Dear Internet: Grow Up

[BlazingTales]

The whole 'it's not the same!'

 

Yeah right, of course not, being called a 'faggot' getting abuse on a sexual level, a mental level, a race level, heck I've even had a could based on the fact I am a man.

 

How is ANY of that any less offensive, any less hurtful, less threattening or any... less.

Because you aren't gay? Because, at the end of the day, you can go to bed comfortable that your sexuality is not subject to endless political and moral debate, and that you won't be disowned by your family or harassed or thought of as less by society in general? It's the same reason I don't take personal offense to someone calling me a stinky stupid face, because I know I'm obviously am not one, so why should I be hurt? You don't see anyone criticising you as "hetero"; your identity is not considered to be wrong, dirty or inferior, there's no real-life reflection to the insult.

[Red Cap]

@Discoid

All I was saying is that it's weird that instead of just putting up some form of donation pool or whatever, she makes it into a full Kickstarter project with a goal and everything. It just feels like begging to me.

And yes, I think that about every Kickstarter/Crowdfunded documentary project. You shouldn't need huge amounts of money for something so simple.

Edited May 1, 2013 by Red Cap-Blue Spikes

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

But why does she need twenty fucking thousand dollars to do something I could do by typing some things into Google and reading a few articles? Seriously, I don't know why all these gaming related Kickstarter documentary projects keep coming up with these girls needing ridiculous amounts of money to do it. I'm sure everyone who cares about it and would be willing to share their stories would help out anyways.

She didn't really ask for $20,000, tho. She asked for a lot less and got a whole lot more than expected.

 

Personally, I couldn't really care all that much about her Kickstarter as I never gave her any of my money. Although the same can't always be said of her analysis if she comes off as one-sided as a result.

[Red Cap]

I'm talking about that GTFO project Hogfather posted, CSS. Not about Anita.

But I thought that was ridiculous too.

Edited May 1, 2013 by Red Cap-Blue Spikes

[Pelly <3's U]

As far as it's not the same....if you don't accept that then you don't' accept it, but there's quite a lot of people in the world that do.

 

But even if you want to try and put internet abuse on a level field (which I personally don't buy) there is still research that shows women get harassed more than men do online ....so it seems a valid problem to address regardless.

 

I do agree that from some standpoints kickstarter in general from a traditional method of economic examination shows that initial investment and return for a variety of projects is skewed.....But at the same time kickstarter is hardly a traditional investment platform so analyzing it the same way seems incorrect. 

[Sami]

This doesn't have to do with Anita, but hey look, sexism in the industry. How 'bout that.

[Sean]

Perhaps when the day comes that I see male, straight gamers harassed for doing the simple act of playing a game, for their gender and sexuality, in an industry that caters for male, straight gamers, will I accept that male gamers have it anywhere near as bad as women.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

This doesn't have to do with Anita, but hey look, sexism in the industry. How 'bout that.

Don't know why, but something about the stupidity of "You can't have a female character in games. It has to be a male character, simple as that." in one of the links makes me want to literally cave in the skull of whoever said that. Yeah, I know violence doesn't solve everything and it wouldn't help anyone's case, but...come on, seriously? Gamer's can be spoiled, toxic, annoying as fuck shitheads with no amount of common courtesy and subject to being fuckwads online, but they're not that one-sided to be unable to enjoy such diversity. I mean, fuck, Samus Aran is one of the biggest stars in gaming for christs sake...

[turbojet]

Warning: This is going to be long as hell

 

"In art, everything must be fair game, everything must be explore-able, everything must be speakable, or we go backwards."-Amanda Waller

 

Sarkeesian lacks perspective in cultures outside of her own which leads to Ethnocentrism and Racism

When you compare Japanese culture with Western Culture, you have to look at it from a perspective that relates to their cultural experience within their country. This is something that white liberal feminist often forget when they marginalize women of color, or people with already established cultural norms that contrast with their own. Thus, it is important to engage the so-called oppressed within their country within their culture because ignoring it would be seen as homogenization aka the white man's burden. Sarkeesian refuses to do that when she indirectly compared the Bayonetta campaign that to her idea of what sexism is or the whole subway situation in Japan is a example about how sexist that culture is. She never once thinks that shit might be different in Japan in things related to cultural perspective or cultural sexuality. For one, the Chikan sub-culture of Japan has nothing to do with the campaigning of Bayonetta. Ridiculous to even come to such conclusion. But hell, lets take a journey through Japanese culture.

 

First and foremost, what is Chikan? Chikan is a practice of men and/or women(but mostly men, but I included women because I want to make a point that there are lesbians in Japan too) to sexually harass women on the subway. We are talking fondling breasts, inserting fingers between legs, grabbing ass, or, in some cases, having a camera on a shoe to look up at someone's skirt while on the subway. How are they even getting away with this? Well...

 

It is fucking packed, especially around rush hour where it is dis-proportioned with Japanese Salary-men and students trying to get to or from school. Chikan is such a niche thing in Japan that it even has a television show called Chikan Hyakka (Encyclopedia of Groping) where the host openly admitted that through this is practice how he met his wife and gives viewers tips when it is the best time to grab ass on the subway(Holiday season for those who just happen to be in Japan and want to know where not to be). Words from the host himself.

 

"When men and women are packed together, squeezed onto a train, I think everybody has some of desire to touch someone else. If someone were molesting on a train somewhere else in the world, they'd be accused of sexual harassment. It's unique to Japan that people put up with this."

 

 

So yes, it does happen in Japan. And no, the women of Japan are not, by any means, cool with this practice. Anita is correct that there has been over 2,000 reported groping cases, which is relatively tame compared to the number of cases in a single city such as Orlando that do with fondling(3,667),...back in 2004. At it's peak, it was about 2,200 reports, now after they implemented cameras in certain subway lines, it is down to 1,400. They also tried gender segregated routes as well to only be shown that it doesn't work at all to solve the problem(it didn't reduce the number of cases at all) and only exasperated another problem of physical violence on subways since men overwhelmingly dominate the subway population. Giving women a separate subway car is ridiculous when they are not nearly as prevalent as men in a subway car. Women get the open spacious cars that are less crammed, dudes get the cars that are still crammed.

 

So her report was inaccurate and outdated and only serves one purpose, to get on about her spiel on sexism and gaming. I don't have to state why her facts about Bayonetta are off because anybody who has played that game can tell that she did not actually play it and is in fact reading from the summary in the manual. However, the Bayonetta ad campaign, that I re-iterate was in Japan,  shouldn't even count as sexualizing women since Japanese women would champion a portrayal such as Bayonetta because Japanese men, in general, rather not have a strong woman like her and prefer the ideal woman to be cute and/or prudish. Hence why you see the overwhelming popularity of girl bands in Japan. You could make a broad generalization about Japanese men that they would prefer a "cute" girl rather than a "sexy" woman because they fear sexually dominant women. Japan has depicted such women as being supernatural as they force men to give in to their beauty and relinquish control over their own desires. Overtly sexual women such as Bayonetta are not commonly seen in Japanese media and when they are they are referred to as strong or scary. Japan does not have traditional Christian thoughts about how sex or the act of sex is wrong, but they do entertain the idea of expressing hidden urges that you don't want anybody else to know. Even though people mention the ever-famous love motels in Japan, one has to note how discrete these things are which is odd for something that is 1.) legal, and 2.) commonly used. It is crazy just how open they are about sexual practices compared to most Western countries while acting as if the act were illegal. A classic example of this is that these love motels or any other similarly marketed business does not broadcast their business or even bother to advertise it. They wait until customers come in as to maintain a certain level of discrepancy. Matter of fact, what Kamiya was doing with Bayonetta was so obscure in their culture because he was openly admitting that he has a preference for strong, independent women who engage in sex, openly flaunt their sexuality, and are deemed powerful beyond measure because they do these things that are considered taboo in their culture. And this extends beyond Bayonetta as we see it in a few other Japanese media icons such as Asami of Audition or Sadako of the Ring. She should have made note of that when dealing with media characters such as Bayonetta.

 

She should also recognize the sexual culture of Japan instead of giving the audience a flawed context of "hey, look at how she is dressed and behaves. Isn't she icky?" Sarkeesian should have noted that Japan has predominately practiced Shinto religion which does not recognize good nor evil so a believer does not feel guilt for a sexual act such as disrobing, which the Bayonetta ad was mimicking, due to some divine place. There is no preconceived moral wrong for being sexually active. It is, however, imposed through other social devices such as scaffolding of social constructions of behavior that is deemed acceptable and mores. For one, a person who saw that advertisement probably looked at the image, peeled the thing off(while making sure nobody was looking), and made way to a blowjob bar that he already had an appointment to(Yes, there are blowjob bars in Japan). Prostitution is such a integral part of Japanese socioeconomic culture that it was reported that 30% of Japanese males lost their virginity to a prostitute. Sarkeesian should have made a note of that before she rudely painted Japanese men as being perverts. She was judging a feminist movement within Japan with the purview of her own cultural bias. Hence, it was racist as all hell. Or she lacks perspective which indirectly lends itself to racism. But it was still racist so whatever.

 

Another instance outside the Bayonetta video where she displays such willful ignorance about culture was a video criticizing Kanye West's Monster. She calls the video misogynistic, which I know misogynistic rap videos because I've seen BET Uncut before, but this video is far from it. What she says about the video shows her out of touch she is.

 

 

"The video is reprehensible, and I really don't suggest going and watching it. If you can, avoid it because I really wish that I haven't seen it. To give you a sense of it, this whole video was built on this whole "sexy dead woman trope" which has been popping a lot lately(shows random brands and labels that she infers are guilty of doing this too). Monster is a single from his number one hit album ,"My Beautiful Dark and Twisted Fantasy" (cue comic book bubble stating "He got Dark and Twisted right!")"

 

 

This doesn't even qualify as an observation. For those who don't know Kanye West's album, the entire premise of the album is to expose the face of the music industry and Western society in general as unhappy, alienated, perverse, addicted and extravagant from the perspective of someone who is caught in the thick of it. Of course, someone who is apart of it will actually do these self-grandalizing things, but in every song in the album he shows a level of regret about his actions. The video and ,by extension, the song is about how Kanye West and the other artists are reveling in their faults that their critics aka gossippers charge them for. Kanye West's fault, in particular, is the need for love and envy from his fans. He profits off of any scandal he is involved with (see Taylor Swift and MTV Music Awards) or doing audacious shit(Bush doesn't care about Black people) and is rewarded with profit and fame as if the music industry is endorsing his behavior in which Kanye West criticizes while using it as a double entendre about how great his mic skills are and ,more importantly, how great Kanye West is for overcoming the backlash. In short, they are monsters because they are beyond criticism and more importantly gossip. Kanye West was so livid that the video was banned because of such shallow criticism like Anita's that he gave an idea about what the video was about.

 

 

One of my favorite videos, is the “Monster” clip. How many people have actually seen this video? Who saw it before it got banned and they took it down and before Women’s [Rights Organizations] started saying that a person that lost the most important women in his life is now against women in some way? The photos were inspired by [name inaudible], Helmut Newton. There are very few Hip Hop videos that have ever had imagery of that sort. The concept of models hanging or people being eaten alive or whatever type of visuals for a horrific video was purely artistic. But then once again, it was thrown into a misogynistic box because they couldn’t understand how a rapper can have a taste or a sensibility high enough to do something like that without being misogynistic. Once again, I wake up and I’m a monster and I walk through the hotel or I walk down the street and people look at me like I’m f*cking insane….like I’m Hitler. But one day, one day a light will shine through, one day people will understand everything I did and ever said was to throw myself on the blade for the sake of someone else. For the sake of people, for the sake of New Orleans,  for the sake of honest music, for the sake of honest judgment. Michael Jordan changed so much in basketball. He took his power to make a difference. It’s so much bullsh*t going on in music right now and someone has to make a f*cking difference.

 

Anita, instead of looking at it artistically and judging the video in relation of the actual genre, which is predominately comprised of black artists, that it is in, simply asks, "So who is to blame?" as if there is somebody to blame for the creation of the video. Regardless of how you feel about Kanye West or Rap in general, it is a little unfair for this video to get labeled with the misogynistic tag and then be perfectly acceptable with other videos for being safer with their portrayal. Anita will stick to her criticism of the video as being the correct one because she engages in cognitive dissonance in which she holds a strong bias against anything that remotely does not fit her little world view. We all do it, but as a so-called scholar that she claims to be, you must resist the urge to. Never does Anita consider the implications of construing an artist's messages as inherently destructive to women because of images that are deemed As someone who has seen plenty of rap videos, Kanye West's Monster was a much needed breath of fresh air to the Hip-Hop community as they constantly show the same misogynistic shit over and over again. This is especially prevalent in the hip-hop community because it literally thrives on the notion of sex sells and will constantly cater to this notion thus creating a culture of self-destruction...which is bad for the people who are affected by the hip-hop community the most: Black people.

 

Capitalism is sexist...wait what?

I get in so many arguments about this type of feminism that it is crazy. Here is the truth of why these games are made

1. These games are not made to keep feminists happy
2. These games are not made to subjugate women
3. These games were designed to be fun to play and,most importantly, make a profit for the designer

 

This completely eludes Anita in her 20 minute video about...bullshit. In the beginning of the video Tropes vs Women, she starts out with Double Dragon Neon. Nevermind that what she calls "a pattern of representing women as fundamentally weak, ineffective, or largely incapable" or regressive crap http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJNDP_HTFp4, one must note that a game like Double Dragon Neon that only has seven seconds to explain the plot will have one-dimensional characters and simple storylines. The damsel in distress plot device is one of the few simple storylines that you can set up rather easily because most people, in healthy relationships, care for eachother and would hep eachother in their time of need. The trope is not trying to make the victim "the ball in the game of patriarch" (I will explain why this is quoted later).

 

She tries to use Dinosaur Planet/Star Fox Adventures transition as an example of sexism in video game sexism in which, again, ignores why Dinosaur Planet became Star Fox Adventures. Dinosaur Planet became Star Fox Adventures not because the protagonist was a female, but Nintendo needed a recognizable face to make profit out of the Zelda rip-off. Never mind that Dinosaur Planet had two protagonists, one of which was Krystal and the other was Saber...the guy that Star Fox replaced(There goes all that money for research, eh) and Anita suspiciously omitted. Saber looked similar to Fox and Nintendo wants money so...yeah. Now this game did marginalize Krystal to being a love interest and it did suck, but the quality of the game would not have changed if you were playing as Krystal most of the way through. As a matter of fact, the inclusion of Star Fox actually put more money in production as it no longer was a new IP completely devoid of any background other than it was being published by Nintendo. It has nothing to do with Star Fox being a male as he simply replaced another character and because of the name recognition, it became more about him because he was more recognizable to the consumer than Krystal. It was a business move. We have seen this in another game that Anita shown: Super Mario Brothers 2. Anita claimed that Princess Peach was only a playable character by accident as Dokie Dokie Panic, the game that SMB2 replaced, only had 1 female character. However, Dokie Dokie Panic had two female characters: Mama and Lena. Luigi replaced Mama and Lena was replaced by Princess Toadstool. Again, they wanted Princess Toadstool in the game because of name recognition. They didn't have to include her, but they did.

 

Now asking me whether Capitalism is sexist or not is redundant as my political views are well documented all over this site(just look in the American politics thread) and is irrelevant as that has nothing to do with Sarkeesian's views. What is relevant is that Capitalism does not give a damn about social inadequacies and is only concerned about whether there is even a market for products. This means that there has to be a demand for the product and supply to make them. We all know that if there were truly a demand for these products then they would be around a lot more. If Anita truly believed that there was a market for these games, then she would pull a Dwayne McDuffie and show that there are. I mean that she should create her own and lead by example and design and/or market these games successfully herself. If there is such a market, profit from it. If there was such an oil bed, drill for it yourself. I'd advise against it because there is no such demand for a pro-feminist game(I mean games that do show what she is asking for) and would be a stupid business move. Saying that there is a market for feminists games, but asking the developer to make it for you is the definition of the consumer culture that 'you', and I mean she, are entitled to a product and demand that the 'patriarchy', I mean the developers, should make it for her. And to further prove my point, let's compare the sales of Tomb Raider, arguably the most profitable game that comports with her ideology with a game that pretty much parallels it in every aspect, Uncharted. The Tomb Raider franchise as a whole sold more than 35 million. It's top seller was Tomb Raider 2 with 7 million. Impressive, but Tomb Raider 2 could be argued as sexualized drivel so that shouldn't count. Let's look at the sales of the most recent Tomb Raider game since it has taken strides to make Lara a modern realistic non-sexualized or capable woman that Anita so desperately clings to which sold 2.12 million. In all platforms. Maybe this has to do with time(although I doubt sales will increase much over time, but whatever), but Uncharted 2 has nearly eclipsed Tomb Raider 2 with 6.6 million sales and that is only being sold on one platform. This astonishing because sales of Tomb Raider were exponential back in the golden age of video games as everyone that was considered a gamer owned a Playstation back in the day as it was either that or Nintendo 64.If Uncharted was cross platform, it probably would have sold more than Tomb Raider 2. All three Uncharted games laugh at Tomb Raider '13 in which the only difference between the two besides quality is the gender of the protagonists. Never mind that there are at least 10 Tomb Raider games versus 3 Uncharted games and they already made up for half of what Tomb Raider made in sales. You can't even say that the production amount were disproportionate between the franchises as Square Enix projected to sell Tomb Raider '13 at the same amount as fucking Uncharted 2 and it under-performed by 2/3s of it's projected sales. They put in the work to make the game sell as much as it did, they just didn't find the demand for the game. So a saavy business man would look at this and say, "well in order to maximize profit in any given genre, I should aim to be as Uncharted-esque as possible." So why should developers incur the financial risk of producing games that are shown to be financially unprofitable? Of course, I could be oversimplifying a business model(forget "could," I am), but that is how the industry works when it deals selling games as they work with models that probably are faulty in order to achieve the most profit possible. Should corporations be allowed to sell a portrayal of women over and over again? Yeah, it is called freedom of speech and they can distribute whatever the hell they want as long as it pertains to state law regulations or country laws.

 

Although the sales of Uncharted/Tomb Raider example could be an example how AAA gaming is spending too much on the production and marketing of games rather than what the gender of the character is, Anita doesn't differentiate between AAA games or indie games. To say that AAA games has an incentive to subjugate women characters to certain roles is reaching when their only incentive is to make money, and so far, every example of AAA games having female lead that comports with Anita's contradictory interpretation of a strong lead has shown to be unprofitable. Indy games, however, might be able to acquiesce a demand for certain interpretations of characters as they are usually low budget in both production and marketing. This is an important variable that researchers about the topic should investigate to get a better answer to the question whether Anita-approved characters are remotely profitable as it controls for marketing and production as well as quality since indie games are already made for a niche crowd. 

 

What you shouldn't do is blame the consumer for not buying the games because it is ultimately their money and their choice although the success of these games ultimately is based on the consumers. If a product doesn't appeal to them because of A or B reasons then don't sum it up as most people not buying the game because of only B reasons. Maybe the game with the female protagonist was a shotty rip-off of another game. Maybe they don't like the genre.It is not because they are sexist. Of course, developers of AAA franchises could transplant female characters in them, but if it bombs, then what? You, along with everybody else, are a consumer. You are not entitled to force a product down anybody else's throat because it fits your social agenda. Anita never says anything remotely like this as she never offers suggestions or solutions to the problems of the video game industry, but I'm just laying fair warning that this argument leads to bad things....really bad things.

 

Anita Sarkeesian does not do her research well enough to know just what in the fuck she is talking about

As I already have shown, she doesn't seem to research stuff well. I mean it didn't take me $160,000 worth to actually correct her. As someone who has done analytic research, all you need is a database, an idea of what you are trying to find, and initiative to find it. However, how she is going about her "research" is wrong from the get-go as there is no amount of empiricism in it. She also seems to be keen on proving her "hypothesis" which is a big no-no.  You don't enter thesis already to trying to prove it. You should be trying to falsify it in order to make your hypothesis more valid. Now there is no such things as theories in Social Sciences because it attempts to measure something that is unpredictable in of itself: humans. No hypothesis in the realm of social sciences will ever be un-falsifiable and sound enough to be a theory if it remotely deals with human behavior. However, what Sarkeesian does is misinterpret and misconstrue facts in order to prove her point. Or she misuses theories and concepts that only seem to make her look smart. She rarely comes to conclusions and relies on inferences and implications to allow the viewer to come to wild conclusions instead of reaching to a sound conclusion. I'm not saying that she is stupid...just wrong.

 

A classic example of this is her constant incorrect use of the subjective-object dichotomy. Her use of the concept is incorrect because, in philosophy,the object has no humanizing connotations. The objects are the entities that are perceived to exist as entities by the observer a.k.a the subject. This dichotomy asks two questions which are epistemological in design, not a metaphysical one. The first question asks what is known, or what is said to exist and how can said entities be grouped in subdivisions based on similarities and differences. It deals with concepts such as physics, cognitive science,or anything with a level of empiricism. The second question that it asks is how does one come to know this entity exists and is it even possible for it to be known. An example of this would be to prove this statement to be true: The number of stars in the universe is either odd or even. The epistemological nature of subject-object dichotomy would be focus on how you know the answer. You'd have to count every star in the universe to answer this while a metaphysical solution would be to say either is true. It has nothing to do with gender roles and Anita is only latching on the term object because it makes sense in her definition of objectification. Again, if she just wikipedia'd the term, she'd know better. 

 

Another instance of Anita seeming trying to prove her thesis is how she handles Princess Peach. She constantly keeps mentioning that Princess Peach is a symbol of objectification because she had to be rescued in 13 of her 14 "core" games or games that Peach has been captured. She uses this as definitive proof to show that Peach has been delegated to the role of Distressed Damsel. However, Peach has in 46 games as a playable character and even went on to save Mario in one instance. Anita just ignores those other games because they would throw her analysis off. This is unacceptable. I mean come on? 46 to 14. By what analysis differentiates a core game versus a spin-off? Whether there is platforming? It's single player? If it is canon? Sure, there are like 9 Mario Party games, but again, taking them out because you say so is absurd because the character has been substantially more games where she isn't a damsel which is something because she isn't the protagonist or the hero of the franchise.

 

Anita uses lethargic methods such as metaphors to manipulate the audience as if to say that there is a conspiracy against women in video games. Problem is that metaphors don't make a sound argument and are in fact lazy researching. Statements such as "the hero fights to recover stolen property" ring a little hollow in which the games don't actually say that. Anita is the only person referring to women as property when observing video games. Sure, the kidnapping plot device is cliche as all hell, but it doesn't make women property. She continues the rather blatant and annoying misuse of subject-object dichotomy by stating that the "damsel becomes an object in competition between men." Not men and monster, or men and criminal... men and supercomputer AI with a strangely erotic voice but just men? She likens women as "balls" in the competition between men...again using subject-object dichotomy in order to reinforce a character as an object by saying it over and over again.

 

She is also not clear on what is the ideal woman character as she contradicts herself incessantly. In her thesis I'll Make A Man Out Of You, she states that strong, empowered female characters still aren't feminists or fit with her ideal of strong character because they are still trying to be men. According to her, any woman that shows strong leadership is only doing so in a charade to depict masculine traits such as traits like violence. She then displays outlines that she says is television's current state when depicting character archetypes. It is unclear if this represents her view of what are masculine and/or feminine traits or what she thinks other people believe in. For example, under an oppressive patriarchy, traits like shyness, submissiveness, and cooperation would be positive feminine traits, but they would be negative masculine traits. She implies that modern television does not display room for negative masculine traits. Then she presents a diagram titled, "Values for a More Feminist Television Landscape" in which that she is contradicts herself. She gives significantly fewer positive feminine traits than positive male traits. What is funny is that she implies that women are incapable of showing confidence. In her paper, she has a lot of tables and diagrams about archetypes and Joss Whedon, but she does not have any Venn Diagrams. She shows an inability to think outside of gender terms as if that is the only thing that defines people.

 

Her analysis on what counts as objectification is also faulty as it seems that all it ever takes is for the character to classified as an object is to be rescued once. Not only that it seem she is implicitly stating that willing to sacrifice to save someone is wrong because it robs the victim of being saved because they are being acted upon, but the notion of seeking help makes you forever helpless and weak. Yeah, no. I'm sorry. There is nothing wrong with saving someone and I don't care what sex is the person being saved. If her analysis is taken seriously, then it displays an inhuman lack of empathy.

 

Anita versus art

" In addition to being loads of fun to play, research has found that gaming can improve problem solving skills, teamwork, creative though, and multitasking. It can increase hand eye coordination and enhance perceptual cognitive abilities."- Anita Sarkeesian.

 

The first step in assaulting an art form is to praise irrelevant merits of the art form. When teaching art, the lesson is art thus it serves itself without needing a justification for why it is a good thing to engage in art. So when people speak of educational value in art, they are indirectly denying the inherent value of art. Anita stresses that games are good for certain qualities not as a concession as the importance of video games, but as an attack on the meaning.  Anita could easily be describing a sport. In her eyes, art serves as a tool to shaping one's ideology. Anita says that video games are being used to teach misogyny.The problem with this is that it is no different from how people say that video games shape violent behavior in minors thus should be regulated.

 

In response to the incoming censorship of the PMRC holding meeting to determine how to label and censor music records, Frank Zappa proposed a lyric sheet to all offensive music and classical music appreciation day in schools. Why they never did this is because music was too self-serving and too abstract thus it's irrelevance to "practical application" was too complex for censors to find a way to "clean" it up. This is why they have the parental advisory label on albums and what not because the censors did not want to bother taking the high road. This kind of relates to video games as now we see the same rating logo on them. What Anita doesn't do is give a relevant solution to the rampant sexism in video games because she hopes that her audience internalizes the oppression and focus it on others in the social sector before reaching the legal realm. In response to this, I agree with Frank Zappa when he spoke to the committee of the PMRC. 

"Apparently, they insist on purchasing the words of contemporary recording artists in order to support a personal allusion over aerobic sophistication. Ladies, please be advised that the $8.98 purchase price does not entitle you to a kiss on the foot from the composer or performer in exchange for a spin on the family Victrola. Taken as a whole, the complete list of PMRC demands reads like an instruction manual for some sinister kind of “toilet training program” to house-break all composers and performers because of the lyrics of a few. Ladies, how dare you?"

 

The problem with censorship or voluntary censorship is that it is only voluntary for those who are for it. Is it voluntary for the individuals or companies? In the game's industries current state, there is predominant demand for censorship of both which can hardly be called "voluntary." To further depict what type of censorship that Anita would be in favor of, let's look at her stances. She is against artistic portrayals of sex, violence, sexual violence, kinky sex, sexy women, women who are dumb, women who are weak, women who are strong, and women who are cunning. She is also opposed to things that arouse men, things that appeal to men, things that seem like men, and anything that blurs the difference between women and men. This is not someone who should be criticizing art as she asks 'what should' instead of 'what is.'

.  

 

Anita Sarkeesian is sexist in her own right

Okay, this is going to be fun. I get to accuse a F.I.N.O of being a F.I.N.O. What is a F.I.N.O? Feminist in name only. And no, I'm not going to relate this to 'how she is sexist against men' because that would be false equivalence. But if a white feminist goes on to say that I, as a black male, benefit from privilege as a man, I don't fucking want to hear it. They can't even say that white women are more sexualized than black men because I fucking beg to differ. Sure, an argument could be supposed that I, as a member of a binary gender, have privileges that elude transsexuals or transgenders and escape abuse from simply being  a member of the binary gender club. Of course, black people have a gender dynamic of their own, but that cultural dynamic was imposed by them by western practices. There are countries in Africa where the women have control the economy and thus have the power to stop wars because they declared it bad for business.Even in cultures outside European origin, there could be instances in which the women were the dominant gender. Nor do I, as a black male, carry a stigma of being mentally deficient...oh wait I do by the mere association of race. This is a tangent so I'm going to get back on topic, but you do not want to go there with me.

 

The type of feminism that Anita Sarkeesian adheres to is overreaching as she is searching for sexism in places that it isn't even there.Thus, she perpetuates a stereotype that feminists think all men are pigs, are paranoid, and see sexism that is non-existent. She only exasperates the problem by espousing a certain view of feminism(which is a joke in my opinion, but whatevs). Many people are unaware that there is a huge divide in feminism and the division has been labeled as the feminist sex wars which encompasses the liberal feminist camp. Anita would be an anti-sex feminist. She has made her position of sex abundantly clear as anything remotely sexual and women is declared 'degrading.'Her view of objectification is shown how she incorrectly uses the subject-object dichotomy, in that the woman is second place and it is irrelevant in how she feels. All that matters is how the others reacts.Her definition of misogyny is "manifested in many different ways from jokes to pornography to violence to the self-contempt women may feel towards their own bodies." Thus she necessitates debate on a semantic and etymological level. Never does she consider how the "object" feels. She does this because she is operating on a sex negative definition of objectification. A sex-positive definition of objectification focuses on how the woman feels as they can perfectly clarify if they are objectified or if they feel objectified. Objectification for them would be disregarding their thoughts, opinions, feelings, ability to consent, and their consciousness. This also doesn't have to base it's assumption that men are pigs or the woman's body is a fetish(news flash: the woman's body is not a fetish). Sex-positive feminism works on the premise that women should be able to do what they want with their own bodies. There might be economic issues, but that is another topic for another day.

 

Troll-baiters are worse than trolls

Anita Sarkeesian troll-baited. Pure and simple. The gaming community was mainly about playing games. She came along with an overly entitled opinion asking where are the games that cater to her social preferences? When she did, she got the predictable backlash of anyone saying stupid shit like that, and acted surprised. Then she tried to play herself as a professional victim as state such bullshit that it was just male gamers that attacked her and that there is some underline conspiracy that the attackers are "trying maintain the status quo of video games as a male dominated space with all the privileges and entitlements that come with an unquestioned boys club" in which in the attacker's "mind they concocted this grand fiction in which they are the heroic players of this massively multiplayer online game working together to take down an enemy and they casted [her] as the role as the villain" in which the villain's master plan was simply make a series of videos about women's representation on games. Those are her words on what is going on here. If you say dumb shit online, you expect to get trolled by thousands and when you get trolled by thousands, those trolls may end up talking to one another. Doesn't mean that there is a group conspiring together to discredit her. Romney says "Binders full of women" or "bayonets and horses," we troll the shit out of him. Some racist white kid tweets some stupid shit, he ends up on public shaming. White girl says some incredibly callous shit about the influx of Japanese people at her college due to the Tsunami,

so-called feminist accuses gamers of being misogynists and then, gets attacked and scrutinized accordingly. No, I'm not justifying attacks of rape and sexual assault, but at the same time she shouldn't be actively using such attacks for profit. And summarizing all the hate against her as just those attacks is ridiculous because plenty of people put forth valid criticism of her bullshit from all walks of life only to get ignored.

 

She allows comments based on their strategic value to her and has said so herself. She exploits existing dissent in order to create the illusion of an organized and coordinated enemy and then speaks out against the "enemy." To demonstrate her troll baiting, look no further than her kickstarter video. Prior to the video, she deleted the comments sections of the two videos preceding it(Hunger Games movie and books) in order to funnel angry youtubers into the only open discussion she allowed. Then she closed the discussion when it ended. Her motive? To prove that misogyny was a problem. However, why would she need to prove that if she had used it or allowed it before? Well, the kickstarter video was going to make her money. And the only difference between leaving the comments section open indefinitely and closing it once the kickstarter began was over is that the comments no longer serve the purpose of making a profit. She was happy to censor comments until she stood to benefit from the misogyny that she claims to be against.

 

She decided to advertise herself as a battleground. After opening up her videos comment section, she made a blog post showing off those comments and then declaring all of them as harassment. Then she made a post about her wikipedia vandalism emphasizing that a pornographic picture has been placed in the profile picture. She made a post about image macros that offended her. She made a post about how many website articles who support while omitting the few critical arguments about her. It's been almost a year now and she has not address not one of the many well-reasoned arguments that has been posited. Why? Because she is operating on the principle that if you ignore people until they insult you, they will be reasonable until they want to be heard. She abuses this principle to it's fullest extent. 

Edited May 13, 2013 by turbojet

[Badnik Mechanic]

SPOILER ALERT!

 
Ok for those who care, the second part of tropes vs women went online... and was subsequently pulled due to it breaking youtube TOS.

First of all, if it gets re-uploaded and you decide to watch it. 2 things.

1: It's as ridiculous as expected.

2: Anita decided not to give any spoiler warnings in the video. There are tons of spoilers to lots of games, in some cases, entire endings are spoilt, in others, major plot twists.

So if you do not care about the plots in any of these games.... (spoiler as the list is huge)

· Bionic Commando (2009)
· Borderlands 2 (2012)
· Breath of Fire IV (2000)
· Castlevania: The Dracula X Chronicles (2007)
· Castlevania: Lament of Innocence (2003)
· Castlevania: Lords of Shadow (2010)
· Dante's Inferno (2010)
· The Darkness II (2012)
· Dead Space (2008)
· Devil Summoner: Raidou Kuzunoha vs The Soulless Army (2006)
· Double Dragon Neon (2012)
· Gears of War 2 (2008)
· God of War: Ghost of Sparta (2010)
· The Godfather: The Game (2006)
· Grand Theft Auto III (2001)
· Hotline Miami (2012)
· Ico (2001)
· Infamous (2009)
· Inversion (2012)
· Kane & Lunch: Dead Men (2007)
· The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess (2006)
· MediEvil 2 (2000)
· Ninja Gaiden 3 (2010)
· Pandora's Tower (2011)
· Prey (2006)
· Resident Evil 5 (2009)
· Shadows of the Damned (2011)
· Tenchu: Shadow Assassins (2009)

By all means watch it, otherwise, avoid the video. If you've never played ICO and want to, definately avoid this video.

[Stacy]

Why did it break Youtubes Terms of Service? 

Edited May 28, 2013 by BW199148

[Tornado]

Bionic Commando? The sequel one, not the remake of the first game?

 

 

You mean that stupid ass shit where "BIONICS ARE PEOPLE" and it was his dead wife all along?

[Badnik Mechanic]

 

You mean that stupid ass shit where "BIONICS ARE PEOPLE" and it was his dead wife all along?

 

Yes... that one which is unanimously considered stupid.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Man, my eyes had an orgasm reading Turbojet's post.

 

However, I wanted to make some addition inputs to understand things much deeper.

Capitalism is sexist...wait what?

I get in so many arguments about this type of feminism that it is crazy. Here is the truth of why these games are made

1. These games are not made to keep feminists happy
2. These games are not made to subjugate women
3. These games were designed to be fun to play and,most importantly, make a profit for the designer

Well to be fair, women make up 47% of the gaming market if that link is to be believed, although granted that was back in 2011 so who knows how that statistic has changed. And given how games with female leads tend to not have as much markety support as a male leads, which leads to the sulf-fullfilling prophecy of producers and publishers not willing to take risks in making a female lead (never mind how mismanaged things can be as far as producing AAA games go), it could be argued that there is some sexism as far as games go.

 

But then you brought up how Uncharted 3, and how the latest Tomb Raider game only made 1/3^rd of the profits by comparison. So maybe there is something else here at play.

 

However, this being noted that we're talking about Anita's demand for her brand of a "pro-feminist" game. And if what you said about Anita is to be considered, the Tomb Raider reboot is completely irrelevant as an example as far as her flavor of feminism goes.

 

Also worth noting that there are different interests in gaming as far as the genders go, and considering how much more money men are willing to throw at games than women are, that also contributes to the profit and tastes that the gaming industry is catering to. 

 

I have a few research papers detailing these differences, such as how women are more into the relationships between characters and less of the good-and-evil differences like that which men are usually into, and I'll have to scour for the links to show them.

 

EDIT: FUCKING HELL! One of those research papers was taken down...anyone want me to send it to them?

 

Here's what I was talking about from "Girls and Gaming: A Summary of the Research With Implications For Practice" by Denise Agosto:

 

The studies discussed above indicate that girls favor the following characteristics in computer game content:

•   Games that eschew the conflict between good and evil;
•   Games that center on storylines and character development;
•   Games that are not competitive in nature;
•   Games that use real-life locales;
•   Games that feature strong female characters who are in charge of decisions and actions;
•   Games that enable users to play the role of main character, either through self-identification or through the power to make decisions;
•   Games that focus on human relationships;
•   Games with some educational value, as opposed to those designed purely for entertainment;
•   Games containing nonviolent action;
•   Games that reflect girls' common play patterns.

 

 

 

Another instance of Anita seeming trying to prove her thesis is how she handles Princess Peach. She constantly keeps mentioning that Princess Peach is a symbol of objectification because she had to be rescued in 13 of her 14 "core" games or games that Peach has been captured. She uses this as definitive proof to show that Peach has been delegated to the role of Distressed Damsel. However, Peach has in 46 games as a playable character and even went on to save Mario in one instance. Anita just ignores those other games because they would throw her analysis off. This is unacceptable. I mean come on? 46 to 14. By what analysis differentiates a core game versus a spin-off? Whether there is platforming? It's single player? If it is canon? Sure, there are like 9 Mario Party games, but again, taking them out because you say so is absurd because the character has been substantially more games where she isn't a damsel which is something because she isn't the protagonist or the hero of the franchise.

I don't know how I could challenge making exceptions like that as far as core games and spin-offs go, because it doesn't entirely ring right with me either now that I looked back on it. I happened to enjoy the RPGs like the Paper Mario series for example, where even when she gets kidnapped, she was gathering intel that, had she not given it, would have made Mario's quest to rescue her even harder if not downright impossible. Then she's completely playable early on in Super Paper Mario, and she wasn't even the only one captured this time around as Bowser (although he enjoyed it briefly), his minions, and Luigi ended up captured and enslaved during the game. In fact, Peach was the one who escaped the worst of the fates the other captured and brainwashed characters went through.

 

However, I do think that it should be noted how much of a greater value people put on the "core" games than they do spin-off titles as far as how characters go. I'd say that's probably another factor in not including them, but then I keep reminding myself that Mario isn't like Sonic and there's not that big a sense of a progression of time as far as the titles go since that seems mostly irrelevant to the franchise.

 

She shows an inability to think outside of gender terms as if that is the only thing that defines people.

Wait...what?!

 

Shouldn't that actually disqualify her and anyone else who does something like that from even calling themselves a feminist somewhat? I know there are some forms of it that seek to challenge, transcend, or even destroy those definitions, but if you show an inability to think outside of them? I dunno...

 

Many people are unaware that there is a huge divide in feminism and the division has been labeled as the feminist sex wars which encompasses the liberal feminist camp. 

You know, if this was made more aware, we might either have an even bigger division as that ends up playing a major part in politics, or people would look at feminism in a whole new light than the generalizations thrown at it.

 

Of course, given how there's not one single school of feminist thought, it could be both that happens.

 

Come to think of it, just WHY are people so unaware of that divide? You'd think that people could look into the movement and see that division instead of grouping every feminist as the same. And hell, some even recognize the differences and just don't give a fuck, which is just fucking backwards and would work against you if that group of feminists actually share more similarities with you ideology than the other group of feminist who they're against.

 

Seriously, what's up with that? Either some groups are hiding the Feminist Sex Wars or people just aren't interested in looking into the movement, because knowing this would definitely help some things out in the long run.

Troll-baiters are worse than trolls

One could definitely argue either that or that they are the same.

 

However, when troll-baiters bait the trolls, exactly who's ass are people more likely to call out?

 

Were it not for Anita being one-sided in her views, she'd probably not even get this level of criticism against her, and the claim that she is troll-baiting or any variation there of would likely have never gotten any kind of equivocal backlash. Then again, she might have known that, and may have been why she did it at all.

 

Granted, you're likely aware of these details that I'm bringing forth, but I feel a need to call some of these into question or add something to them. Considering that it really doesn't require much, if ANY, funding at all for anyone to do research like this, it's really questionable as to why she would need a kick-started.

 

This is probably me just playing on the safe-side tho, since I'm generally going by most of your words (which I happen to agree with, when you put them that way).

Edited May 29, 2013 by ChaosSupremeSonîc

[iDEATH]

Videos back up

 

Worth waiting two months for?

 

Hard to state an opinion on this one as I haven't played a lot of these games but so far it seems to have much of the same problems as the first one. She basically rattles of a list of games with the trope and says they're bad without delving too much into the context of the game.

 

Also her defininition of modern games seems a bit off to me, some of these games came out in 2000.

Edited May 29, 2013 by Jake Bird

[Stacy]

She brought up the GTA III Ending? Clearly that was a joke if she played the game she would know this. Jesus I can't watch some of this. 

 

Edited May 29, 2013 by BW199148

[iDEATH]

She brought up the GTA III Ending? Clearly that was a joke if she played the game she would know this. Jesus I can't watch some of this. 

 

 

She obviously has some trouble recognising jokes, as evidenced by using that wreck-it ralph clip. It's funny because it's a woman losing a man?.....um....I thought it was the machine gun in the wedding dress and the over the top, crappy backstory that was meant to be funny....guess I got it wrong...

[Stacy]

Also if she had played the game she would notice everybody in a GTA game is a stereotype as the game has a large amount of satire.

 

Also don't get me started on her comments about Max Payne.

[iDEATH]

Dunno if anyone's still interested in this but....part three's up...

 

[RK64]

I don't get it, whats wrong with the damsel in distress motif? The games that use it don't make the women look bad but just use them as plot devices to progress the plot or set up the game.  That being said, that's not a huge deal because the games that use the motif are just paying homage to the past (notably indie games) and since many games that use the trope just to set up gameplay in a, well gameplay focused game, then its not wrong or offensive to use the trope.

 

If anything, she should be upset with games that shamelessly and blaintly use women as sex symbols to sell games; pre-reboot Tomb Rader, Ninja Gaden, Dead or Alive, X-Blades, and (sadly ) Dragons Crown are games with solid/great gameplay that just use sex to try to pull people into the games, and the stories in said games don't paint an empowering image of women in general (not image of them being weak, as Dragons Crown, Tomb Rader, Ninja Gaden and Dead or Alive prove over wise with the women being very strong and powerful, but they aren't treated with much respect with there outrageous designs).

 

Game designers just need to be more tasteful when it comes to implementing females into games and even if they do use there sex appeal, they should do it right as games like Bayonetta prove.  And I think were getting there with gaming as Bioshock Infinite, Tomb Rader, and The Last of Us all have strong female characters that help the protagonist (or are the protagonist in the case of Tomb Rader) and not only are they realistically designed, but they are human characters who go through human experiences and struggles that make them better characters. 

 

She should be bashing on the more modern games rather than the past as they had very little story and there "save the princess" motif was just there to move the gameplay, not make women look weak.  And nice job singling Nintendo out with Zelda/Mario, as Nintendo games have the most deep stories in gaming  .

[Diogenes]

I don't get it, whats wrong with the damsel in distress motif? The games that use it don't make the women look bad but just use them as plot devices to progress the plot or set up the game.

Yeah but, that's kind of the problem? That a damsel in distress is usually less of a character/person, and more of a thing used to motivate other characters. And I would think it's pretty shitty to grow up as a girl that likes video games and see female characters almost exclusively as prizes for male heroes.

That being said, that's not a huge deal because the games that use the motif are just paying homage to the past

"Paying homage to the past" is not a good excuse for doing something shitty.

and since many games that use the trope just to set up gameplay in a, well gameplay focused game

Can they not set up the gameplay in some other way?

If anything, she should be upset with games that shamelessly and blaintly use women as sex symbols to sell games

It's possible for someone to be bothered by more than one thing.

[Komodin]

I don't get it, whats wrong with the damsel in distress motif? The games that use it don't make the women look bad but just use them as plot devices to progress the plot or set up the game.

 

That is pretty bad in itself; with them being plot devices, they tend to lack agency in what little actions they actually do.

[iDEATH]

I don't get it, whats wrong with the damsel in distress motif? The games that use it don't make the women look bad but just use them as plot devices to progress the plot or set up the game.  That being said, that's not a huge deal because the games that use the motif are just paying homage to the past (notably indie games) and since many games that use the trope just to set up gameplay in a, well gameplay focused game, then its not wrong or offensive to use the trope.

 

If anything, she should be upset with games that shamelessly and blaintly use women as sex symbols to sell games; pre-reboot Tomb Rader, Ninja Gaden, Dead or Alive, X-Blades, and (sadly ) Dragons Crown are games with solid/great gameplay that just use sex to try to pull people into the games, and the stories in said games don't paint an empowering image of women in general (not image of them being weak, as Dragons Crown, Tomb Rader, Ninja Gaden and Dead or Alive prove over wise with the women being very strong and powerful, but they aren't treated with much respect with there outrageous designs).

 

Game designers just need to be more tasteful when it comes to implementing females into games and even if they do use there sex appeal, they should do it right as games like Bayonetta prove.  And I think were getting there with gaming as Bioshock Infinite, Tomb Rader, and The Last of Us all have strong female characters that help the protagonist (or are the protagonist in the case of Tomb Rader) and not only are they realistically designed, but they are human characters who go through human experiences and struggles that make them better characters. 

 

She should be bashing on the more modern games rather than the past as they had very little story and there "save the princess" motif was just there to move the gameplay, not make women look weak.  And nice job singling Nintendo out with Zelda/Mario, as Nintendo games have the most deep stories in gaming  .

 

The problem with the damsel in distress is exactly what you said. It treats the woman as an object, the prize. Older games were limited in their ability to tell a story so mostly used a default story everybody understands (the damsel in distress). It's fine for modern games to pay homage to older games and it's ok to use the damsel in distress every now and then, still using it as a default plot device is pretty poor story telling in an era where more effort and complex storytelling is possible.

 

As for her being concerned about the blatant sexualisation of female characters, remember this is only part three in a....how many is it now? 13 or something...part series. She'll get to that....in a few years time....

 

The main problem with this video is that, her arguments on damsels in distress aren't based on facts but on opinions. She thinks the DID trope shows characters like Zelda or Peach to be weak, but there's countless videos in response that argue that it's quite the opposite.

 

In this video, she's talking about dudes in distress and says they're not sexist, but her argument essentially boils down to, "it's sexist if it's a woman and not sexist if it's a man because.....I don't think it is" yet she passes it off as fact.

 

She's also neglected to mention games where you play as a woman trying to rescue a damsel in distress, like her beloved Mirror's Edge, if it's sexist for a man to go out and rescue a DID, is it sexist if a woman does the same?

[Tani Coyote]

I don't think most companies have an agenda besides money. They make what they presume will sell... money trumps any ideology. Just ask a politician.

I'm guessing there's poor communication that gamers, increasingly not a group skewed towards males, don't have an issue with female leads or females being beyond the damsel in distress role. I see how many men enjoy Bayonetta (no jokes please) and the like, and can see the protagonist's sex seems to be the last thing on a gamer's mind so much as graphics, story or gameplay. Most people seem to care more about a game being fun than exactly how you go about that. I mean heck, my favorite character to play as in Birth by Sleep is Aqua, and I have no interest in women.

As was mentioned prior, that games with female leads tend to sell less creates a self-reinforcing prophecy; it might have just been a fluke or coincidence, but the industry sees that as the consumers not desiring another female lead and so becomes reluctant to use one. Prices and sales are how everyone in a market communicates, after all.

As for the users and not the company side of things... yes it would be nice if they learned to stop being dicks. That's unlikely to happen though, sadly.

[RK64]

Guess I didn't realize the depth of the damsel in distress motif has, so sorry for my ignorance of the matter

 

You guy's are all right; its messed up that women in that motif are more or less "prizes" for the heroes in the end and even if the games that used the motif are either from a time that tech couldn't tell deep stories or if there used for nostalgic purposes, its still wrong.

 

I never said the role was morally right, I just thought that the role the motif it has in games was harmless if the game has little to no story, but I guess I just wasn't fully thinking when I came to that thought.