I take it you are in favour of banning guns, too, since there's a clear link between gun violence and the proliferation of guns in the USA? And even if you actually are in favour, good luck trying to convince the rest of your country of that, haha.
I don't think Anita has to change anything in her videos, and she can do whatever she wants. But I think it's problematic that the media at large is highlighting only that side of the debate, shutting out any critical analysis of her videos to their much larger audience, and lumping anyone presenting a different counter-opinion in with harassing trolls. Anita is an individual content creator, and can do whatever she wants. But I do think the press actually does have a responsibility to steward a positive and helpful and fair and balanced discourse.
What other side? She's arguing to prove the existence of a pattern of representation, so the only other side is saying it doesn't exist. Sometimes there aren't two sides, or sides with valid views worth either consideration or respect. Arguing that the press has an obligation to give fair and balanced coverage to an issue without equally valid views is ludicrous because that's simply not always true.
It's been so thoroughly politicized now that it would take a little healing before we get there. But no, I think everyone supports it. If the problem is presented as, man all the games at E3 looked identical. That is something everyone would probably agree with, and it is the ratio problem. The problem is that it's frame in a way that excludes and attacks people.
I can safely call bullshitasaparticipantinthemanypastthreadsonthisverytopic. Of note is that these are only some of the threads I participated in dealing with diversity issues in gaming, so there are undoubtedly a number more I wasn't a part of.
You can go ahead and read through all of those threads, and if you still want to claim that everyone is all for representation and diversity and inclusiveness, then you're either in denial or being purposefully obtuse. Because in those threads range arguments from the dismissive (who gives a fuck?/is it really a problem?/you're making something out of nothing/you're just looking to be outraged) to the stupid (you're perpetuating sexism by discussing it/maybe you're the real bigot/if we stop talking about it it goes away/stop being divisive/what about other groups?/you better represent everyone or no one then/stop forcing creators to suit your whims) to the offensive (it's totally OK to say faggot) to the misguided (minority characters need to justify their existence/they need to be included for a reason/not in my game/but what if they're bad/it's shoehorning) to the angry (stop trying to ruin my games/SJWs/why do you hate men) to the tone deaf oblivious (but what about men?/not all men/what about x female character I have to play as?).
So if you want to assert that everyone thinks diversity is great, you can feel free to do so, but you'd be hard pressed to prove it. Even taking you at your probable intended meaning of speaking in generalities (which is ironic in a thread with a lot of posts hand-wringing over gamers or games being generalized), the threads speak for themselves. They're not short and full of head nodding and murmurs of agreement, there is significant and sometimes incredibly gross pushback or dismissal at the idea of inclusiveness and representation.
Feel free to count distinct users and whether they agree, disagree, or don't care about representation and diversity. The results will probably shock you.
What other side? She's arguing to prove the existence of a pattern of representation, so the only other side is saying it doesn't exist. Sometimes there aren't two sides, or sides with valid views worth either consideration or respect. Arguing that the press has an obligation to give fair and balanced coverage to an issue without equally valid views is ludicrous because that's simply not always true.
The "other side" is literally just "She cherry-picked, she's lying, she's a scam artist, she wears earrings." The other side is literally all directed at Anita's character or a dismissal, denial or subject change.
That's literally all to the other side. We've been going at it for years, and that it literally all I see from the "other side." It's all denial: "There's no sexism/misogyny", intellectualization: "But what about this unrelated thing", rationalization: "But context/but realism, but target demographic/capitalism" trivialization: "who cares!" and projection: "you're sexist/a white knight."
All of those responses are just slightly more rationalized and constrained versions of the more truthful attacks directed at people like Anita.
The "other side" is literally just "She cherry-picked, she's lying, she's a scam artist, she wears earrings." The other side is literally all directed at Anita's character or a dismissal, denial or subject change.
That's literally all to the other side. We've been going at it for years, and that it literally all I see from the "other side." It's all denial: "There's no sexism/misogyny", intellectualization: "But what about this unrelated thing", rationalization: "But context/but realism, but target demographic/capitalism" trivialization: "who cares!" and projection: "you're sexist/a white knight."
All of those responses are just slightly more rationalized and constrained versions of the more truthful attacks directed at people like Anita.
I'll have to disagree. If you aren't even recognizing the capacity for thoughtful criticism of the Tropes vs Women series, then I think that signals a problem in your outlook on it.
I'll have to disagree. If you aren't even recognizing the capacity for thoughtful criticism of the Tropes vs Women series, then I think that signals a problem in your outlook on it.
I would love to read an indepth critique of her content.
But I can never tell if people want to talk about Anita or the actual tropes she's talking about. I've searched through so much, but nothing directly talks about what she's talking about, and that is disappointing. Also I feel as though people see the critique as somehow an objective viewpoint when it obviously isn't because...well, it's a critique. Which is an inherently subjective thing.
I definitely recognize the capacity for thoughtful critique of Anita Sarkeesian's series.
It's just funny to me that the threads and posts critiquing the series(and Anita Sarkeesian in general) outnumber the threads and posts critiquing sexism in games by about 100 to 1.
I don't think this is because sexism in games has been "solved."
The "other side" is literally just "She cherry-picked, she's lying, she's a scam artist, she wears earrings." The other side is literally all directed at Anita's character or a dismissal, denial or subject change.
That's literally all to the other side. We've been going at it for years, and that it literally all I see from the "other side." It's all denial: "There's no sexism/misogyny", intellectualization: "But what about this unrelated thing", rationalization: "But context/but realism, but target demographic/capitalism" trivialization: "who cares!" and projection: "you're sexist/a white knight."
All of those responses are just slightly more rationalized and constrained versions of the more truthful attacks directed at people like Anita.
The cherry-picking to me seems different from other claims of lying, scamming, or attire. I can remember every so often in a Tropes thread a poster talking about how it did seem like she was cherry-picking, how they didn't favor the style of her videos, how she might've been off with something, but still appreciated what she's trying to do. Is that still the "other side" based on your definition?
I take it you are in favour of banning guns, too, since there's a clear link between gun violence and the proliferation of guns in the USA? And even if you actually are in favour, good luck trying to convince the rest of your country of that, haha.
I'll have to disagree. If you aren't even recognizing the capacity for thoughtful criticism of the Tropes vs Women series, then I think that signals a problem in your outlook on it.
The cherry-picking to me seems different from other claims of lying, scamming, or attire. I can remember every so often in a Tropes thread a poster talking about how it did seem like she was cherry-picking, how they didn't favor the style of her videos, how she might've been off with something, but still appreciated what she's trying to do. Is that still the "other side"?
Well I agree with some of her points and the debate about women being sexualized in gaming is an important topic that should be discussed.
But some of her views I don't agree with and just by saying that these days you are immediately thrown under the bus as a harasser, basically many people believe her opinion is 100% right and anybody who disagrees is an asshole.
So people who wanna discuss this rationally does not dare, and the people who harass her and truly are making hateful comments, they get the attention and make it impossible to have a proper debate about it.
But I for one think she should make videos about it, but censoring people who actually make legitimate criticism is not right either.
I definitely recognize the capacity for thoughtful critique of Anita Sarkeesian's series.
It's just funny to me that the threads and posts critiquing the series(and Anita Sarkeesian in general) outnumber the threads and posts critiquing sexism in games by about 100 to 1.
Because critiquing those who critique videogames from a social and cultural stand point is a way to keep videogames being considered art even though we consider videogames art. Or something. Basically dont bring politics into something that's supposed to be fun! Except, please take videogames seriously.
I'm hardly the best example, but here's a posts of mine from the Background Decoration Pt 1 thread. It was a general response in that same discussion about the conclusions I was arriving at, and it hand links to several other comments. In response to a comment only going so far as saying it's possible for there to be a critical response that doesn't rely on character assassination, I think it's a little unsettling that it needed substantiating.
If you're looking for more categorical "this series shouldn't exist" reactions, this probably won't fit the bill. I've spelled out that feeling elsewhere as well.
But some of her views I don't agree with and just by saying that these days you are immediately thrown under the bus as a harasser, basically many people believe her opinion is 100% right and anybody who disagrees is an asshole.
I think you'll find there's some thoughtful criticism here in this thread; nobody's really being "thrown under the bus" or dismissed out of hand. Especially now that the thread has slowed down and most of the kneejerk drivebys have come and gone.
By all means, share your disagreements. There'll almost certainly be some pushback but it'll probably be in the form of discussion and not accusations that you're a "harasser".
The cherry-picking to me seems different from other claims of lying, scamming, or attire. I can remember every so often in a Tropes thread a poster talking about how it did seem like she was cherry-picking, how they didn't favor the style of her videos, how she might've been off with something, but still appreciated what she's trying to do. Is that still the "other side" based on your definition?
Banning guns would be easier than banning attitudes.
Regulating guns and better/less stigma on mental health would be the best option.
I don't get the cherry picking thing. If you go on TVTropes.com and look at the lists, there are "cherry-picked" examples of each trope. Why would you pick something that didn't fall within the trope? She'll get to the positive examples when she gets there at the end. People keep talking about Alyx...wait for the partner trope. Or they bring up Bayonetta, wait for the fighting f toy trope. etc. Those characters don't apply to whatever is being discussed now.
In terms of how she handles the content, there's this large feeling of ignorance from her. I don't really think she fully understands how game mechanics work. Or how incentives and pacing and all of that nuance works. Like when she pointed out how dead NPCs disappear. That's something that has nothing to do with disposability, and everything to do with keeping the game from slowing down.
All of those problems, make me facepalm...but I don't think it takes away from the general message of women being stereotyped quite a bit in a lot of games. And I think by pointing out the stereotypes it helps people try harder to subvert or deviate from the cliche.
In response to a comment only going so far as saying it's possible for there to be a critical response that doesn't rely on character assassination, I think it's a little unsettling that it needed substantiating.
I read zeldablue's comment not as a failure to recognize that thoughtful criticism can exist, but that she has yet to see such a criticism. Obviously that type of criticism can exist; I was asking if you had any examples that did exist.
I read zeldablue's comment not as a failure to recognize that thoughtful criticism can exist, but that she has yet to see such a criticism. Obviously that type of criticism can exist; I was asking if you had any examples that did exist.
Yeah. Sorry if it came across in a really bad, dismissive way. I want to see the criticisms for the criticisms of the actual tropes.
I don't think sexism is a bad thing. Sexism literally just means treating someone differently based off of their sex...and we all do that on a daily basis. To deny that would be pretty silly. There are good aspects to sexism as well as bad aspects to sexism for both sexes. With that in mind, could the people against Anita see the discussion in a better light? Sexism isn't condemnable, it's deeply tied into our lives. And a lot of it is left over from our ancestors' old views. You can't disassociate yourself from it. If every girl is perceived as a sex object by a man...then also know that every man is perceived as a potential rapist to a woman. (Especially at night...walking home alone. >__>)
both views are very bad, poisonous and need more thought.
Well... To quote myself in... the very thing you're responding to:
"She is not comparing good representations with bad representations, she's comparing how in similar representations, when they occur, the women feature sexualization and\or lack of agency (or in the Mrs Male Character video, how their "female-ness" is their only quality). As if the only reason the woman was chosen was so she could be passively victimized or sexualized. Otherwise they'd just use a guy."
Why would she bring up Bonnie when Bonnie isn't background decoration?
Context is important for internal consistency. In that instance context is awesome, but on a meta level it doesn't matter as much because no matter what the context is, someone wrote it. Someone decided to put in. Someone made the context. These games don't exist on their own. They didn't spring from Zeus's forehead fully formed. Everything in a game is a choice.
Also, context can't "'break' a trend." That makes no sense.
And before you bring up social commentary on the trend or social critique, I suggest you go back and watch the part of the video where she discusses that and why these games aren't it.
Oh, do please elaborate. Please tell me broad spectrum of representation of women in RDR. Extra points if you include the ones you can tie up, throw on railroad tracks and get a trophy\achievement after they get killed by a train.
Then why would she bring up those ads if they aren't background decoration either?
I don't understand why this would matter though, even if it's just a created choice (which as you said obviously always is) it is still in its purpose a tool or tone for clarifying.
I would very much like to, as I don't recall what she said. Was it in part 1 or 2?
Yes, women with no function other than cattle fodder exist in the game? What is the issue with that? The game features off the top of my head 3-4 main female characters who are good morality personified. I'd say most of the main men featured, who are in this case white with the exception of maybe 3-4 mexicans were totally sexist, evil pyschopaths. There are maybe 5 or 6 "good" male characters. In fact one of the best male characters in the game, who similar to the women is mostly good morality personified, is Native American. The game does take a very good view, if not humorously invigorated view of sexism and racism, as would apply with Rockstars taste and style.
In every single one of these threads, you have people trying to "explain" that the over sexual objectification/ non-playability of women is due to games being realistic/non-realistic. Its a sad meme at this point.
The "other side" is literally just "She cherry-picked, she's lying, she's a scam artist, she wears earrings." The other side is literally all directed at Anita's character or a dismissal, denial or subject change.
That's literally all to the other side. We've been going at it for years, and that it literally all I see from the "other side." It's all denial: "There's no sexism/misogyny", intellectualization: "But what about this unrelated thing", rationalization: "But context/but realism, but target demographic/capitalism" trivialization: "who cares!" and projection: "you're sexist/a white knight."
All of those responses are just slightly more rationalized and constrained versions of the more truthful attacks directed at people like Anita.
Because at the time I don't think it was unfair to examine said facts about her character considering what she was arguing and what she had reciveved for arguing those points. It was all just looking at her motive for arguing and whether or not she was a "fraud" which again, I don't think is totally unfair to look at. When it actually came to bringing those points up, I can totally agree that many who did it (seemingly youtubers and specifcally thunderfoot) did it with lack of maturity and condescendingly, which is simply shitty because nobody wants to listen or respond to someone who is condescending. I hated how they brought up, just stunk of nastiness and sarcasm, which gets us nowhere. Now when it comes to the nitty and gritty of her videos those points go out the window as that's not what the arguments should be about, but there have been valid points on her content, "cherry picking" perhaps not being the best term, more "manipulating". Of course it's cherry picking, it's the definition of cherry picking, but cherry picking in itself isn't bad.
I agree, but like Stark said, "good luck with that"
haha?
I don't get the cherry picking thing. If you go on TVTropes.com and look at the lists, there are "cherry-picked" examples of each trope. Why would you pick something that didn't fall within the trope? She'll get to the positive examples when she gets there at the end. People keep talking about Alyx...wait for the partner trope. Or they bring up Bayonetta, wait for the fighting f toy trope. etc. Those characters don't apply to whatever is being discussed now.
I'm waiting for the others as well, or waiting to see what qualifies as a problem or as a good thing to her, especially in genres and games I don't have to worry about being spoilers with. With the cherry-picking, the difference between TVTropes and TvW is probably the level of subjectivity.
This is mainly Anita's project, and with it comes her opinion. I haven't visited TVTropes in a long time, so I don't know or remember if there's an air of deciding things that are or aren't good/favorable/over-used/etc. With TvW, so far (5 videos in?), talking about the representation of women based on issues with it, if a game is featured in the series up to this point, there's a 75% possibility that the game has a problem, from her perspective.
This is an aside from my opinion, but in the past, I've argued that the cherry-picking thing as omitting context from some games creates an air of incomplete perspective for some of her audience, mainly the ones who haven't played the games in-question. It can be valid that a game gets mentioned there as a means of showing quantity, but it sucks to me that the quality and context of the scene might barely be touched on, leaving a bad impression that games who've been looked down upon for playing such games have to correct. She's not bound to doing that by anyone, but I think that would show a deeper understanding of what she's studying. If she does say "there's some context missing from the way I'm presenting things," good.
In terms of how she handles the content, there's this large feeling of ignorance from her. I don't really think she fully understands how game mechanics work. Or how incentives and pacing and all of that nuance works. Like when she pointed out how dead NPCs disappear. That's something that has nothing to do with disposability, and everything to do with keeping the game from slowing down.
All of those problems, make me facepalm...but I don't think it takes away from the general message of women being stereotyped quite a bit in a lot of games. And I think by pointing out the stereotypes it helps people try harder to subvert or deviate from the cliche.
"Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position."
Once again, I'm not sure this makes sense. If she's listing off examples of each trope then there is no reason to talk about Cortana during the Mrs. Male trope video or Bayonetta during the background decoration trope video.
Everyone really wants her to talk about all the great female characters...but it's not going to happen until she gets to the characters who aren't in potentially harmful tropes.
It looks like she'll probably talk about Glados and Chell from Portal and the Beyond Good and Evil lady. Along with any other good examples her backers suggested looking into.
I would agree she tends to manipulate or not understand certain things when pointing out gender roles in games.
At least when she insulted Zelda, she said that Zelda was a more helpful, useful version of the trope. So she has some fairness in her.
I agree, but like Stark said, "good luck with that"
haha?
I'm waiting for the others as well, or waiting to see what qualifies as a problem or as a good thing to her, especially in genres and games I don't have to worry about being spoilers with. With the cherry-picking, the difference between TVTropes and TvW is probably the level of subjectivity.
This is mainly Anita's project, and with it comes her opinion. I haven't visited TVTropes in a long time, so I don't know or remember if there's an air of deciding things that are or aren't good/favorable/over-used/etc. With TvW, so far (5 videos in?), talking about the representation of women based on issues with it, if a game is featured in the series up to this point, there's a 75% possibility that the game has a problem, from her perspective.
This is an aside from my opinion, but in the past, I've argued that the cherry-picking thing as omitting context from some games creates an air of incomplete perspective for some of her audience, mainly the ones who haven't played the games in-question. It can be valid that a game gets mentioned there as a means of showing quantity, but it sucks to me that the quality and context of the scene might barely be touched on, leaving a bad impression that games who've been looked down upon for playing such games have to correct. She's not bound to doing that by anyone, but I think that would show a deeper understanding of what she's studying. If she does say "there's some context missing from the way I'm presenting things," good.
I understand that sentiment. But I've seen Hitman Absolution and there are literally no good examples of females in that game. They are all rich and b*tchy and slutty. Same with the new Max Payne.
Red Dead, I've played the beginning of it, I had fun with it with my female friends. I think Bonnie seems nice. I have a very neutral view on this title, besides it's fun and my friends like it a lot. (I don't like how you can accidentally skin the dead horse)
I loved Assassin's Creed II and the ladies went along with Ezio's character. Though I did find it kind of lame compared to blending with the priests from the original title. The womanizing theme was off putting and tacky, but still bearable.
I can't say much about the other games. But there is one thing they have in common and that is the passive sexualized women/sex workers. And there suffering is largely trivialized in a way to incentivize the player into taking affirmative action. The empathy comes from their percieved innocence, defenselessness and their ability to have sex with you.
It's sad because people feel as though that passive role had to be played by sexualized women. As if other men wouldn't work because it'd be too weak, weird or even gay.
Then I think about how Ocarina of Time treated empathy with the Emo Punk Kid. When you meet him as a child he calls everyone disgusting. And then you find out his parents treat him like a failure. Then when you meet him as an adult you see him in the forest and he's surprised by the fact that you are nice to him. And then he dies. Seemed like a commentary on Japan's youth and their suicide forest problem. It gave off the feeling that if you had been more empathetic to other boys and men, they'd be saved just as often as all the sex workers in modern gaming.
Sorry, I didn't mean to argue she should bring up other characters from other games. I know the others/great females will be mentioned later. I was only talking about the games she was bringing up.
Sorry, I didn't mean to argue she should bring up other characters from other games. I know the others/great females will be mentioned later. I was only talking about the games she was bringing up.
In "Women as Background Decoration Part one" beginning at the 28:27 mark, she makes her claim of how video games are linked to real life behavior, which can be succinctly represented with her statement; "Viewing media that frames women as objects or sexual playthings profoundly impacts how real-life women are perceived and treated in the world around us."
That, and the much more generalized claim of other critics that human behavior is directly affected/ reinforced by video games and/or media, is something that is certainly debatable and not only has two sides, but a very grey middle ground.
Red Dead, I've played the beginning of it, I had fun with it with my female friends. I think Bonnie seems nice. I have a very neutral view on this title, besides it's fun and my friends like it a lot. (I don't like how you can accidentally skin the dead horse)
In "Women as Background Decoration Part one" beginning at the 28:27 mark, she makes her claim of how video games are linked to real life behavior, which can be succinctly represented with her statement; "Viewing media that frames women as objects or sexual playthings profoundly impacts how real-life women are perceived and treated in the world around us."
That, and the much more generalized claim of other critics that human behavior is directly affected/ reinforced by video games and/or media, is something that is certainly debatable and not only has two sides, but a very grey middle ground.
I think its hard to argue that media does not affect our perception of the world around us or else propaganda would not be effective. Though I guess, it could be argued what effect and to what degree the representation of women in media has affected societies perceptions.
They essentially are. From the video. "Developers regularly utilize the brutalization of women’s bodies, and especially the bodies of female prostitutes, as an indicator of just how harsh, cruel and unforgiving their game worlds are. In some of the most pernicious examples, dead or mutilated female bodies are used to decorate virtual game environments as a way to invoke a sexually charged creepy mood or edgy atmosphere."
It's the same basic thing. They just happened to extend it to their ad campaign.
I don't understand why this would matter though, even if it's just a created choice (which as you said obviously always is) it is still in its purpose a tool or tone for clarifying.
The game features off the top of my head 3-4 main female characters who are good morality personified. I'd say most of the main men featured, who are in this case white with the exception of maybe 3-4 mexicans were totally sexist, evil pyschopaths. There are maybe 5 or 6 "good" male characters. In fact one of the best male characters in the game, who similar to the women is mostly good morality personified, is Native American. The game does take a very good view, if not humorously invigorated view of sexism and racism, as would apply with Rockstars taste and style.
Can you be more specific about the women? Since there is a broad array, who are they and how are they a positive representation and "morality personified."
I'm hardly the best example, but here's a posts of mine from the Background Decoration Pt 1 thread. It was a general response in that same discussion about the conclusions I was arriving at, and it hand links to several other comments. In response to a comment only going so far as saying it's possible for there to be a critical response that doesn't rely on character assassination, I think it's a little unsettling that it needed substantiating.
If you're looking for more categorical "this series shouldn't exist" reactions, this probably won't fit the bill. I've spelled out that feeling elsewhere as well.
On the first page of this thread, I responded with concern that Sarkeesian used a scene as an example for her criticism, which within the storyline was actually highlighting a monstrous human trafficking ring, in parallel to (and criticism of) real-world events.
Is this a reference to the Watch Dogs scene? That scene would have been better placed in part 2 than 1. It was in no way a criticism in any substantive sense other than a hamfisted "human trafficking bad!!" Which is no different than Assassin Creed 2's apparent "murdering an infinite number of courtesans bad!" criticism.
In "Women as Background Decoration Part one" beginning at the 28:27 mark, she makes her claim of how video games are linked to real life behavior, which can be succinctly represented with her statement; "Viewing media that frames women as objects or sexual playthings profoundly impacts how real-life women are perceived and treated in the world around us."
That, and the much more generalized claim of other critics that human behavior is directly affected/ reinforced by video games and/or media, is something that is certainly debatable and not only has two sides, but a very grey middle ground.
She also references studies and experiments on the subject during that part of the video, plus provides links to the studies on the episode's blog post on her website.
There hasn't been a single thunderf00t video that wasn't moronic shit. I mean seriously, the motherfucker begins by tying real life threats to Sarkeesian's life to the damsel in distress trope. It's so remarkably tone deaf and insensitive that I wonder how a rational adult could ever think that the bile that comes out of the man's mouth is anything close to sensible.
The "other side" is literally just "She cherry-picked, she's lying, she's a scam artist, she wears earrings." The other side is literally all directed at Anita's character or a dismissal, denial or subject change.
Yep. And if the argument boils down to "she's cherry picking!" then I roll my eyes hard enough to fear they will tumble out of my eye sockets. That it often comes with dismissal based on pushing an "agenda" despite that being the purpose is just icing.
What's truly frustrating though is what you allude to: when people acknowledge that there's an issue but then refuse to engage or acknowledge individual examples.
In "Women as Background Decoration Part one" beginning at the 28:27 mark, she makes her claim of how video games are linked to real life behavior, which can be succinctly represented with her statement; "Viewing media that frames women as objects or sexual playthings profoundly impacts how real-life women are perceived and treated in the world around us."
That, and the much more generalized claim of other critics that human behavior is directly affected/ reinforced by video games and/or media, is something that is certainly debatable and not only has two sides, but a very grey middle ground.
I think you're unfairly conflating two separate but seemingly similar ideas. One assertion, the one you're likely alluding to that most people reject, is that there is a causal link between media and someone's actions; that is, the violent media directly causes changes in behavior, making someone do something. The other, that is being argued here, is that media unconsciously affects or shapes our perception of the world. The key difference here is about causality. I'm not seeing it argued that playing a game with some misogynist content is going to turn you into a misogynist, certainly not the way people proposed playing violent games made you violent. What is being argued is that seeing a totality of media that have common elements of sexist ideas or views can reinforce some of those views.
I mean, otherwise you're seemingly arguing that media does not have an impact on how you view or perceive the world.
As to your second point, I don't really see how there are sides to that discussion unless you're denying the ability of media to have any impact upon a person and their perception of the world, and good luck proving that out. You would be denying that advertising, propaganda, and the news have any efficacy in consciously or subconsciously affecting someone, for instance. And given the profound impact some books and movies can have on people, it remains a hard point to argue. What people deny about games and other media is a direct causal effect with becoming violent or shit like that, whereas Anita, from my take, is speaking to all media with these sort of tropes collectively having a subconscious impact on how we view women.
There hasn't been a single thunderf00t video that wasn't moronic shit. I mean seriously, the motherfucker begins by tying real life threats to Sarkeesian's life to the damsel in distress trope. It's so remarkably tone deaf and insensitive that I wonder how a rational adult could ever think that the bile that comes out of the man's mouth is anything close to sensible.
From what I could tell in his latest video, he made the correct observation that Anita was supporting someone that enables media which is contradictory to her principles.
I have to say, after Thunderfoot gets done with his thoughtless, sexist and clumsy "reversal" of the Damsel in Distress concept, and the obtuse Jack Thompson parallel, the segment showing how Joss Whedon's work could be similarly highlighted with Sarkeesian's criticisms when pulled from their context does illustrate some of my concerns about the Tropes vs Women videos.
His (overbearing) use of these ideas highlight why "insider" and "outsider" so often end up in the reactions to criticism. A critic doesn't need to justify their part in a community to report what they see in it, but for that community to react, a sense that the critic gets the whole picture is helpful. Based on how successfully out of context Thunderfoot's "out of context" examples from Whedon are, I don't think it's too much of a reach to think he's familiar with them. That's why this segment had so much bite for me.
Thunderfoot's use of things like Firefly to show how "off" Sarkeesian's words can feel is effective criticism, even in spite of his brutish presentation. Showing things understood as positive for gender representations being critiqued by the same standard Sarkeesian uses extends to the core of some of the abrupt reactions from self identifying gamers to the Tropes videos. Identifying tropes can feel aggressive to audiences when there's such a gap between identifying them and showing how they're used against a group. A mere observation can come off as an accusation. Her later videos will have time to work in these concepts, and they'll be the most interesting to me, because it's closer to my level of awareness on the topic. I think a trap Sarkeesian fell into in earlier videos (and less so, now) is that she peppered her introductory survey of tropes with critiques outside the scope of what she showed in her examples. She presumed audience actions and enjoyment of behaviors she was exerting into her examples. That goes outside identifying tropes that assume sexist roles for women and into personal accusation. To people who played those games and didn't act or respond that way (or feel the context conveyed the opposite), it makes her words feel insincere or incompetent. Without that peripheral flavor commentary, that knee-jerk response in audiences would be diminished, while keeping the focus on the tropes themselves.
I can't overstate the important divide between inclusion and endorsement. I also think an individual's capacity to assess and subvert meaning in art, sometimes in spite of the creator's goals, is why a simple survey of tropes can create a distorted understanding of a medium. I think deeper examinations are more fruitful to people entrenched in the problem. That will hopefully be coming down the line. Sarkeesian's early videos are reaching toward the people who need the primer on these concepts.
Her work is bringing out *more* discussion on gender. *More* art. Even Thunderfoot is positioning his work in terms of a feminist outlook, crude though it may be. Thunderfoot's sardonic "criticism" of Whedon's work weirdly shows why Sarkeesian's "hold up a mirror" approach has succeeded in infusing a "starter set" of tools to assess cultural symbolism. The point of the videos is to demonstrate the state of gender representation in videogames, and how these trends appear through the lens of a feminist outlook. She's achieved precisely that.
Also, I die inside a little every time Thunderfoot says "Josh Whedon"
Her work is bringing out *more* discussion on gender. *More* art. Even Thunderfoot is positioning his work in terms of a feminist outlook, crude though it may be. Thunderfoot's sardonic "criticism" of Whedon's work weirdly shows why Sarkeesian's "hold up a mirror" approach has succeeded in infusing a "starter set" of tools to assess cultural symbolism. The point of the videos is to demonstrate the state of gender representation in videogames, and how these trends appear through the lens of a feminist outlook. She's achieved precisely that.
Heh, I'm glad I wasn't the only one who thought the spectacle of a guy like Thunderfoot learning how to do cultural criticism on the fly was strangely encouraging.
thunderf00t can be a tad acerbic at times, but his points are very valid. It's the underpinning of 'oppressive patriarchy' which rings alarm bells for me, and she often seems to find little value in contextual/period-appropriate narrative that doesn't automatically favour the female. It's a flawed and over-idealised view of things, even though I recognise the more shlocky and clumsy parts of many games.
A) Calling Anita a "damsel" is outrageously misogynistic at worst, grossly patronizing at best.
B) Jack Thompson comparison is so limp and relies on putting a bunch of words into a bunch of mouths.
C) This whole "well let me tell you how to handle death threats" thing is patronizing and not even relevant to anything.
D) 501(c)(3) organizations are not charities, they're tax-exempt non-profit "Religious, Educational, Charitable, Scientific, Literary, Testing for Public Safety, to Foster National or International Amateur Sports Competition, or Prevention of Cruelty to Children or Animals Organizations".
E) "She got money!!" is still meaningless.
Six minutes in and this video is already exclusively an energy I don't need in my life.
I gave him the chance to talk about two examples from Whedon, and boy am I not impressed. The whole "but she ignores the context though" angle just falls so flat. What is this context that she's ignoring? In the case of Cabin in the Woods and Firefly, there actually is something being subverted. Four of Firefly's nine stars are women and they're given notably atypical professions (mechanic, soldier) or power (Inara is politically powerful, doesn't answer to a pimp, picks all her clients, often for her personal pleasure; River is sort of a football sometimes but she's also The Most Powerful Being in the Universe). The whole point of Saffron is that she plays into this fantasy of a happy slavewife but is actually running a con, and everyone slags Malcolm for buying into the fantasy. The entire text of Cabin in the Woods is "hey let's explore and discuss horror tropes and then subvert them all". Jules does her dance for the titillation of a slobbering male audience and the Whedon puts that audience on screen.
Whedon is actually subverting things with these scenes. He's subverting both the audience's reading of the scene and also the world he's built in the work. What context do these games have that Sarkeesian is missing? Setting aside Dragon Age's *optional* female protagonist--who's really more of a cipher anyway--who is Assassin Creed's Buffy? In what universe is the Auditore madame (Assassin's Creed) developed into even a shadow of Inara? Who is Watch_Dogger's Willow? Which of these games have a Black Widow, who drives action in the plot, who out-clevers the trickster god?
When Joss Whedon includes some bombshell babe and has a dude slaver after her, he's almost always got a fully-realized, important woman standing by to roll eyes at the dude. Where's the Zoe in dog_watchers, GTA *, Assassin's Creed * (exception to the lovely but notably overlooked Liberation)? Go back to the list on the first page and tell me how many women can you even name in those games? Where is this much ballyhooed "context" that Sarkeesian and I both missed?
Dragon Age is the only one I can even think of that even has realized roles for women. But even there, that Snidely Whiplash guy and that those dudes lusting after that dead elf aren't ideas specifically rebuffed in the text (like Cabin's dancing blonde or Firefly's Saffron).
I just want to tackle that point because I'm busy. But it's not patronizing or misogynistic, and I've also noted the irony of someone making a video series criticizing the DiD trope basically using that same social dynamic as the entire context and content of her TED talk, her initial rise to fame, the rush of donations to the site after bullying was highlighted, and in some ways (though less related), the anti-gamer articles we're seeing right now.
Her entire career as a game critic is framed in the DiD narrative.
Think about what you wrote. Is Anita patronizing and "outrageously misogynistic" for calling all those game characters damsels?
I have made the comparison myself many times, and while they aren't complete parallels, I think it's actually a fantastic comparison. Because they both argue along very similar lines about different areas of gaming they find objectionable.
Ok, I watched it through against my better judgment. His point is that "your criticism is empty if you're misreading the work" but doesn't go on to demonstrate any cases where she's misread anything... Meanwhile, he goes misreading her all over the place.
River isn't a Woman in a Refrigerator.
She's right to criticize Red Dead for using that "whore" as a prop to motivate a fight. The scene from Firefly isn't a good analogy, the "whore" in that case was an end to herself, Red Dead's is only a means.
Sarkeesian says "Sanitize violence against women and make it comfortably consumable" and then Dunderfoot shows a scene from a Joss Whedon movie featuring violence neither sanitized nor made comfortable.
"Reality vs Fantasy Do You Understand the Difference" is a real jerk-ass caption. What a clown. Isn't it like Pretty Damn Bad that a fantasy, that aspirational world people dream to inhabit, is horrifically misogynist?
I must have missed the part where Sarkeesian has ever said or implied anything like "There's nothing good about what you do and who you are and your misogynistic, woman-hating seed should be wiped from the Earth".
And, again, the whole thing is on the back of putting words in mouths. Has Sarkeesian ever even said Joss Whedon is infallible or beyond criticism? I doubt it. But as a bulk of work, Whedon is unquestionably good at drawing women. As an opus, Assassin's Creed, GTA, Watch_Dogs, et al AAA games are unquestionably bad at drawing women.
Also he concludes his video by explaining "people aren't angry because she criticizes gaming or because she's a woman or because she's a feminist". Which is a joke. Hundreds and thousands have attacked her and her livelyhood for exactly and exclusively those things.
And, again, the whole thing is on the back of putting words in mouths. Has Sarkeesian ever even said Joss Whedon is infallible or beyond criticism? I doubt it. But as a bulk of work, Whedon is unquestionably good at drawing women. As an opus, Assassin's Creed, GTA, Watch_Dogs, et al AAA games are unquestionably bad at drawing women.
I just want to tackle that point because I'm busy. But it's not patronizing or misogynistic, and I've also noted the irony of someone making a video series criticizing the DiD trope basically using that same social dynamic as the entire context and content of her TED talk, her initial rise to fame, the rush of donations to the site after bullying was highlighted, and in some ways (though less related), the anti-gamer articles we're seeing right now.
A woman who receives some aid is not necessarily a damsel. Damsels are powerless and drive a story of another person. From her own episode on Damsels in Distress "the damsel trope typically makes men the 'subject' of the narratives while relegating women to the 'object'." Sarkeesian is the subject of this story. The people that funded her are means to her end of creating this series.
I have made the comparison myself many times, and while they aren't complete parallels, I think it's actually a fantastic comparison. Because they both argue along very similar lines about different areas of gaming they find objectionable.
Other people who have argued "along the line" that media influence attitudes: Plato, CS Lewis, Heinrich Himmler, Theodor Geisel, David Simon. A million people have had this same thought a million different ways. What can we possibly conclude from any two of them sharing it?
Yeah, Thunderfoot's video reads like someone told him about Whedon's work but he hasn't actually watched it or given it an ounce of thought. Didn't he come into this scene anyway with a video where he relayed what other people told him about Hitman Absolution (or watching Let's Plays), rather than actually playing it himself?
I just want to tackle that point because I'm busy. But it's not patronizing or misogynistic, and I've also noted the irony of someone making a video series criticizing the DiD trope basically using that same social dynamic as the entire context and content of her TED talk, her initial rise to fame, the rush of donations to the site after bullying was highlighted, and in some ways (though less related), the anti-gamer articles we're seeing right now.
Her entire career as a game critic is framed in the DiD narrative.
You're not only being extremely simple-minded with this statement, but you're also projecting sexist assumptions onto others by framing her experience and her backers and supporters as motivated by a damsel in distress trope.
Think about what you wrote. Is Anita patronizing and "outrageously misogynistic" for calling all those game characters damsels?
Game characters. Are. Not. Real. People. There should be an obvious difference and the fact that you're equating the two as if the two situations are somehow comparable is sufficient indication of either your severe bias or your lack of willingness to comprehend the world around you and the people within it.
It's a dodge. You're basically saying that pixels don't matter, only people. And that could be said to basically undermine any motivation for Anita even making a video series if we applied something like that to her.
In reality, you overreached, and nothing about "damsel" in the context of this debate is wildly misogynistic.
The idea of criticizing real-world events for falling victim to narrative tropes is a completely meaningless effort, even if you're trying to make a point about overly broad criticism.
One of Anita's early videos is actually about criticising Joss Whedon and the show Dollhouse. So yea, it's pretty clear that she doesn't think he's infallible.
Yeah, Thunderfoot's video reads like someone told him about Whedon's work but he hasn't actually watched it or given it an ounce of thought. Didn't he come into this scene anyway with a video where he relayed what other people told him about Hitman Absolution (or watching Let's Plays), rather than actually playing it himself?
Realistically, I don't know how you'd come to that conclusion. He seemed exceptionally familiar with the content in the way he used characters and scenes to illustrate misogyny or sexism that in their original context discretely conveyed the opposite. If you listen to the end of that segment, it's even clearer.
If you're saying his observations about Hitman Absolution are less accurate than Sarkeesian's in relation to the original game, I'd have to turn your assertion against you.
And even if you actually are in favour, good luck trying to convince the rest of your country of that, haha.
