take very long to do. That is a serious flaw with her presentation. I think if she is going to bring in how these tropes do RL harm, she is going to need to go beyond simple media analysis and go into sociological and psychological research to back herself up.

 

[Bruce]

[blockquote]Too bad this is about TV and not video games so I didn't even have to read the study.[/blockquote]

Aaand there you have it. Find a citation, you find excuses to not pay attention to it.

 

[generals3]

[blockquote]Too bad this is about TV and not video games so I didn't even have to read the study.[/blockquote]

Aaand there you have it. Find a citation, you find excuses to not pay attention to it.

What's wrong with rejecting evidence that doesn't prove your point? I can bring you historical evidence Mao caused a famine which killed millions, does that suggest Anita is crap?!

We aren't talking about TV so i really don't care that much about TV. This is about video games and since video games are very different to movies or tv shows i won't just accept people telling me "this is what TV does so you should assume video games do that too".

But if you truly want me to say something about the study: it hypothesizes that, since little girls who saw women do "men's" jobs were more likely to want that, the media should portray more women in a man's job. Basically it suggests TV characters act as role models. Now does that mean Jack Thompson is right? After all i think we might better ban games like GTA. Because based on the study you linked it would make men want to be psycho mobsters.

 

[shadowuser10141]

Isn't this the exact same argument that was used by people sneering at the Retake Mass Effect movement? That it would set a horrible precedent for games companies?

The Retake Mass Effect movement was a bunch of self-entitled morons who thought Mass Effect belonged to them.

What precedent are you talking about? The artistic license of video game developers?
Bioware decides what goes into their games and only Bioware.

Entitled is one of those funny words, it says more bad things about the person using it than the people its being applied to.

Are you going to explain why Bioware owes you a new ending?

What you said sounds like a feminist anti-debating tactic.

 

[Insanely Asinine]

Right? He's missing the point that Sarkeesian is talking about the Xbox One press conference and Mirror's Edge was in the EA press conference.

You know she could have simplified it and went "Thanks Xbox One. (Enter a small point here)" But she didn't she added E3 and causes a misconception on what she is attacking. E3 itself doesn't deserve to be in that line of fire when E3 has other things getting brought up. She didn't clarify and thus lets my imagination run.

Uhh, you could just admit making a mistake. The statement she made seems to be only confusing for people who already hate her and latch on any additional info that might be used to bash her. Or do you not know how tagging works on twitter?

I did admit to making a mistake by saying my imagination run. I don't use twitter because it's the youtube of the social medias. In other words its just another 4chan. Except with names, which tend to be fake.

 

[Uhura]

I did admit to making a mistake by saying my imagination run. I don't use twitter because it's the youtube of the social medias. In other words its just another 4chan. Except with names, which tend to be fake.

You blamed her for letting your imagination run.
And that's how using hashtags in twitter work. She didn't put E3 in any "line of fire".

 

[Insanely Asinine]

I did admit to making a mistake by saying my imagination run. I don't use twitter because it's the youtube of the social medias. In other words its just another 4chan. Except with names, which tend to be fake.

You blamed her for letting your imagination run.
And that's how using hashtags in twitter work. She didn't put E3 in any "line of fire".

That's the thing I could be read as that hence why I read it like that. I hate it when my imagination runs it usually ends with me arguing with myself for hours. Again she could have just simple. "#Microsoft thanks for not showing any games with women in it." While this stop the flack? No of course not assholes are going to be assholes. Would it make people like me, with an overly active imagination, understand her point? Of course keeping it simple is should be the best policy when constructing things on the internet. Does it actually seem like I'm blaming her? Probably. Note to self clarify better that this is criticism not blame.

 

[Uhura]

I did admit to making a mistake by saying my imagination run. I don't use twitter because it's the youtube of the social medias. In other words its just another 4chan. Except with names, which tend to be fake.

You blamed her for letting your imagination run.
And that's how using hashtags in twitter work. She didn't put E3 in any "line of fire".

That's the thing I could be read as that hence why I read it like that. I hate it when my imagination runs it usually ends with me arguing with myself for hours. Again she could have just simple. "#Microsoft thanks for not showing any games with women in it." While this stop the flack? No of course not assholes are going to be assholes. Would it make people like me, with an overly active imagination, understand her point? Of course keeping it simple is should be the best policy when constructing things on the internet. Does it actually seem like I'm blaming her? Probably. Note to self clarify better that this is criticism not blame.

This is getting really off topic. The point is that she used hashtags the same way pretty much everyone is using them. She is keeping it simple. You just said that you don't use Twitter and hence don't know how the stuff works.

 

[Insanely Asinine]

I did admit to making a mistake by saying my imagination run. I don't use twitter because it's the youtube of the social medias. In other words its just another 4chan. Except with names, which tend to be fake.

You blamed her for letting your imagination run.
And that's how using hashtags in twitter work. She didn't put E3 in any "line of fire".

That's the thing I could be read as that hence why I read it like that. I hate it when my imagination runs it usually ends with me arguing with myself for hours. Again she could have just simple. "#Microsoft thanks for not showing any games with women in it." While this stop the flack? No of course not assholes are going to be assholes. Would it make people like me, with an overly active imagination, understand her point? Of course keeping it simple is should be the best policy when constructing things on the internet. Does it actually seem like I'm blaming her? Probably. Note to self clarify better that this is criticism not blame.

This is getting really off topic. The point is that she used hashtags the same way pretty much everyone is using them. She is keeping it simple. You just said that you don't use Twitter and hence don't know how the stuff works.

You're right I said I don't know how twitter works and that's why I didn't understand what she was aiming at with the hashtags. Why I even mentioned E3 because it was in the tags thus causing this little divergence to begin with. I still don't understand it and to help me understand it would require us to go deeper but that would be the true divergence to a totally new topic.

 

[Bruce]

Isn't this the exact same argument that was used by people sneering at the Retake Mass Effect movement? That it would set a horrible precedent for games companies?

The Retake Mass Effect movement was a bunch of self-entitled morons who thought Mass Effect belonged to them.

What precedent are you talking about? The artistic license of video game developers?
Bioware decides what goes into their games and only Bioware.

Entitled is one of those funny words, it says more bad things about the person using it than the people its being applied to.

Are you going to explain why Bioware owes you a new ending?

What you said sounds like a feminist anti-debating tactic.

No, it is a reflection on the fact that people who go on about other people being entitled are generally the number one reason why everything sucks. People are entitled to complain about things they don't like, they are entitled to try and fix things.

Mass Effect was hardly an important issue, but the fact that people got off their duffs and actually did something about something they cared about is to be applauded. Those who go on about people being "entitled" like that is a problem, what do they achieve? Nothing more than causing a slagging match.

As to Bioware 'owing' people a new ending, the fact that those protesters got that new ending was ample enough demonstration of that.

But that is aside the point of precedent - that ending was supposed to set one if you remember. Has it really changed much? Have games suddenly become worse or even less respected as an artform (not that gaming has a lot of respect to start off with)?

Not really. Risks are still being taken - just look at Bioshock Infinite, that was a very risky ending and it still happened. Story driven games still come and go, and good games are still being made. Every prediction of how the protest would harm the industry has turned out to be, well, complete tosh.

And I see the same thing with the whole Sarkeesian mess. Her criticism may lead to interesting new IP, maybe a few developers take it to heart and try to find different ways to achieve emotional investment, but nobody is going to force every game to have a female protagonist, nobody's going to make anybody give up Battlefield.

Getting more strong female characters, getting a bit more variety, is that really a bad thing? Is it really a bad thing that female gamers, a growth market that could mean more quality IP gets developed, that could lead to a greater number of more interesting studios, are making their wants known? Why is the idea that maybe, just maybe, games should target a genuinely broader market such an anethema?

 

[comraderichard]

I was going to agree to you until you compared a feminist who has no right to be the voice of feminism in gaming for various legitimate reasons to a guy who spent his life fighting out in the streets for equal rights for minorities and died because of it, real freaking tasteless, bub.

So, you don't believe she has the right to free speech (AKA the right to be the voice of whatever the hell cause she wants) and you have the temerity to criticise somebody else for comparing her to MLK?

She doesn't have the right to be the end-all-be-all when it comes to discussing this issue, which she has managed to make herself, anyone else talking about social equality in video games is going to inevitably have Anita brought up - even when they really really really don't want to. She's a close-minded sex-negative feminist that wants humanity to become this utopian fantasy of collective pacifists: she hates violence (not many pacifists get anything done anymore), she hates weak women (damsels), she hates strong women (men with boobs). She can have her opinions, and fuck you for putting words in my mouth, my issue is with people conflating her to be more than she is - she's a feminist, who doesn't represent the movement as a whole, who got a lot of money based on sympathy and now dominates any 'gaming feiminism' discussions because people constantly shrelling bring her up. She's not a good advocate, she's not a good academic, she's not even a good pop culture critic which she claims to be as a profession - she's just some person who has a lot of money to throw behind her opinions. The problems with the industry without some wannabe teacher sitting us down and talking down to us, on top of constantly messing up her research (Bayonetta, Kanye West, Amanda Palmer, that Christmas song crap)

 

[comraderichard]

share of voice.

Come now. She had almost no discernible reach until everyone started screaming about her.

If you don't like her, fine. Just don't reach like this. It's absurd.

Internet =/= gamers.

But unless they're mutually exclusive, my point still stands. Are they mutually exclusive?

So now your argument is 'well if you can't keep X out, you're as bad as X' so it's guilt by association? You realize literally anyone can be guilty of being a part of the Internet, right? Shall I turn this argument back against you by saying you're as bad as the transphobic radfems simply by being a feminist that doesn't denounce them at every opportunity? I also thought the whole exclusiveness thing was another barrier we were trying to take down, evidently not, since if gamers can't reign in the trolls than they clearly are a part of the Patriarchy! I'm not saying you're a transphobe, I'm just saying your argument was crap.

 

[Deadcyde]

Lets not point out the inherent flaws of an idealism that hopes to bring about equality by focusing on a single sexes issues.

Feminism is silly. Doubly so for pointing out objectification of a fantasy.

Cause that's what video games are. Fantasy, not reality. Want a game that appeals to you? Make one. Because in our current financial climate developers won't throw away money on something that doesn't appeal to the largest demographic attracted to the genre. (in fact they'll even ruin good games just to make them appeal to the masses)

Otherwise, yay equality.

 

[Hyper-space]

"In general, men are better at battle rolls...."
- David Bostock (@DavidBostock93)

RIP My Sides: 1992-2013.

 

[Randomperson9999999]

Why the fuck do we all still give a shit about some woman who has no idea of context? Why did anybody give a fuck about her in the first place?

 

[faefrost]

This is probably the best response to Anita's "Tropes" that I have run across. This girl doesn't argue against Ms. Sarkeesian. She doesn't seek to criticize or debate. She simply offers a differing perspective in a well spoken respectful way. She discusses what she likes in games and game characters and how she sees the characters and the stories.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJihi5rB_Ek

 

[DjinnFor]

She can pretty much film herself juggling fruit in her basement and as long as the title of her video touches on how much sexism there is in the culture, then she has a legitimate point.

Few seriously or widely espoused criticisms have revolved solely around her style of content delivery. Most of those with style criticisms bring up the point and then drop it pretty quickly because they recognize the immateriality of it. But nice of you to frame all dislike or disagreement with Anita as useless nitpicks about style.

More amazing still is the gall you have in blatantly denying the opposition of any claim to an argument outright by asserting that Anita has a "legitimate point". It's almost like you're keeping yourself willfully ignorant of the many threads full of valid criticisms here in order to give yourself some plausible dependability should someone call you on it.

Frame the debate in such a manner as to deny your opponents any claims of legitimacy while hoisting your position up on an unassailable high horse in a manner that an outside observer would be left clueless as to what transpired? I suppose one could call that a well-crafted bait thread, if one were to be generous.

Looks like you caught a few fish, too. Enjoy your free badge.

 

[darlarosa]

I was going to agree to you until you compared a feminist who has no right to be the voice of feminism in gaming for various legitimate reasons to a guy who spent his life fighting out in the streets for equal rights for minorities and died because of it, real freaking tasteless, bub.

Who are you to say so. Plenty of people like her videos and plenty of people can and do critique gaming on feminist levels. She's just the one who has been harassed the most. She has the right to share her perspective

Except she's gone well beyond simply being a feminist pop culture critic and now any attempt at discussion by feminists, or anyone who wants more equalized creative freedom in the games' industry, will either be compared to her or lumped in with her. We know there's a sexual bias in the industry, we know this because most open-minded and creative works have to fight to get the main female character on the bloody cover. Anita Sarkeesian is not doing anything to fix this, her views are a groan-inducing mix of simplistic ideals with little bearing in reality: she is correct but she's not trying to argue her point correctly.

I'm not trying to speak for all feminists, but frankly it's disgusting that you have this mentality that I need to move in lockstep with the rest of you. Just because a bunch of us decided to throw money at her and expected her to fix all the problems doesn't mean we all did, we need to operate in a way that pushes for creative freedoms, not just throw around buzzwords and show video clips while drowning people who don't agree with them in incendiary rhetoric. You don't have to be so goddamn touchy, but don't expect me to play nice when you try to pull some argument from authority BS.

You do realize your putting things into what I said that aren't there.And who the hell is "you", me? It sounds like a plural. I'm talking from my perspective I don't claim to speak for anyone but me. Also I never said you had to think and feel like everyone else. My point isn't that she's wrong or right. My point was that you seem to be saying "I don't like her work so she shouldn't be allowed to do it". Who are you to decide who can do what? If you don't like it don't watch it. Does everyone who wants to speak as she has, have to pass some feminist litmus test? What are the standards? Where is this mystical panel and who comprises it? More importantly it's up to people to do better than her if they don't want to be "lumped in". It's an inevitable conclusion. People compare things they see as alike even when they are not. IF we worry about "Oh but now everyone will be compared to X" then nothing of quality would arise. What matters is that Anita sparked a discussion and brought it to light. It's up to us to do the rest. If you don't like her perspective then get a team together and do better, or send her a polite email offering to help or give critiques on how to improve. Don't assert that we need some shadow cabal to approve who can talk about what, not because of decency or protecting lives/etc. Hell your calling the kettle pretty damn black in your last line. You speak as though you have some authority to decide who should do what. To a point, you chose to spend money, but you have little control over how it's spent. The authority from the money givers has long since ended.

She's good at film critiques but she doesn't understand the whole of the gaming industry. That is not to say she doesn't understand video games, but she comes at it with a purely film/tv perspective in terms of critiquing.

Oh and I'm not being touchy. I was just asking a simple question or two.