The Big Picture: Tropes vs. MovieBob

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 . . . 29 NEXT
 

The thing most anti-feminism arguments always gloss over as far as I can tell isn't that women don't want big boobed male appealing media to exist and they don't want to take it away, all they want is more balance, more options, more diversity.

Instead of 90% of games and comics appealing -just- to adolescent doods it would be nice if that number was much closer to 50%. I don't think it ever will be that even because of how many male creators work in these industries and how much easier it seems to be for them to lazily cater to that same old audience (thus completely invalidating the anti-feminism argument more or less) but it sure would be awesome if we had I dunno ONE game that was as popular and successful as say Halo that happened to feature a more varied and respectful range of female characters that actual females can be happy with.

I mean that series is played by tonnes of women too but look at its most iconic female character, she's just a naked hologram lady whose sole purpose is to serve as a tool for the male protagonist. I was really looking forward to the new Tomb Raider but they seem to be royally fucking up with that too. I'd have figured a reboot of Lara Croft would mean a less pandering more universally acceptable version of the character but instead its "how much shit can we beat out of her" and "oh look how weak and vulnerable she is, you gotta protect her guys!" Just gross.

Body image problems can occur when a gender has unattainable standards repeatedly presented as attainable.
Fiction cannot represent the standards of it's characters as attainable unless it specifically sets out to do so.

While persistantly sexualising females characters is certainly trashy and sexist (and the frequency of occurence should be reduced), I see no reason to believe it is inherently harmful.

Also, you could post a kickstarter for a video series that aims to show the importance of no censorship on the internet on 4chan and it would recieve hate.
All you can get from that place is hate.

PercyBoleyn:
You're either missing the point or being purposefully obtuse.

You don't like her stuff. I'm okay with that.

And that somehow doesn't make this a scam how?

That's a rather serious accusation. Do you have proof that she is deliberately defrauding people?

Andy of Comix Inc:
(like what feminism does whether it likes it or not)

I'm curious. How much feminist literature have you actually read?

This is why people always feel like they're being picked on when feminism and sexism is bought up - usually because they are.

I beg to differ. Usually it's the crowd who know little to nothing about feminism who start the hostilities over imagined insults.

yeti585:
Odysseus was a hero. The Odyssey followed him on his "hero's journey". How would a soldier going to war be psychopathic today?

Confirmed. You never actually read "The Odyssey." Let's start with the obvious. Do you know what he did when he got home?

Yes, something should be done about that.

So why are you mad at me for suggesting that?

Because we don't have stories that follow the "hero's journey" archetype.[/quote

Again, you're proving me right. You haven't read "The Odyssey."

You must have missed the part about people taking credit and blame for their work.

No I didn't, because I never said anything like what you accused me. Please do not tell lies about me. I find it offensive.

[quote]That's all you said he was, a flat character. Marketing him as anything else would be false wouldn't it?

How does this justify the fact that he's badly written?

JerrytheBullfrog:

RazadaMk2:

JerrytheBullfrog:

Yes, there are absolutely problematic portrayals of men in videogames. Yes, someone should make a video series examining the ways that tropes harm men, too (though really, often these are the other side of a coin that's sexist in portraying women - men are considered "disposable" protectors because women are weak and in need of protecting, for instance).

However, someone who wants to just make a series about women is under no obligations to make it about men, too. That should be our job, as men.

You misread me slightly.

I disagree with the whole notion of "Men doing men things" and "Women doing women things".

I think feminism does not go quite far enough. Gender equality in my eyes does not mean we should equalise the genders, it means we should abolish our current view on what gender is and any link it has to physical traits.

That is why I utterly support her videos and I think it is fucking brilliant what she is doing. And why I largely support feminism as a whole, because right now it is the only movement that is truly trying to equalise things.

But I would be much happier if instead of bringing women to the same level as men it was bringing men and women to the same, significantly higher, level.

In an ideal world? Yes. Yes, we should. Perhaps one day we will even reach the point as a society where we can be truly post-racial and post-gender.

That is not this day. And suggesting "well why aren't you focused on the problems we ALL face" when someone is trying to focus on the problems faced by a marginalized group is derailing. Almost certainly well-intentioned derailing, but it doesn't help.

I am not quite saying that, I am saying I would prefer if it was like that but that I support what she is doing wholeheartedly.

Like my explanation for supporting feminism, I agree with what they are doing, I just do not think they take it far enough.

Another example, I am 100% behind UN peacekeeping forces, but I want their mandate changed so they can do more.

I am happy that she is dissecting the tropes that affect women negatively because I freely admit that sexism is clear, present and bad. And, in most cases, significantly worse for women then men. I am just a lot more pro true equality then a gendered equality construct that is still inherently unequal through its nature.

Perhaps someone should try and analyse how men are negatively affected by tropes. Hell, Perhaps someone should put it forward to Sarkeesian that maybe she should blow a bit of her extra cash on looking at the tropes that affect men within gaming.

Its all part of the same issue though.

I do not question her choice of focus whatsoever. But I would rather it was broader. Does that make sense?

PercyBoleyn:

JerrytheBullfrog:
(And I've looked into it a lot more than you have, as is evident by the fact that you don't know that she's said that she's looking into stuff to actually do with the $152k that she *didn't ask for*, whether it's charity or setting up education or just turning FeministFrequency into her full time job instead of doing it on the side while freelancing.

So let me get this straight, people donated to her thinking she needed money to create a video series and she's going to use that money to make her website a "full time job"? And that doesn't sound fishy to you at all? The right thing to do would've been to either donate that money to charity, which she has yet to do even though her project was funded a week ago or give the excess money back.

JerrytheBullfrog:
And no, you didn't pay $160k. I didn't pay Sarkeesian $160k either. I just paid $25.

I don't remember talking about that.

JerrytheBullfrog:
And what, pray tell, is the difference between a novelist getting a $6k advance on her fee so that she can live while she writes, and a videomaker getting the same thing?

I already told you, she didn't make it clear that the money would be used to cover her living expenses. She isn't working with a fucking publisher here, she asked for donations to make a video series. There's a distinct difference between the two, one which I'm not too confident you'll realize.

JerrytheBullfrog:
May I assume that you will now be raging at writer Seth Godin for asking for $40k and getting over $200k to... write his next book? I mean, that's a scam, isn't it? Plenty of people write stuff on the internet for free.

If he doesn't make it clear what he's going to use the excess money for yes, that could also be labeled a scam. He still has a month to go though.

JerrytheBullfrog:
Oh, it's because he's not a woman criticizing your little male-dominated bubble. Got it.

Cool, a strawman. I'm guessing the idea that video games are sexist towards both genders is insane to you.

1.) She's discussing it with her backers right now. I'm sure you'd love her to do something with the money that doesn't involve criticizing your pop culture or making you think about uncomfortable topics, though. But yes?

-She asks for money to fund Feminist Frequency videos.
-Many people give her money to fund Feminist Frequency videos. Ergo, they think that more Feminist Frequency videos are something worth paying for.
-She will be using the money to make more Feminist Frequency. Which was what people donated for.
-Scam???????

I paid her to make more Feminist Frequency videos. I AM OKAY WITH HER USING MY MONEY TO DO JUST THAT.

2.) Oh, so you don't remember saying that you don't pay $160k for a book? Got it.

3.) Actually, working with a publisher, THEY would be the one to front the writer money so they could live on it while they wrote. Otherwise, not as much difference as you'd like.

4.) And I'm sure he will. As will Sarkeesian. I've been getting the emails about her ideas since the project was funded.

5.) If the shoe fits, friend. And in this very thread I've agreed that there absolutely are harmful tropes and stereotypes towards men in pop culture. They're less damaging, sure, because men have the institutional power, but they absolutely exist, and *should be examined*. I would absolutely fund a Kickstarter that aimed to examine and dissect harmful male tropes like "All Men are Killers" or "Disposable Man" in games, provided it was a complement to this and not trying to argue her down.

But these tropes are also a reaction to sexist ideas of women. They can't exist in a vacuum.

ad5x5:
Physical appearance can be characterization - being fat indicating gluttony/laziness, scars indicating a predisposition/history to violence, jutting jaw indicating masculinity, hunched shoulders indicating introversion, etc

They don't tell you how these people feel. So someone has scars, indicating violence in their history. How do they feel about that?

However, the game has to appeal to people and keeping it closer to the mainstream increases the likely audience - making it less of a business risk.

And here we come to a problem. Games are so crazy expensive to make that developers are too damn conservative to take chances anymore. So they shovel out whatever stereotypes they think will get them the safest ROI.

LazyAza:
The thing most anti-feminism arguments always gloss over as far as I can tell isn't that women don't want big boobed male appealing media to exist and they don't want to take it away, all they want is more balance, more options, more diversity.

Behold! Someone who has actually made an effort to understand feminist theory. It's not hard, guys. You have Google.

mronoc:
The issues you bring up, while deserving of more acknowledgement than they receive, and certainly more worth taking political action over, are not more interesting conversations to have. These are morally unambiguous conversations that would end up boiling down to moral masturbation. A nuanced conversation is always a more interesting one, and is more likely to result in participants growing as people. This is one of those situations where the conversation is the solution. It's a matter of having an open conversation about what's behind these representations, so we as a society can be more aware of the underlying issue, and ultimately end up holding the creative work we produce to higher standards of understanding what it's saying. There's no clear solution to the problem other than to understand it, and when you decide to simply ignore the conversation, you're not helping. When you actively encourage others to do the same, you're contributing to the problem.

The problem is that this "discussion" of Women shouldn't be seen sexually leads to those other more important issue. When Society is "Aware of the Underlying Issue" it starts to implement nonsense measures like Burkas, and head scarfs. Those measures weren't implemented by Society because men needed more control. They were implemented because of some notion that the temptation should be removed, and society Women Included imposed those things on itself willingly. It's the exact same argument you present the end game as "ultimately end up holding the creative work we produce to higher standards of understanding what it's saying". Self Censorship is still Censorship and will result in the exact same outcome.

Because the end game is Unacceptable the only valid option to to discard this part of the debate entirely.

Tenmar:

ThrobbingEgo:

You're referring to the Japanese advertisement campaign for Bayonetta? Watch the video again without the rage. She didn't say the ad campaign caused people to grope women. She said this was alarming in context as an advertisement presented in a Japanese subway. That's like saying, "Thumbs up, molesters. Take a card."

The ad can't force anyone to do anything, but she has solid reasons to criticize it.

Go ahead and report me. I don't really care.

Allow me to quote the VERY last thing she said in that video. Just listen to THAT cause there is the logical leap that you should be worried about.

While there is action being taken to try and curb this behavior such as the woman only passenger cars and the public service annoucements, right next door is this Bayonneta ad that is encouraging this predatory behavior

Just read that and tell me you don't see that logical leap she puts in at the end of the video.

In context that's not a logical 'leap.' The advertisement is encouraging passersby to strip a representation of a woman, on a subway, where thousands of women a year get harassed or molested. She points out that there is action taken to attempt to curb this behavior, and this ad directly runs counter to it.

Note: encouragement. Not "instruction," "compulsion," or "heartfelt endorsement."

Ragsnstitches:
Nope, but his point still stands and you neither refuted it nor attempted to show how one independent differs from the other.

Yes I did.

Ragsnstitches:
No, its a given.

Yeah, it's not.

Ragsnstitches:
As with any other project ever conceived by man, if costs are involved the persons living expenses are part of that.

I'm guessing this is part of Ragnstitche's book on how to use donations to further your societal standard.

Ragsnstitches:
Considering she only asked for 6000 to start with, said she would do more with the extra cash (up to 50,000) which included bonus videos and also a separate project,

Separate project? What separate project? Bonus videos? So the people who donated are paying her a salary now?

Ragsnstitches:
and is now discussing with her backers what she will do with the rest

I haven't seen anything on her YouTube channel. I haven't seen anything on her kickstarter page. I haven't seen anything on her blog. I'm guessing you're confusing dreams with reality.

Ragsnstitches:
its more then just research.

Really? Because unless she's trying to make a documentary, no it's not.

Ragsnstitches:
But even if you think research amounts only to one book... well, at least we know where you lack of knowledge comes from.

I don't know how libraries work in the US but here, I can get as many book as I want using my free library card as long as I return them in a set period of time. If she needed money to buy books because libraries are evil or whatever then what kind of fucking doorstoppers is she buying because? Besides, she's starting production soon. When the fuck is she going to find the time to actually read said books? Or do her resaerch? I mean by the looks of it, not a lot of time will be spent "researching".

Ragsnstitches:
Considering its only been a week since the funding ended, she now has to discuss possible uses of the cash with her backers. How about a little patience? She didn't expect to get this much (ironically, thanks to the trolls).

Well, I guess a couple of nasty YouTube comments do represent the entirety of her critics. You remind me of someone though...

Ragsnstitches:
Nope his point is perfectly clear. Its their money, not yours. Its their risk, not yours.

You could justify any scam using that argument.

Ragsnstitches:
The only beef you have is that it exists and you think those people are stupid and she's manipulative (despite being as transparent as possible about progress).

Strawmans are so 2010.

Ragsnstitches:
It will only constitute as a scam if she doesn't meet all her promises and tactfully uses the cash funded. Therefore NO ONE can call it a scam. As of now, it is still in progress.

It's been four days. She has said absolutely nothing on where the excess money will be going, she has consistently lied to the people who donated and, if a couple of blog updates calling all of her critics trolls is what you consider transparency then frankly, you should go to bed.

Ragsnstitches:
Also considering she is a public image, has her real name and her real image depicted in multiple places on the web, she can't make off with 150000 without getting some serious heat on her ass. Think logically.

She doesn't have too.

JerrytheBullfrog:
Perhaps she wants a better camera or better software.

Who knows? I don't, you don't and her donors certainly don't. That's transparency for ya I guess.

JerrytheBullfrog:
There are a thousand things she could be spending the money on.

Okay, I have no problem with that. However, considering the "academic quality" of her previous videos I highly doubt that. However, if those were her plans she should have stated them clearly.

JerrytheBullfrog:
But more to the point, you don't actually look at many Kickstarters, do you? Very few of them detail what they will be spending the money on so specifically.

Which is a tragedy but whatever.

JerrytheBullfrog:
In fact, it is assumed that at least PART of it is going to be spent on basic living expenses while working on the project.

Really? Who assumes that? The average donor? Did you conduct a study, asking donors whether they knew Anita would be using part of the money to pay for her living expenses and pay herself a salary besides making the videos?

JerrytheBullfrog:
You are holding her to standards that exceptionally few kickstarters are held to. Why? Gee, I wonder.

The lack of transparency of numerous Kickstarters has not endeared me to the idea of crowd funding at all.

Most of that money is probably from places like the $outhern "Poverty" Law Center and other liberal foundations.

She's the Sandra Fluke of girl gamers-a paid hack rattling sabers at bigger targets and demanding compensation way out of proportion to people who do actual work for attention and airtime. MovieBob fell for it, but MovieBob stumps for any martyr in any liberal interest group, so that's not really a surprise.

And the reason women in games are almost always an idealized body shape is the same reason golf courses are always an idealized landscape: People instinctively love two types of landscapes-the one they grew up with as a kid and golf courses. Sadly, every man tends to love only one girl next door, and girls and their personalities are a lot more varied and specific than landscapes, so a girl-next-door character isn't as marketable as one who simply oozes prime hormonal attraction in every fact of her body. You want men to stop playing the pedosex games, get married at 14 and have sex every day until your image is cemented in his mind as the most sexiest thing that'll have sex with him ever. And then sneak up on him if you see him casting longing glances at the panty girls.

Besides, most girl journalism of the feminist variety is geared toward making the body of the girl writer in question hot by media and society association and affirmation (they instinctively think male attraction works the same preselective way female attraction does and all they have to do is SHOW THE REAL ME EVERYWHERE DON'T LET THEM JUDGE ME I'VE GOT GRRL POWER etc, ad nauseam. Protip: A male version of this can totally work if you're a guy trying to get girls.)

In summation, this social parasite deserves every 4chan comment she gets.

DrVornoff:

yeti585:
Odysseus was a hero. The Odyssey followed him on his "hero's journey". How would a soldier going to war be psychopathic today?

Confirmed. You never actually read "The Odyssey." Let's start with the obvious. Do you know what he did when he got home?

He went to his former slave's home. Athena disguised him as a beggar.

Yes, something should be done about that.

So why are you mad at me for suggesting that?

I wasn't mad at you suggesting it. I was mad that you were generalizing most men as being like that.

Because we don't have stories that follow the "hero's journey" archetype.

Again, you're proving me right. You haven't read "The Odyssey."

Odysseus was a hero. The poem was a Heroic/Epic, how can you argue it does not follow that archetype?

You must have missed the part about people taking credit and blame for their work.

No I didn't, because I never said anything like what you accused me. Please do not tell lies about me. I find it offensive.

You said the writers should not be blamed for writing a bad character (their work). I equated this to Blizzard not being blamed for their work. I never lied.

That's all you said he was, a flat character. Marketing him as anything else would be false wouldn't it?

How does this justify the fact that he's badly written?

It does not, and I was never justifying him being horribly written. We were talking about how he is marketed. If you are going to accuse me of straw manning your argument, do not turn around and do it to my point.

PercyBoleyn:

Ragsnstitches:
Nope, but his point still stands and you neither refuted it nor attempted to show how one independent differs from the other.

Yes I did.

Ragsnstitches:
No, its a given.

Yeah, it's not.

Ragsnstitches:
As with any other project ever conceived by man, if costs are involved the persons living expenses are part of that.

I'm guessing this is part of Ragnstitche's book on how to use donations to further your societal standard.

Ragsnstitches:
Considering she only asked for 6000 to start with, said she would do more with the extra cash (up to 50,000) which included bonus videos and also a separate project,

Separate project? What separate project? Bonus videos? So the people who donated are paying her a salary now?

Ragsnstitches:
and is now discussing with her backers what she will do with the rest

I haven't seen anything on her YouTube channel. I haven't seen anything on her kickstarter page. I haven't seen anything on her blog. I'm guessing you're confusing dreams with reality.

Ragsnstitches:
its more then just research.

Really? Because unless she's trying to make a documentary, no it's not.

Ragsnstitches:
But even if you think research amounts only to one book... well, at least we know where you lack of knowledge comes from.

I don't know how libraries work in the US but here, I can get as many book as I want using my free library card as long as I return them in a set period of time. If she needed money to buy books because libraries are evil or whatever then what kind of fucking doorstoppers is she buying because? Besides, she's starting production soon. When the fuck is she going to find the time to actually read said books? Or do her resaerch? I mean by the looks of it, not a lot of time will be spent "researching".

Ragsnstitches:
Considering its only been a week since the funding ended, she now has to discuss possible uses of the cash with her backers. How about a little patience? She didn't expect to get this much (ironically, thanks to the trolls).

Well, I guess a couple of nasty YouTube comments do represent the entirety of her critics. You remind me of someone though...

Ragsnstitches:
Nope his point is perfectly clear. Its their money, not yours. Its their risk, not yours.

You could justify any scam using that argument.

Ragsnstitches:
The only beef you have is that it exists and you think those people are stupid and she's manipulative (despite being as transparent as possible about progress).

Strawmans are so 2010.

Ragsnstitches:
It will only constitute as a scam if she doesn't meet all her promises and tactfully uses the cash funded. Therefore NO ONE can call it a scam. As of now, it is still in progress.

It's been four days. She has said absolutely nothing on where the excess money will be going, she has consistently lied to the people who donated and, if a couple of blog updates calling all of her critics trolls is what you consider transparency then frankly, you should go to bed.

Ragsnstitches:
Also considering she is a public image, has her real name and her real image depicted in multiple places on the web, she can't make off with 150000 without getting some serious heat on her ass. Think logically.

She doesn't have too.

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/566429325/tropes-vs-women-in-video-games/posts/248956

You are factually wrong.

The funding has wildly exceeded our initial goal and even our additional stretch goals. This has all happened so quickly and we've been super busy over here with the Kickstarter, tracking and documenting the harassment and doing media interviews. But in between all that we've been discussing some exciting ideas for how to use the additional funds to expand the project in a really meaningful way. My team and I are going to take a few days to process everything that's happened and figure out exactly what the extended scope of this project will be.

Over the past three years I've been dedicated to making Feminist Frequency videos whenever I could but its still essentially been a passionate side project between freelance jobs. This is such an exciting moment because my team and I can now commit full time to Feminist Frequency and to producing this collection of engaging, in depth and critical videos that will contribute to the ongoing conversation about women's representations in video games.

What we do know for sure is that the issue of harassment both in the gaming community and on the internet in general has sadly, become intertwined with this Kickstarter campaign so we're definitely going to include a substantial additional component to this project that will directly address the epidemic of misogynist, racist and homophobic online harassment.

Unfortunately, I'm going to have to work off the assumption that this type of backlash is going to continue throughout the project as I release each video in the series so with that in mind, I'm going to use some of the extra funds to beef up my online infrastructure by completely rebuilding and redesigning the Feminist Frequency website with security in mind.

DrVornoff:
You don't like her stuff. I'm okay with that.

Jesus Fucking Christ it's like you took a crash course on fallacies from Volf. I have nothing against her project, I have something against how this whole ordeal has been conducted.

DrVornoff:
That's a rather serious accusation. Do you have proof that she is deliberately defrauding people?

Where's the money going to Vornoff?

DrVornoff:
I'm curious. How much feminist literature have you actually read?

I like my info just like I like my meat, unbiased.

PercyBoleyn:

JerrytheBullfrog:
Perhaps she wants a better camera or better software.

Who knows? I don't, you don't and her donors certainly don't. That's transparency for ya I guess.

JerrytheBullfrog:
There are a thousand things she could be spending the money on.

Okay, I have no problem with that. However, considering the "academic quality" of her previous videos I highly doubt that. However, if those were her plans she should have stated them clearly.

JerrytheBullfrog:
But more to the point, you don't actually look at many Kickstarters, do you? Very few of them detail what they will be spending the money on so specifically.

Which is a tragedy but whatever.

JerrytheBullfrog:
In fact, it is assumed that at least PART of it is going to be spent on basic living expenses while working on the project.

Really? Who assumes that? The average donor? Did you conduct a study, asking donors whether they knew Anita would be using part of the money to pay for her living expenses and pay herself a salary besides making the videos?

JerrytheBullfrog:
You are holding her to standards that exceptionally few kickstarters are held to. Why? Gee, I wonder.

The lack of transparency of numerous Kickstarters has not endeared me to the idea of crowd funding at all.

Great, so you don't like crowd funding. I really don't care what you personally like or don't like.

If you fund a Kickstarter, you are funding the person (or group)'s ability to produce whatever they want to produce. This is implicit and understood. If you give somebody $40k to write a novel, are they going to be using a $40k PC, or $40k worth of ink and paper? No. If you give somebody $300k to make a videogame, are they going to be spending $300k on top of the line computer parts and books on coding? No. If you give somebody $2m to make a documentary, are you giving them $2m to buy cameras, editing software, and plane tickets? No.

You are funding their ability to create something. And that means that it is *understood* that for the time being, at least, you are going to be paying for their expenses SO THAT THEY CAN MAKE THEIR PROJECT.

Maybe that's a problem with the crowd funding model. I don't think it is. But to accuse it of being a scam is wildly off base, and given that you have thus far only been criticising Ms. Sarkeesian, only leads me to believe that you have ulterior motives.

yeti585:

DrVornoff:
Read "The Odyssey" sometime. Odysseus was a heroic, masculine man according to Classical Greek virtues. But in modern society, he would be considered a psychopath. Societal virtues and gender roles have changed.

Odysseus was a hero. The Odyssey followed him on his "hero's journey". How would a soldier going to war be psychopathic today?

...snip...

image

Love the picture of the straw man.

1) Values changing =/= concept of masculinity changing. Psychopathic warriors are still considered masculine, what is at issue is their psychopathy, not their masculinity. Masculinity has been traditionally been taken to include physical strength and mental toughness. While that might not be true in some cultures, it's still definitely true in western culture. Let's look at some woman who embodies those qualities... let's say Boudica. Boudica isn't typically taken to be the perfect embodiment of femininity. Nor is Margret Thatcher or Hilary Clinton. I'm not saying this is right, but it does seem to be the way we think.

Of course there are plenty of species in which the females are the stronger and more aggressive of the sexes. But the gender roles in our society are hardly just some concoction of a patriarchal conspiracy; they have a basis in our biological evolution. The adaptation that has made humans so successful is our brains. Unfortunately our brains take a ton of time to develop both inside of the womb and through constant attention up until maturity. This is what caused female hominids to become smaller and weaker; they had to stay and take care of the young.

Now, do not misunderstand, I am not claiming that women should be this way. Our technological development has made this system obsolete. I'm just saying that gender roles have a very old and deep basis, so you can't expect them to change overnight. Pretending like it's all some sort of evil male conspiracy and that anyone who seems to subscribe to it must therefore be a conspirator is complete idiocy. I'm not accusing anyone in particular of thinking this way, but I do get the sense that this is what some people think.

ThrobbingEgo:

In context that's not a logical 'leap.' The advertisement is encouraging passersby to strip a representation of a woman, on a subway, where thousands of women a year get harassed or molested. She points out that there is action taken to attempt to curb this behavior, and this ad directly runs counter to it.

Note: encouragement. Not "instruction," "compulsion," or "heartfelt endorsement."

So then by logic then all the people who state video games cause violence and whenever I see a violent ad for a movie, video game, or novel would encourage me a person walking down the street to cause a random act of violence upon another person.

Heavens, this turned out to be a long post.

3quency:
I think I'd have to disagree here. It implies an ideal of attractiveness in the same way that earlier programs (e.g. Father Knows Best) implied an ideal of female behaviour. Creating female characters with attributes that fit in with how a certain group of heterosexual men feel they should look/act is always going to be inherently sexist.

In response to the points of skill and talent for male/female figures, ultimately most media falls into a very specific stereotype - men should be judged by their actions, women by their static attributes. This has become less true over the years, but is still a prevailing attitude.

I would agree with you entirely if you had written "want them to look/act" rather than should. A matter of preference is different to a matter of a standard. Many guys would love to date Megan Fox (not to claim that everyone finds her attractive, I certainly don't) but they appreciate that whilst they would like their girlfriend to be very hot, they don't judge a woman as somehow defective if they're not, just sexually/romantically uninteresting. This in the same way that women have their idea of what kind of man they want but they don't devalue men who aren't like that.

If you're making a game targeted towards the typical heterosexual male and you for whatever reason aren't going to do it properly, the hot girl stereotype might well be employed. I can't bring myself to accepting this as sexism, that seems to be a rather gross exaggeration. The problem is rather a misunderstanding of the audience. In other words, the assumption that the hot girl stereotype is the way to go is no longer true, both because there are now a lot of female gamers and because a lot of the men are more mature.

3quency:
In response to the points of skill and talent for male/female figures, ultimately most media falls into a very specific stereotype - men should be judged by their actions, women by their static attributes. This has become less true over the years, but is still a prevailing attitude.

This is largely true. It doesn't excuse it, but it's arguably inherent to our biology that men are pragmatically judged and women are physically judged. For this reason, I'm not sure we'll ever be able to get rid of it. Women might always be judged by their appearance more than men are. Whether this will be something humanity grows out of or another one of those things that our nature won't let us get rid of, only time will tell.

Personally, I find that sexuality is separate from respect. In other words, I judge a woman's sexual attractiveness separate from their merits as a person, as I consider the former to be largely chemical and the latter to be intellectual.

3quency:
I can see the point you're making here. As a straight guy who only just turned 20, I'd be lying if I said that I had never been attracted to a woman solely for her figure.

However, I feel this returns to a very important point: women in fiction are being created to fit in with the ideals of men. Straight White Males are not the only people interested in the medium. They never have been and never will be. Women make up half the population. Passing something off as "appealing to the audience" just doesn't cut it for me, because that audience is so diverse. Therefore, I would still argue that over-sexualised women are an aspect of sexism in media, if only because they assume that women don't watch/play/read this stuff.

Whilst I'd argue that for some time, white males made up the vast majority of gamers, they don't any longer. I covered this just above, I think.

3quency:
I agree that celebrity-culture is a problem. It does spread wrong messages and it is exclusive and judgemental. But it is a societal issue unique to our particular culture. Sexism is a problem that has been part of our culture as long as we have been recording history. Celebrity is a comparatively new and small issue. And both need addressing, to suggest one is more important does not mean the other is irrelevant, or wrongfully concentrated on.

Sexism itself isn't a smaller issue than celebrity-culture, but I think that sexism in media is a smaller problem than celebrity-culture. It spreads a different type of inequality and furthers the ideals that sexism preys on. Moreover, it furthers ideals based on the inherent worth of human beings. Comparatively, ideals about attractiveness are minor when put against the ideal of plainly being a better and more valuable person because of fame, and fame because of relatively useless achievements at that. It puts entire persons on pedestals and they're given more authority for no sensible reason and it teaches us to believe in others rather than ourselves.

At any rate, the difference in significance, subjective as it is, doesn't make either problem less worth dealing with. It was not my intent to suggest otherwise.

3quency:
Now this really is a different matter entirely. I'm sorry, but I couldn't disagree more. Yes, pornography is demeaning. It's crude, objectifying and sometimes downright disturbing. But it is designed entirely to tittilate. That is it's sole purpose. Video-games are not porn (for the sake of the argument, can we ignore visual novels?), and by and large really shouldn't be using any ideals associated with porn. There is nothing wrong with using sexuality in gaming, as there is nothing wrong with it in film or literature. But as a media form, it has responsibilities that porn does not. You said it yourself, each media services a particular need. And videogames serve more, and a wider range of people than Redhead Sluts 4.

It was not my intent to equate video games with porn outside of principle. I'll elaborate.

Here is where I think you're handing out the same kind of sensationalist and over-sensitive type of judgements as those people who see racism in RE5. You're reading far more than what is actually tangible into fictional media. A work has to be able to depict a person or group, be it a race, culture, sex or otherwise, in a particular way without it being judged as an outwards statement or reflection on reality. It can be, but it doesn't have to be.

For example, The Matrix was intended to be and is often seen as a commentary on modern society and the average person's ignorance of their own strength and potential and how they're constantly distracted by a lot of information, social norms and what have you, very little of which actually matters at all. You can wake up and have your "mind freed" and realise the self-hypnosis you've been under your entire life.

By contrast, Redhead Sluts 4 can depict a couple of females to be used and abused by a household of horny men without it in any way implying any kind of statement on reality whatsoever. It's merely a fictional "story," if you will, made to arouse people with a certain kind of sexuality. Many men have fantasies about sexually subjugating a woman and many women have fantasies about being sexually subjugated. It's perfectly natural, it's not crude or degrading to either gender.

Both of these examples require external interpretation. Nothing is inherent to the work itself. Now, take a film like Zeitgeist. This documentary clearly expresses statements on reality. It's shown and told overtly. This is the only circumstance in which a work can be judged to be explicitly racist, sexist and so on.

It's very important to point out that this does not preclude works of media from clearly expressing racist or sexist themes. This is a fine line to walk, but as an example, consider how the Jews are depicted in Schindler's List. They're being treated by the Germans basically as trash, as worthless bits of organic matter to be abused and exposed of at will without any moral consequences. This is perfectly acceptable, as it is the characters in the film (that are effectively fictional as this judgement would apply in the exact same fashion even if WW2 had never happened) that are displaying this attitude and the work clearly sympathises with the Jews.

I've mentioned RE5 a few times now so let's cover that one as well. The game sympathises with the protagonists. It's also clearly against the antagonists and against the virus that is the cause of the zombies. Not a single time in the game is an enemy killed or harmed in any way because of their race, or anything at all to do with them other than the fact that a virus has turned them into blood-thirsty monsters. The fact that the people are mostly black is completely irrelevant outside of the narrative and story. A lot of people complain about the tribal villagers but it's not much of a stretch that there would be some amongst the infected. Also, the decision to make the helpless girl at the start into a while girl is obviously done for narrative contrast. The black men weren't chasing her for any other reason than because they were zombies and wanted to infect her, and when she turned into a zombie, the protagonists killed her all the same.

As a final example, Call of Juarez: The Cartel, often called one of the most racist games ever made. With this one, it's not as easy since the very lazy design doesn't show enough clear emphasising for the killing of minorities to be judged solely on the merits of its narrative value. I don't think it's intentionally racist, but it's so shoddily made that it can easily be seen as such. Personally, I say that it's so poorly made that it's bordering on being racist (a judgement that to me is very harsh; I don't make it nearly as lightly as everyone else seems to).

Without this distinction between what is and isn't inherent to media, it's impossible to have any kind of negative theme without the maker(s) suffering all sorts of accusations ranging from racism to sexism. Almost the only areas in which this distinction is not always made are depictions of minorities and female characters. Both of these share a strong historical precedence of subjugation. No one cared when Leon Kennedy massacred hordes of Spanish people in RE4. No one cares when white protagonists mow down throngs of Russian soldiers in modern warfare game X.

Change the enemies to blacks and it becomes a different story. Now, all of sudden it's racist. Given the historical precedence, I can understand this tendency, but unlike MovieBob I don't think double standards are good ways of solving past unbecoming attitudes. All races should be treated equally.

As for women, men have been and still do show a lot of misogynist tendencies. Not unlike many other men, I have a severe distaste for it. My (female) best friend has suffered a lot because of a certain misogynist wanker, and it still disappoints me fiercely whenever I meet yet another woman with such experiences. Does this mean we should hold off on all female stereotypes in media until attitudes have improved? I can't get behind that. I believe free speech is absolute and that taking offence amounts to nothing and should be shunned entirely.

My opinions on this matter are usually very unpopular, especially on this forum since they go against Yahtzee, MovieBob and Extra Credits (though they've left, I reckon everyone here still follows them on Penny Arcade).

Hi! I want to say this is my first post here and believe me it does take me some time to wench myself anyway from the shadows and step out into the light on any and all social interactions, I'm an introverted, shy and generally gentle person so my ability to risk ridicule is very much lacking. So that being said...

I find the way women are depicted in video to be deplorable. I'm a white male, between the age of 18 and 35 and I am STILL offended by the medium, it bothers me for reasons I can't even begin to understand.

I began to notice this around age 20 or so and it has stuck with me ever since. Why must all female characters look so much like super models? No sarcasm, I can't find a reason.

Before people misunderstand I am and have been a homosexual which might to some degree color my prospective but I'm not sure how much.

I agree with Movie Bob almost completely but I'd like to add this: Video Games are a fantasy creation, meaning all possible fantasies can be explored. Exploring the fantasy of sexy women over and over again doesn't just show a lack of respect for women but a complete lack of creativity on the part of designers.

Thank about it; how many female characters in game just sort of blend together? Many. Without describing the appearances of many female game characters it can be hard to define their personalities. Well the same can be said of a lot of recent male characters too but for a different reason and it isn't related to this so I brought it up because I'm an idiot, I think.

The first Video Game female I remember that looked at all like a real life person was Heather from Silent Hill 3. I tended to be more empathic with her because of she resembled a real person.

Anyhow sorry for the long and likely rambling post, also English is not my primary language so if there are huge errors I apologize in advance.

Swallowed up in the mass of comments on this video, mythgraven wrote:

"I do enjoy most of Bobs Big Pictures, and Escape to the Movies articles... But man, do I ever hate it when he chooses sex/females/video games, or any combination there of, to soapbox on. Especially when he uses said soapbox to lecture his audience, as though the staff at Escapist expects that the denizens of 4chan might make up the majority of people who care what Movie Bob has to say."

No on saw it, though, because there was a mass of comments on this video.

Whiskey Echo!!
mythgraven

3 points.
1) I worry about the sanity of the employer who wants to hire someone to be Kratos.
2) I don't want to meet the woman who finds Markus Fenix attractive. *shudders*
3) The feminist boogey-monster lives under my bed. Once you let her finish eating up your masculinity, she's actually quite a nice person; has really fine taste in tea.

And you actually hit the point on male portrayals not being aimed at women. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, but I'm just so used to pointing this out to people that I planned on doing it anyway.

Large breasts and fan-service have always been a turn-off for me anyway. It distracts me in that I can never stop wondering why they don't have serious lower-back problems.

"portrayal of men...it's just not a problem in the same way." And that's where I turn off the video.

It's exactly the same problem, just internet feminists like Bob choose to ignore it because there's no morals points to be gained by addressing it and men aren't as quick to cry sexism as women are, for a reason I still can't really determine.

There's just as many, if not more, buff, six-packed, shirtless dudes in video games as there are D-cup, super-models. On the converse, I'd say there's WAY more "normal" but capable looking women then there are non-Mr. Universe looking men.

JerrytheBullfrog:
She's discussing it with her backers right now.

Where?

JerrytheBullfrog:
I'm sure you'd love her to do something with the money that doesn't involve criticizing your pop culture or making you think about uncomfortable topics, though. But yes?

The strawman is strong with this one.

JerrytheBullfrog:
-She asks for money to fund Feminist Frequency videos.

That's not what she asked money for.

JerrytheBullfrog:
-Many people give her money to fund Feminist Frequency videos.

So how's that omnipotence working out for ya Jerry?

JerrytheBullfrog:
-She will be using the money to make more Feminist Frequency. Which was what people donated for.

She has not made it clear what she wants to use the money for. She's made a couple of vague suggestions but that's about it. Now, considering the quality(see: none) of her previous videos I'm a bit wary to the idea that someone who is literally clueless suddenly decides to ask people to fund videos she had previously done for free. She asked for 6k without making it clear what she'd be using the money for. Then, she receives 160k and continues to remain silent as to how that money would be put to use.

JerrytheBullfrog:
I paid her to make more Feminist Frequency videos. I AM OKAY WITH HER USING MY MONEY TO DO JUST THAT.

She wasn't asking for money to do more FR videos.

JerrytheBullfrog:
Oh, so you don't remember saying that you don't pay $160k for a book? Got it.

Oh, so that's what it was about. Well, no, I didn't pay 160k for a book and neither will she. In fact, I'd be surprised if she even bothered to "buy books" seeing as she's already started producing her videos. So, how's this whole "research" ordeal going to work out then? When will she have the time to play the video games the characters she will be criticizing are part of? I'm guessing never. She'll probably do exactly what she did with her Bayonetta review. Read the manual to get a bit of a hold of the story and make a fool out of herself.

JerrytheBullfrog:
Actually, working with a publisher, THEY would be the one to front the writer money so they could live on it while they wrote. Otherwise, not as much difference as you'd like.

Donators are not publishers. She should have made it clear that she wanted to do this full time and that part of the money would go towards living expenses.

JerrytheBullfrog:
And I'm sure he will. As will Sarkeesian. I've been getting the emails about her ideas since the project was funded.

Care to share those emails?

JerrytheBullfrog:
They're less damaging, sure, because men have the institutional power

How does that work exactly? I'm less inclined to care about the unreasonable high standards the media has set about my looks because I rule the world from my one bedroom appartment? Newsflash: Men aren't a hivemind. We were treated just as bad throughout history as women.

JerrytheBullfrog:
but they absolutely exist, and *should be examined*. I would absolutely fund a Kickstarter that aimed to examine and dissect harmful male tropes like "All Men are Killers" or "Disposable Man" in games, provided it was a complement to this and not trying to argue her down.

CRITICISM IS BAD BECAUSE EVERY CRITIC IS A TROLL GAWDAMNIT KOTAKU SAYS SO.

JerrytheBullfrog:
But these tropes are also a reaction to sexist ideas of women. They can't exist in a vacuum.

Then make yourself a kickstarter and have fun arguing for masculism whilst holding a fundamentalist feminism point of view.

yeti585:
He went to his former slave's home. Athena disguised him as a beggar.

He returned home in disguise, humiliated his wife's suitors... and murdered them. According to Classical Greek morals, that was okay.

I wasn't mad at you suggesting it. I was mad that you were generalizing most men as being like that.

A lot of men are. I take no pleasure in saying that.

Odysseus was a hero. The poem was a Heroic/Epic, how can you argue it does not follow that archetype?

Never said that. I'm saying that it follows Classic Greek morals. Which are not the same thing as modern Western morals, which are largely influenced by Judeo-Christian philosophy.

You said the writers should not be blamed for writing a bad character (their work).

Where did I say that?

It does not, and I was never justifying him being horribly written. We were talking about how he is marketed. If you are going to accuse me of straw manning your argument, do not turn around and do it to my point.

I personally believe that marketing liked him that way and wanted him to stay that way. He's a male power fantasy and they think that's what sells.

PercyBoleyn:
Jesus Fucking Christ it's like you took a crash course on fallacies from Volf. I have nothing against her project, I have something against how this whole ordeal has been conducted.

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I thought you said earlier that you don't like her videos. If I confused you with someone else, you could just correct me. No need to get hostile.

Where's the money going to Vornoff?

She said she's going to use the windfall to make a full scholarly project. And please, call me Doc.

I like my info just like I like my meat, unbiased.

So none then? Pity.

Monxeroth:
Oh and if there's something i have to say about this project that hasn't been said already
Well then i'll just leave this here and you can see for yourselves

Both those videos are painfully stupid and short-sighted. She started the kickstarter page with a $6,000 dollar goal - is it somehow her fault that people ended up donating considerably more than that? No, not at all.

Secondly, this is a woman who lives in North America (I'm assuming the United States, but I'm not positive), and is therefore going to be debating and addressing feminist issues as they relate to that specific culture. Sure, women aren't as oppressed in say the US as they are in Saudi Arabia, but that does not mean that women don't face some level of discrimination in North American culture. They most certainly do, and things like video games and their portrayals of women, although they may seem small, are symptomatic of much broader issues inherent in the society we live in. Since it is literally impossible to root out these issues at their core, the only practical option is to chip away at these issues by scrutinising and criticising those areas in which they manifest. A great example? Video games!

Furthermore, like it or not, these apparently "minor" cultural artifacts have a tremendously influential impact on those who consume them, whether those people realise it or not. If children are seeing these sort of sexist portrayals from a very early age, it is going to have an irreversible effect on the way they perceive gender, even if that perception remains more or less subconscious.

TL;DR - the guy who made those videos is an idiot, and if those are your opinions, I think you need to take some of his advice and actually think.

JerrytheBullfrog:
You are factually wrong.

No idea what part of my comment you're addressing. However, considering she's basically stating that she's going to take the money and use it as a salary for her and her "team" my predictions were correct.

Sylveria:
"portrayal of men...it's just not a problem in the same way." And that's where I turn off the video.

It's exactly the same problem, just internet feminists like Bob choose to ignore it because there's no morals points to be gained by addressing it and men aren't as quick to cry sexism as women are, for a reason I still can't really determine.

There's just as many, if not more, buff, six-packed, shirtless dudes in video games as there are D-cup, super-models. On the converse, I'd say there's WAY more "normal" but capable looking women then there are non-Mr. Universe looking men.

This

The reason men will not cry sexism is:

a) afraid of being called a "pussy" or the like
b) Have accepted it as commonplace
or
c) it will fall on deaf ears

Saying that it is "not the same problem" and dismissing it is no way to help.

I actually took some time to look through some of her videos, and while most of the time she really has a solid point to make, I really think she goes too far.

For instance, I got really irked when she mentioned Gwen Stacy as being a part of the "women in the refrigerator" trope. Specifically that she died just so Spider-man could go through a different arc. My issue is that the story is about Spider-Man, not Gwen Stacy. Her dying helped change his character and the very fabric of comics.

I like the idea of this series she's doing, but I hope she treats games with a little more respect. No issue is black and white and just because a piece of art doesn't portray a woman the best way possible DOES NOT mean it's misogynistic.

DrVornoff:

[quote]I wasn't mad at you suggesting it. I was mad that you were generalizing most men as being like that.

Edit: forget it.

PercyBoleyn:
As if that wasn't an outrageous demand anyways.

Uh, the average videography contract with a publisher pays better than that.

PercyBoleyn:
It isn't? She already had a video camera, you don't need cash to write a script and she already had an editing software. If she truly needed the funds to create this video series then she should have made it clear what the money would be spent on in detail. People were not donating to pay for her living expenses you know.

Yeah, actually, they were. Producing video content takes time. Time spent doing something for free is time spent not making money on something. If you want to devote a substantial amount of time to a project, you need to be able to finance other aspects of your life as well. People gotta eat. If she decided this was a project she wanted to do, and valued out her time to make it and came to the conclusion that between production cost and lost earnings from the time spent making it, it will take about 6000$ to produce this series while continuing to eat and pay rent, that's what the series costs to produce.

This is exactly how music labels and book publishers work, except that the cash forward is being crowd sourced rather than fronted by a single corporation. Labels and publishers give creators money to cover their costs of living and production expenses while they create, because the time spent creating is time that the creator isn't making money.

At the end of a given period of time, the publisher/label expects a product to be completed, at which point they will publish it, and (depending on the contract) may or may not share profits with the creator.

This is not a new business model. Literally the only difference is that the public is funding the cash advance rather than a publishing company, and the revenues end up in the hands of the creator. That's not a scam. That's democratization of content creation.

PercyBoleyn:
You should watch her videos sometimes. Her mastery of the feminist arts truly shine there.

Her grasp of feminist theory is actually pretty sound. Shes not even terribly radical in her positions. the Past Tropes vs. Women videos have pretyy straightforwardly identified sexual stereotypes in media, and her positions on those stereotypes are not at all controversial to anyone with half a grasp of the fundamentals.

I'm not actually crazy about the quality of her product, but she's not wrong.

PercyBoleyn:
I'm sorry, I was under the impression that she needed that money to pay for the the academic research that she can do for free at her local library, the video editing software that she already has and the video camera that she, also, already has. Nowhere in her Kickstarter page did she mention making a profit.

So here's a question for you: how do you expect content creators to continue to live while also creating content? As a content creator, this question interests me. Is our time just magically infinte and free?

PercyBoleyn:
She only has a master's. That's not much.

Oh yeah, what's six years of higher eduacation at a high-rated school and a research thesis really?

PercyBoleyn:
And because people gave her 160 grand it's somehow OK for her to keep it all? If she only needed six grand she should have either donated the money to charity or give it back to the people who donated.

YES. the fact that she was over-funded was never an unknown quantity. The level of funding is presented right there on the donation page. People gave her money knowing FULL WELL that she had more than she needed. That money is now HERS.

PercyBoleyn:
On what might she spend those six grand considering she already has the equipment needed to produce said video series and, in fact, has already produced numerous videos on this subject.

Anything. Anything from food and rent, to better equipment, to hookers and blow. As long a the video series gets made in line with the production goals she set and published on her kickstarter page, thereby honoring her obligations to her backers, that money can go any and everywhere, including up her nose if that's what she wants.

Again. This is identical to the music and publication industries. The only difference is that the money was raised from individual investors, not from a corporate entitiy.

PercyBoleyn:
I'm not surprised considering just how much she lied.

Name ONE.

PercyBoleyn:
Oh so she's running a business now?

The economics of the situation are irrelevant to whether or not she's running it as a business. She suggested a product idea. many people liked the idea and wanted to see it made. That interest created demand. Collectively the consumers who wanted the videos made, valued the project at a level the creator did not anticipate. She has consequently increased her production goals in order to produce a series of a quality apropriate to the demand and support.

Whethershe does this as a non-profit venture, or turns a profit on residuals, or uses the money to live off while she makes the series with equipment she already has access to doesn't matter. As long as she delivers the project she has promised, she has engaged in no deception or lapse of ethics.

PercyBoleyn:
Women in video games is not her field of expertise.

Women in media is.

PercyBoleyn:
I din't call her credentials into question, she did.

PercyBoleyn:
Because she's a clueless dope who knows nothing about video games, misogyny and sexism?

Uh huh.

-m

animehermit:
I actually took some time to look through some of her videos, and while most of the time she really has a solid point to make, I really think she goes too far.

For instance, I got really irked when she mentioned Gwen Stacy as being a part of the "women in the refrigerator" trope. Specifically that she died just so Spider-man could go through a different arc. My issue is that the story is about Spider-Man, not Gwen Stacy. Her dying helped change his character and the very fabric of comics.

I like the idea of this series she's doing, but I hope she treats games with a little more respect. No issue is black and white and just because a piece of art doesn't portray a woman the best way possible DOES NOT mean it's misogynistic.

Considering how I've also seen her work and am an avid gamer, she won't give any respect to the games she is going to complain about. It's more about her personal world view and how there is always something that goes against her that she must literally call the people without actually getting to know them or doing any actual research things like "parasites" and other derogatory names to boost her argument. Personally I see her more of a bully than an actual activist. I mean if she really wanted to have women only trains in the USA then why doesn't she actually legislate her local city/state governments? I don't see her actually asking for help from her fanbase to actually instruct any of the change she finds positive. It's just sitting back and complaining and demonizing people cause they run contrary to her beliefs without actually getting to know them at all.

JerrytheBullfrog:
Great, so you don't like crowd funding. I really don't care what you personally like or don't like.

Then don't ask me about it.

JerrytheBullfrog:
If you fund a Kickstarter, you are funding the person (or group)'s ability to produce whatever they want to produce.

Really? Because last time I checked every single Kickstarter to date has had a goal.

JerrytheBullfrog:
This is implicit and understood.

Really? By whom? Did you to a survey? Where is it?

JerrytheBullfrog:
. If you give somebody $40k to write a novel, are they going to be using a $40k PC?

Well that's not exactly...

JerrytheBullfrog:
No. If you give somebody $300k to make a videogame, are they going to be spending $300k on top of the line computer parts and books on coding?

But that's not what I'm...

JerrytheBullfrog:
No. If you give somebody $2m to make a documentary, are you giving them $2m to buy cameras, editing software, and plane tickets? No.

I never... Whaaattt?

JerrytheBullfrog:
You are funding their ability to create something.

Oh sure I am.

JerrytheBullfrog:
And that means that it is *understood* that for the time being, at least, you are going to be paying for their expenses SO THAT THEY CAN MAKE THEIR PROJECT.

It takes a lot of fucking self deluding to justify someone pocketing the money you donated under the impression that it would be used to create content. So now part of the money is going to go towards her "team" as a salary, whoever her "team" might be. Curious enough, if she hadn't made the 160k she wouldn't have had enough money to afford paying for her own expenses without workin and yet she was more than willing to go forward with the project.

I'm guessing 6k isn't much in the States, which means either she would've pocketed a large part of the money to pay for her living expenses, as "understood", and done her videos exactly like she had done before or used up the 6k to raise the production values. I wonder which choice she would've made...

JerrytheBullfrog:
Maybe that's a problem with the crowd funding model. I don't think it is. But to accuse it of being a scam is wildly off base, and given that you have thus far only been criticising Ms. Sarkeesian, only leads me to believe that you have ulterior motives.

I probably want to murder her because I'm a ciss male rape enabler right? In fact, I probably killed a woman after wishing my father a happy Father's Day.

medv4380:

Blade_125:

I meant to let this thread go, but I couldn't let this one go without commenting, since you have completely missed my point.

First off, comparing humans and primates is not valid. Even though we share a common ancestor, that doesn't make us all that similar now. A species that can produce cognitive thought can make ethical decisions. When a society says it is the womans fault that she was raped what mesage does that send to the men? It isn't about finding someone attractive. I am married and will still pause for a glance at a woman I find attractive. I also control myself. I love my wife and don't want anyone else.

Talking about the issue is how we fix it. The whole issue is the view society has. If women are looked at as second class citizens then they will be treated as such. If society looks at them as equals then they will be treate as such. The key is to change societies views. That is what you don't seem to understand. It is also why Bob's video, the feminist frequency video's and others are good things. They make people like you and I question how we treat women.

If you have a better idea on how things change please share it with the rest of us. If it is a mind blowing idea then I will fight with you to implement it.

No it's not, because you're not talking about the right subject. Talking about how someone shouldn't be seen as sexual doesn't address Rape at all. Their have been rapist who claimed that the elderly grandma in an ultra conservative night gown was "too attractive". It is a bogus argument that Rapist and Feminist alike use, and is irrelevant.

You would have a point if the discussion was only rape, but I am talking about equal rights and the way women are treated. I think perhaps that the way society depicts women might lead some men to feel it is fine to rape a women. I think that would be date rape in most cases (no means yes), but I am not a psycologist, so I can't say for certain.

I'm not sure how this conversation turned to discussing rape. Probably my fault in how the conversation went. My real point is that if women are sexualized so that it is all they are considered as to have value then that is a problem, and I doubt you would really deny that. That is where I mean education and enlightment will help change societies view. Someone else commented that this can be subjective, and while that is true to a degree I don't think you will find many courts in a democratic (or even a lot of non-democratic) countries that will say any human being should be treated as less than a human being. So while there are places in the world where women are second class citizen, gays are killed, foreigners have no rights, it has been human evolution to get past those issues. Even in the western world we have a hard time getting past those prejudices. I can only hope that having these discussions more on all sorts of topics can help make people realize that we are all human and deserve to be treated as such.

All this thinking is exhausting. I think I'm going to go home and have a nap. Thanks for the dialogue Medv.

edit: disregard this. If a mod sees this could you please delete this reply?

Dastardly:

Seriously, it'd be like going to a buffet restaurant and insisting that everything on the buffet be made of chicken, because I like chicken. It has nothing to do with hating vegetables or anything... but it's clear I don't view vegetable-liking folks as equal to myself, as I'm too focused on what I like.

That was a pretty great post and I wanted to add to this portion of it here, continuing with the buffet analogy. The thing is not only is it selfishness, but fearfulness I feel. Think about it, most people don't like chicken ( hyper "masculine" ideal) because we legitimately think it's good but simply because we aren't to keen on vegetables, therefore we need to enjoy the complete antithesis of it. Plus we've had chicken forced on us because of this rather than finding a distinct but legitimate foodstuff. On top of that people are afraid that if somebody who doesn't like chicken demands that there are issues with it and thinks that we should have some veggie on our buffet we worry we'll never see our chicken again. It isn't so much an evil contempt or intrinsic misogynist hatred, merely a rut, a fear of disrupting the status quote and that our ideals and their ideals will be mutual exclusive is what is holding us back.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 . . . 29 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here