This is Why Criticizing Anita Sarkheesian is Irrelevant and Pointless

[Insanely Asinine]

Look, here is a thought: Maybe the Trolls are actually human beings that should never ever and never be excused to write the bile that they write for any reason.

Here is also a thought: Maybe these humans are not being excused for being trolls but are warned about because like any animal they will come back to a place that feeds them.

 

[Dark Knifer]

All I see in that link is a bunch of idiots being idiots. She's feeding the trolls, which is annoying and trolls are being annoying. Really nothing of discussion here, especially in regards to the quality of her videos in that link.

 

[Flamb3Nobunaga]

Christ, while I do find Anita Sarkheesian annoying, why can't people just let her scream and wave her arms while people pay her no mind? Really, we're just giving her validation by bashing her like she's a feminist pinata.

 

[Something Amyss]

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?

 

[Something Amyss]

Christ, while I do find Anita Sarkheesian annoying, why can't people just let her scream and wave her arms while people pay her no mind? Really, we're just giving her validation by bashing her like she's a feminist pinata.

Yes, SHE's the one who screams and waves her arms.

 

[Vegosiux]

Internet =/= gamers.

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

I'm sorry, what? No no no, you know better than to pull the "guilt by association" card, I know you do.

 

[generals3]

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.

How is that relevant? She still is the loudest person atm. It's unfortunate some people had to troll her which allowed her to pull the DiD card but ey it's too late to fix that now ain't it?

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
http://imgur.com/zSToV

As it is too late and she has been given attention it is now our duty to make sure every publisher and developer realizes that she's notorious and not famous and that they should under no circumstance pull an "EA".

 

[BrionJames]

I'm going to leave this here for you. Please watch at your leisure. http://thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=sexism_videogames

 

[Bruce]

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?

 

[Bruce]

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.

How is that relevant? She still is the loudest person atm. It's unfortunate some people had to troll her which allowed her to pull the DiD card but ey it's too late to fix that now ain't it?

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
http://imgur.com/zSToV

As it is too late and she has been given attention it is now our duty to make sure every publisher and developer realizes that she's notorious and not famous and that they should under no circumstance pull an "EA".

What is she arguing for?

She is arguing for more varied and better written female characters, placed in a greater variety of roles. Why should we, as gamers, object to this? Why would it be 'pulling an EA' for games writers to not suck at writing women?

 

[Bruce]

Most gamers who have sat down and thought about it actually agree with Sarkeesian's complaints, right up until they hear it was a 'feminist' making them at least.

Think about Metroid: Other M - what was the complaint there before 'such a wanker that it is a wonder he hasn't spurted his testicles yet' became the default voice of the male gaming community?

None of us liked how Samus was weakened as a character, we liked her strong and in command of herself. We liked her for being different to what was the industry norm for female characters.

Zelda, which are your favourite incarnations of the character? The ones where she actually did stuff and demonstrated that she was indeed worthy of holding a third of the triforce.

In Baldur's Gate II - who wouldn't pick the following dialogue option?

"Oh, you lost your wings? My sister just got her soul sucked out by a vampire and mine has been nicked by a bloody torturer. Currently I am struggling to not turn into a crazed murder-kill-beast. Excuse me if I'd rather try sticking it in Korgan than listen to more of your whining Aerie."

We kind of all hate the exact same portrayals of female characters that feminists are complaining about. We find these portrayals boring or manipulative, we find them weak and uninteresting.

And we don't like weak and uninteresting characters, particularly when they come out lacking variety. Game of Thrones on TV - why does that work so well? Because it has several different female characters who are just that - different. Why did Amanda Waller work so well in DC comics? Because there weren't terribly many characters like her in comics.

And that is what feminists are calling for in gaming - not necessarily an end to the female characters we have right now but rather more variety in the new characters that get written.

Instead of a repetition of four basic female themes (Amazon, victim, nurturer or sex interest) having the courage and skill to show women in a variety of roles. And when the female character fits into the four archtypes listed above - giving her some depth beyond the Amazon, victim, nurturer or sex interest.

At the moment the sex interests have so little depth they don't even seem all that interested in the sex.

And while we are on the subject, lets have some of that for men as well, because the way men are portrayed isn't terribly good either. Aren't we all getting a bit tired of playing the exact same broody brown haired dude?

Whatever happened to having men who could honestly smile occasionally?

 

[Uhura]

Wait, I'm confused. In the link she says "Thanks #XboxOne #E3 press conference for revealing to us exactly zero games featuring a female protagonist for the next generation"

But an article on the front page of the Escapist says "Mirror's Edge 2 was announced at the EA E3 2013 press conference moments ago"

So am I missing something here?

You're not missing anything. It's Ana being Ana.

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.

Yes, she totally gets to dictate everything at EA now. Sure.

Well, you will notice that all EA titles this year feature women as protagonists and fit her anti-male agenda....
>.>
My favourite is "Ballbuster 3."

Yeah, Ballbuster 3 looks good. Too bad they decided to release Solanas as day-one-dlc, instead of including her in the actual game. Got to boycott shitty business practices :/
(I heard that Gender Warz: Tanks is coming out next December. Hope it's not gonna suck.)

 

[WitherVoice]

I'm a bit confused. I get why she'd highlight the dumb ones going "shut up" and stuff like that. The "they don't sell" crowd may have a point, but that's a whole chicken/egg argument that she'd win easy. Lots of stupidity on display there.

What I don't get is why her "omg look at the hateful bastards" showreel would include the ones that go "if the status quo upsets you so, contribute to the solution and show how it's done". Far as I'm aware, she's not actually made any games, nor contributed to any part of their development. It's not that I think she needs to do so in order to talk about the issue, I just wonder why encouraging her to do better than what is currently being done is apparently some kind of hateful, personal attack and/or misogynistic hate speech.

 

[Bruce]

I'm a bit confused. I get why she'd highlight the dumb ones going "shut up" and stuff like that. The "they don't sell" crowd may have a point, but that's a whole chicken/egg argument that she'd win easy. Lots of stupidity on display there.

What I don't get is why her "omg look at the hateful bastards" showreel would include the ones that go "if the status quo upsets you so, contribute to the solution and show how it's done". Far as I'm aware, she's not actually made any games, nor contributed to any part of their development. It's not that I think she needs to do so in order to talk about the issue, I just wonder why encouraging her to do better than what is currently being done is apparently some kind of hateful, personal attack and/or misogynistic hate speech.

IT is a "shut up, that's why argument" (term coined by Greta Christina I think). It isn't an argument that actually deals with the content of what somebody is saying, it just tries to shame them into silence.

If Anita Sarkeesian got together the budget and the skills to make her own game with its own story illustrating how to do things better, then you would have the same people calling on her to do that now saying her criticism is unprofessional and just trying to smack-talk down the opposition.

The reason being they don't really want her to do that, they just want her to shut up, which while on the surface it looks like it isn't quite so bad, it ends up actually being worse.

Change requires discussion, it requires feedback and critical thought. The "shut up, that's why argument" shuts that right down, thus maintaining a negative status quo, allowing the worst to continue to continue to become more embedded and harder to displace because people don't feel sufficiently qualified to point out the problems.

 

[Vegosiux]

IT is a "shut up, that's why argument" (term coined by Greta Christina I think). It isn't an argument that actually deals with the content of what somebody is saying, it just tries to shame them into silence.

If Anita Sarkeesian got together the budget and the skills to make her own game with its own story illustrating how to do things better, then you would have the same people calling on her to do that now saying her criticism is unprofessional and just trying to smack-talk down the opposition.

The reason being they don't really want her to do that, they just want her to shut up, which while on the surface it looks like it isn't quite so bad, it ends up actually being worse.

Change requires discussion, it requires feedback and critical thought. The "shut up, that's why argument" shuts that right down, thus maintaining a negative status quo, allowing the worst to continue to continue to become more embedded and harder to displace because people don't feel sufficiently qualified to point out the problems.

*scratched head*

So what you're saying is that because change requires discussion, feedback and critical thought, the critics should shut up?

Really, leaving aside the trolls and immature dickheads, the people who expressed legitimate criticism of Anita's work are actually trying to do just that - provide feedback, discuss things, think them through critically. Assuming all of those people are just the same brand of trolls suddenly makes it so that it's you who's telling them "shut up, that's why".

I mean, way to undermine your own argument.

 

[generals3]

What is she arguing for?

She is arguing for more varied and better written female characters, placed in a greater variety of roles. Why should we, as gamers, object to this? Why would it be 'pulling an EA' for games writers to not suck at writing women?

First of all, she doesn't like violence in video games, or at least believes it is over used in violent video games. I don't see how a person like that can help a franchise like Battlefield (for instance), i like the fact it's all about the shooting tbh. Secondly what is her idea of better writing for women? No but really what is it? She has never told us anything about how to write a female character. All she does is complaining and prove she's never happy unless the protagonist is a woman and even than, it better shouldn't just be a man with tits!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PJ0JPLg_-8
"Not only are these games dominated by male characters but even the few women characters who do get staring roles are often made to replicate overly patriarchal, violent, macho behavior "

See there is no pleasing her. Using her as a person to somehow help devs do it right is absurd. You'd have more luck asking a spastic monkey.

And also look at what she says on that topic, she basically implied women were too stupid to figure out the controls of mirror edge. I wonder how long it will take for her supporters to realize she's probably the most sexist one in the entire debate.

 

[generals3]

IT is a "shut up, that's why argument" (term coined by Greta Christina I think). It isn't an argument that actually deals with the content of what somebody is saying, it just tries to shame them into silence.

If Anita Sarkeesian got together the budget and the skills to make her own game with its own story illustrating how to do things better, then you would have the same people calling on her to do that now saying her criticism is unprofessional and just trying to smack-talk down the opposition.

The reason being they don't really want her to do that, they just want her to shut up, which while on the surface it looks like it isn't quite so bad, it ends up actually being worse.

Change requires discussion, it requires feedback and critical thought. The "shut up, that's why argument" shuts that right down, thus maintaining a negative status quo, allowing the worst to continue to continue to become more embedded and harder to displace because people don't feel sufficiently qualified to point out the problems.

You assume the status quo is negative. It isn't for everyone.

You also assume no discussion can be had. That's wrong, no crappy accusations will be allowed, that's for sure and that's why Anita is basically told to gtfo. She didn't just share her opinion, no she accused games of having a negative impact on society and she did that based on what is possibly the most broken and biased research ever done. Why would anyone want to have a discussion with someone like that?

Until she listens and stops with the accusations (or comes back with citations proving them) and adopts a less biased approach to her analysis there is no reason for us to be constructive anymore. We have done our part, the ball is on her court, but based on how she hit the ball back in her second video it is quite clear she isn't willing to improve and is going to stick with the twisting, lies and lack of any suggestions to "repair" what has been broken by her twisting and lies.

 

[Bruce]

What is she arguing for?

She is arguing for more varied and better written female characters, placed in a greater variety of roles. Why should we, as gamers, object to this? Why would it be 'pulling an EA' for games writers to not suck at writing women?

First of all, she doesn't like violence in video games, or at least believes it is over used in violent video games. I don't see how a person like that can help a franchise like Battlefield (for instance), i like the fact it's all about the shooting tbh. Secondly what is her idea of better writing for women? No but really what is it? She has never told us anything about how to write a female character. All she does is complaining and prove she's never happy unless the protagonist is a woman and even than, it better shouldn't just be a man with tits!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PJ0JPLg_-8
"Not only are these games dominated by male characters but even the few women characters who do get staring roles are often made to replicate overly patriarchal, violent, macho behavior "

See there is no pleasing her. Using her as a person to somehow help devs do it right is absurd. You'd have more luck asking a spastic monkey.

And also look at what she says on that topic, she basically implied women were too stupid to figure out the controls of mirror edge. I wonder how long it will take for her supporters to realize she's probably the most sexist one in the entire debate.

She has released a two part series on the damsel in distress so far. The first two parts were about the past, and the present on the issue, she claims with the third that it will deal with subversions, and games that avoid the pitfalls.

So it is quite possible that she's going to do exactly what you say she doesn't.

As to Battlefield - not every game has to be Battlefield and frankly most of the games that try aren't very good at it.

If you watched her series you would note she pointed out that a lot of the plots in the games she criticises in isolation wouldn't be a problem, it is that these tropes are so common that makes it a problem.

It is the sameness of the basic plots, which is something we all dislike. There is just too much repetition going on.

 

[generals3]

She has released a two part series on the damsel in distress so far. The first two parts were about the past, and the present on the issue, she claims with the third that it will deal with subversions, and games that avoid the pitfalls.

Yes and until than i can do nothing else but judge her on what I know. Seems rather fair, no? If she engaged in a discussion with her critics this could be avoided. But it seems she's only interested in a one way "discussion".

So it is quite possible that she's going to do exactly what you say she doesn't.

As to Battlefield - not every game has to be Battlefield and frankly most of the games that try aren't very good at it.

True but EA did ask her to help Dice, which also produces Battlefield and I just hope they didn't listen to her for that because I like Battlefield and based on what i know about Anita all she could do is help them mess it up.

If you watched her series you would note she pointed out that a lot of the plots in the games she criticises in isolation wouldn't be a problem, it is that these tropes are so common that makes it a problem.

As has been pointed out often: she never proven the tropes were "so common". Her methodology doesn't allow her to make any conclusions based on frequency. You can't just pick 30 games which show what you want to show and than make an industry wide inference.

It is the sameness of the basic plots, which is something we all dislike. There is just too much repetition going on.

Even if that's true, does that make it a social issue like Anita pretends?