No Right Answer: Is Anita Sarkeesian Wrong?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT
 

Karadalis:
And she hasnt used a single one of these PS3 or Xbox 360 games in her videos.

Infact most of what she used is either from nintendo or other japanese companies. The only game available on Xbox 360 or PS4 that she used for her show was Mass effect 3

And even that game she didnt show any ingame scenes that werent ripped straight from a trailer.

So... she has all this material of allegedly possible sexist games at her disposable... yet has not used a single one of them and instead uses examples from 30 years ago to make a point that games back then where more male focused then they are today...

Could it be that she simply didnt found enough examples for her theory in the current generation of games? *le gasp* Is such a thing possible? Is that why she had to fall back on games from the last 3 centuries to somehow justificate her point?

Really, your complaint is that she hasn't used enough of the games she bought, even though she's only on episode 2 of a 12 part series? Wouldn't the reasonable assumption be that she'll go on to use those games in the other 10 episodes, not that she just won't use them at all?

The Crispy Tiger:

But we're not the majority anymore.

http://www.g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/691571/pew-survey-shows-50-gamers-are-women/

50% of women are gamers and with those numbers nobody is saying that we start catering to women and women only but to include women in the way we market and speak of games. Including an audience could not hurt this industry in any way, shape, or form.

Goddamn, I gave you far more indepth view of the American gaming population. Women are being cater too, most don;t play the same shit as men do. This is like the fucking pay gap, it sounds so bad up until people look into it, and find that thanks to lifestyle choice's women are paid less in comparison to men. 45% (based on the ESA report of 2013) play videogames, most of them don't play the same type of video games, nor share the same market as men. For fucksakes the reason for such a large as growth in women playing videogames was because of social and mobile gaming.

Also you didn't even counter the male market and assumed that it's just the only game market, to which I called out on that post. That people think the current scene in gaming that they see the one they are in is the only version that exist. I called it false and that people don't pay attention to what the rest of gaming population is for the most part playing, or in some cases dismiss them outright. Casual gaming is hardcore gaming thus not considered gamers, being the most famous line that you can see here in this site.

The report for those looking for it.
2013 http://www.theesa.com/facts/pdfs/esa_ef_2013.pdf

Once again what the gaming population actually looks like when playing videogames in the USA.\

Losanme:

The ESA numbers might be true in the most liberal sense of the word, but everyone has to remember that they are provided by a lobbying body of the industry (which also stood up for things like SOPA in the past in the name of said industry, even though separate publishers when pressed on it would either say a different thing or not answer at all) that is supposed to make the entire Gaming Industry look good and presented in a misleading way without providing any further details.

The same study for instance also says:
"89% of the time parents are present when games are purchased or rented"
"80% of the time children receive their parents' permission before purchasing or renting a game"
"93% of parents pay attention to the content of the games their children play"
If you believe this, I have a bridge to sell you.

http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/WandaMeloni/20100330/87019/The_Next_Frontier__Female_Gaming_Demographics.php
http://www.datagenetics.com/blog/december12010/index.html
http://psychology.wichita.edu/surl/usabilitynews/141/videogames.asp
http://massively.joystiq.com/2013/06/03/96-percent-of-eve-online-players-are-male/
http://www.goodluckhavefun.net/league-of-legends-infographic/
http://www.casualnews.com/the-demographics-of-social-games-surprise-or-not/
http://readwrite.com/2013/04/11/why-mobile-game-developers-are-on-the-cusp-of-a-golden-age

If you look through these you will notice that the split between games differs a lot, especially based on type of game and genre.
"Core" games like GTA, Call of Duty, Battlefield and similar that sell in the millions at retail and set up new records every year, even outdoing the movie industry are mostly male-led.
CoD is 92% male, League of Legends is over 90% male, GTA IV is 85% male, EVE Online is even 96% male.
These games largely cater to their market, which are males usually between 12-30 years old.

(Notice how for instance how EVE Online or League of Legends had female character options and female champions from the get-go and this didn't particularly help them garnering more of those demographics.)

On the other hand games like Bejeweled, Treasure Isle, Country Story, Happy Pets or YoVille with ~80% or Farmville and Restaurant City with ~70% female players are female-led.
Most big publishers have female-led franchises that cater specifically to that demographic, EA for instance has The Sims, their Harry Potter games series, Bejeweled, The Sims Social, Pet Society and similar.
http://gigaom.com/2010/02/17/average-social-gamer-is-a-43-year-old-woman/

The Sims and The Sims 2 are both in the Top 3 of the best-selling PC games of all times with The Sims 3 not far behind and rather far up on the list best-selling video games of all times. They cater largely to women.
http://www.gamespot.com/news/ea-women-too-big-an-audience-to-ignore-6169357

Contrary to popular belief games like Dragon Age or Mass Effect aren't played by that many women though, no matter how hard they might try to appeal to said market and they still have over 80% male demographics: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-07-20-bioware-18-percent-play-mass-effect-as-femshep
http://cdn2.gamefront.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/mass-effect-3-infographic.jpg

UbiSoft has games like Just Dance, Your Shape, Petz, their Imagine and My Coach series (those are rather large, further games that get utterly ignored): http://www.commonsensemedia.org/game-lists/imagine-games-girls
Exploratory Adventure games like Myst/Uru have also been rather successful with that demographic in the past and there are still a healthy dose of those around: http://www.minotdailynews.com/page/blogs.detail/display/1000/Women-play-as-many-video-games-as-men.html
http://www.sophiageorge.com/uploads/7/4/7/6/7476345/engaging_women_in_games_using_emotional_stimuli.pdf

Adventure games in general have a wider female audience, see for instance The Blackwell Series, The Longest Journey/Dreamfall, Emerald City Confidential, Secret Files Series, Haunted, Gray Matter, Syberia Series, Nancy Drew Series, Still Life Series, Broken Sword Series, Edna & Harvey Series, A Vamypre Story, Winter Voices, To The Moon etc.
As well as the largest number of Hidden Object games: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Npu8xQDxS4

Don't get caught in the trap of saying that game publishers "aren't trying" to make money or wouldn't go for a specific market if there was money in it, because they do regularly and a lot of these products prove that. They just find out that in financial terms gender specific games that many feminists might theoretically not agree with sell very well to girls/women, while games with a high amount of action and violence and "core" AAA games generally don't.

This isn't "sexism". It is simple business and common fucking sense. The genders are generally speaking different enough to want different things. Catering to your main market instead of retooling your game to appeal to an entirely different demographic or turning the games into a homogenized mess that the main market would never buy is what more publishers and game developers should be doing, not less. (Notice how big games like GTA, Call of Duty, Hitman and similar usually get the brunt of the complaints of having to change.)

Other games that are generally overlooked in these talking points are lower profile Indie games like Contrast, 99 Spirits, Lilly Looking Through, Memoria, Game Dev Tycoon, Assault Android Cactus, SpeedRunners, Hate Plus etc. that never get brought up.
Not to talk about games only showing up on even lesser known game distribution methods like Desura, iOS/Android or on Casual game portals.

There even exists a subset of Japanese games that basically boil down to being romance games for a young female audience:
http://www.englishotomegames.net/list

Very few if any of these seem to ever show up on thorough lists regarding female protagonists in games like the ones on Mobygames or Giantbomb, since they are utterly ignored: http://www.mobygames.com/game-group/protagonist-female
http://www.giantbomb.com/female-protagonists/3015-2287/games/

Yet a small bit of the industry that largely coincides with the console AAA market and makes up what is possibly 5-10% of the entire Steam games released nowadays at the most seem to always be the only thing that get looked at in these cases.

It's not even that the "AAA" industry didn't try, there are also a lot of examples of AAA-ish games out there with female protagonists: Oni, Mirror's Edge, Beyond Good & Evil ( http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/129370-Ubisoft-Considers-Beyond-Good-Evil-a-Mistake ), WET, Velvet Assassin, Heavenly Sword, No One Lives Forever I+II, Remember Me (a very recent commercial failure), Zanzarah, Venetica, American McGee's Alice, The Wheel of Time, Drakan, Bayonetta, Hydrophobia etc.

Aside from Tomb Raider (which sold extremely well on its sex-appeal when it was a fresh franchise), Portal (with a silent protagonist) and Metroid (which is basically a robot game and at the end it is revealed that the pilot is actually female) none of these games sold "AAA" numbers and none of them could develop into a franchise, which seems awfully important for most big publishers nowadays.

Arguing that "core" games with a 90%+ male market buying them need to change because a large amount of women are playing what amounts to a majority of Casual, Facebook and Mobile games is stupid.
Arguing that Social/Casual games need to change and offer more Space Marine and Modern Warfare variety because a large amount of men are playing "core" games would be equally stupid.

And before more people start arguing demographics, marketing and prejudices, one of the articles made a very good point, which is that you can even easily conclude to a product by just looking at its demographics data alone (which you can as easily apply to games):
image

Male gamers are not only the majority of gamer's still, but they do own their own market, to which female gamers are a minority. On the other hand female gamers do own their own market, but it's the market that keeps on getting dismiss as not actual gaming.

The Crispy Tiger:

Magenera:

bdcjacko:
Hold on, she needed $6000 to change back ground colors for her web series? Money well spent.

I guess I don't understand what all the hubbub is about. Some lady wanted to put on a talk show about women's issues in games and did. Why does that cause such an epidemic of hate and internet flaming? But what can I say that has not already been said by movie bob and no right answer?

Someone spam her kickstarter on 4chan and 4chan got pissed. Gaming Journalism decided to blame the gamers for it. Making a bigger shitstorm, as one group got the blame as much as 4chan. Though the troll was ignored for starting shit.

GundamSentinel:
Nicely balanced discussion that addresses some of the points that have been bothering me with this whole Sarkeesian thing. She makes some good points, but the way she does it is often a bit ehhhh...

What bothers me in particular is the inability to have a discussion about it without being labeled one thing or another. One the one hand, if you agree with her, you're the industry killing party pooper (like the industry will immediately collapse if women are represented differently). On the other hand, if you don't agree with her, you're a misogynist bent on enslaving women (in a society where women generally have longer, safer, healthier, happier lives than men, I don't see how video games are breaking it all down, but whatever).

To me, the solution has always been simple. The problem isn't that women are often represented in stereotypical ways (it's male power fantasy in a piece of escapist media, what's the problem?). It's that they aren't represented in other ways as well. That the industry doesn't pay attention to what women want. Other industries (TV, music, toys, electronics, medical, you name it) have been doing that for years and it worked out really well for them and for women. Hell, even a traditional male product like LEGO saw the female line being the best sold in the past year. So go do it!

That's false though, the game industry does pay attention to female gamers, the problem can be summed up looking for JRPG's in a community filled with FPS's. Your escapistmagazine, IGN, Gametrailers, and such are part of the male market of gaming. In this case we are asking why the male market of gaming dominated by men doesn't cater to females as much as males.

Honestly it one of the things that pissed me off in this debate. The fact that people are calling it sexist that one market caters to one gender over the other because they are the majority of the consumers.

But we're not the majority anymore.

http://www.g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/691571/pew-survey-shows-50-gamers-are-women/

50% of women are gamers and with those numbers nobody is saying that we start catering to women and women only but to include women in the way we market and speak of games. Including an audience could not hurt this industry in any way, shape, or form.

The thing about that study that is often ignored is that it includes anyone who plays any type of game at all. It includes everyone from the guy who plays WoW for 12 hours a day to the mom that plays farmville for 30 minutes a week. I'm not one to say this person is a gamer and this person is not but in general I would imagine AAA developers don't care about the doctor who plays candy crush on his phone. I think its very fair to assume a majority of the people who care about the video game industry are male. Go to any midnight release and tell me how many women you see. Probably some but not many. Not 50/50 that is for sure. If you went on xbox live or steam (or whatever), took all the players currently playing something and found their genders I don't believe for a second it would be even somewhat close to even. Fact is most games are catered to males because that is who is playing them. Women just are not a huge factor when it comes to the people pre-ordering, going to midnight releases, discussing games on forums etc.

The Crispy Tiger:

But we're not the majority anymore.

http://www.g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/691571/pew-survey-shows-50-gamers-are-women/

50% of women are gamers and with those numbers nobody is saying that we start catering to women and women only but to include women in the way we market and speak of games. Including an audience could not hurt this industry in any way, shape, or form.

Actually that is partly due to the branches of gaming.

50% of women might play games but of 30% might play facebook or mobile phone games. In reality the figure for "core" gaming is apparently closer to 40% Female.

The big question is the extent to which games should cater to women. If we take the concept that many games play on male power fantasies are we to say these shouldn't exist while saying other media like romance novels are fine being what could be considered female fantasies ?

Should an escapist medium be changed to reflect reality more ?

Again it depends on the changes. I'm all for seeing more female aimed marketing and characters however if men are to forever bee the barrel chested hyper macho characters then female characters will always be very feminine and large busted.

bobleponge:

Now imagine if gay porn was the only porn available. Maybe occasionally you'd get a naked woman to walk by for a second, but 99% of porn would be dudes having sex with other dudes. Lesbian sex scenes basically don't exist. Would you want to live in that world?

Also, holy cow, think about it. It's primarily dudes interacting with other dudes, and women are rarely involved; gay porn has a lot in common with most video games. I bet you could take just about any AAA video game premise, replace the "killing" with "sexing," and you'd have a premise for gay porn (and it would always be gay).

I'm trying to make sense of the comparison. Are you trying to establish an equivalency between porn and AAA VG's or porn and VG's? Because in the first case the equivalency is pretty wrong because porn contains all the TV sex entertainment while AAA VG's only consists of a segment of the industry at large.

What would be more correct is saying what if all the big budget porn is gay porn. To which i'd respond: well it would be weird considering the composition of the demand side but i'd survive. Easily at that. Would I prefer a world with more lesbian porn rather than gay porn? Sure. But would that make it some kind of big social issue that requires an army of white knights? I would say no.

Karadalis:

LifeCharacter:

Bmagada:
She didn't say those are the games she bought. She just took pictures with them and the systems, all of which could have been borrowed. Not to mention last time I checked around 50 games (saying all 50 cost around $50 and that's being generous) and three systems cost in the neighborhood of at most(seeing as all of this could be bought used) $3000.00

What did she use the other 3K for? Ripping off other people's let's plays?


As for your point about her possibly borrowing them, is there something that makes you believe that to be the case? And no, you wanting her to be an evil, lying scam artist is not reason enough to believe that she just borrowed what looks to be a little under 200 games just to trick everyone.

Since those likely cost her more than her original budget, I'd assume that she was originally going to buy much less, though how much depends on how much she was going to spend on production and equipment.

And she hasnt used a single one of these PS3 or Xbox 360 games in her videos.

Infact most of what she used is either from nintendo or other japanese companies. The only game available on Xbox 360 or PS4 that she used for her show was Mass effect 3

And even that game she didnt show any ingame scenes that werent ripped straight from a trailer.

So... she has all this material of allegedly possible sexist games at her disposable... yet has not used a single one of them and instead uses examples from 30 years ago to make a point that games back then where more male focused then they are today...

Could it be that she simply didnt found enough examples for her theory in the current generation of games? *le gasp* Is such a thing possible? Is that why she had to fall back on games from the last 3 centuries to somehow justificate her point?

Devil May Cry 4, Prototype, Prototype 2, Ghostbusters the Video Game, Splatterhouse (2010), Star Wars: The Force Unleashed II, Alan Wake, Max Payne 3, Hitman: Absolution, Kane & Lynch: Dead Men, Inversion, Dishonored, The Darkness II, Shadows of the Damned, Dante's Inferno, Castlevania: Lords of Shadow, Dead Space, Infamous, Gears of War 2, Duke Nukem Forever, Borderlands 2, Resident Evil 5...

These are some examples from her second video. She's done two more since then which also feature more modern games. Maybe you should know what the hell you're talking about before you try to make claims.

th3dark3rsh33p:
If we are talking of logic, and whether an idea is correct, gender and race shouldn't be required to make any of the points.

If people thought more logically, most race/gender issues wouldn't be half the problem they are to begin with.

But people aren't logical; in advocacy (especially politics), it's usually the person who is best able to spin irrational ideas as rational (sensationalism) that retains the public's attention, and not the person who actually says anything logical or worthwhile.

deadish:

bobleponge:

deadish:
LOL. OMG this is still going. Who gives a crap?! Seriously.

So some games like Dead or Alive pander 100% full throttle towards men. Problem?

If you don't like, find it offensive, DON'T BUY IT. It's probably not targeted at you, it was not made for you.

I find gay porn kind of gross. I don't watch it. Problem solved. Don't see me kicking up a fuss about it.

Now imagine if gay porn was the only porn available. Maybe occasionally you'd get a naked woman to walk by for a second, but 99% of porn would be dudes having sex with other dudes. Lesbian sex scenes basically don't exist. Would you want to live in that world?

Also, holy cow, think about it. It's primarily dudes interacting with other dudes, and women are rarely involved; gay porn has a lot in common with most video games. I bet you could take just about any AAA video game premise, replace the "killing" with "sexing," and you'd have a premise for gay porn (and it would always be gay).

If you can't find video games that are to your liking ... tough luck.

Developers make whatever the heck they want. You have no right to tell them what to make.

You are free to create your own women friendly video games if you think there is a market for it. NO ONE IS STOPPING YOU!

You are not being oppressed nor ill treated. Just not being catered to ... and they don't have to cater to you if they didn't want to - just like a high end restaurant can refuse to serve you a cheese burger.

Developers don't have to cater to you, either. You're just upset because you think they're going to listen to people like me, and stop catering to people like you (which is what they are currently doing).

(also, of course I'm not being oppressed or ill-treated. I'm a white dude. The games industry caters entirely to me, and honestly, it's getting boring)

And no, I'm not going to make my own game. I don't know anything about coding, game design, or the video game business. Learning all of that would require to me to essentially change careers, which I'm not interested in doing. So instead I'm going to keep doing what I am doing: be one of many voices asking for more inclusive, better written games. Because this is America, dammit, and just like the developers have every right to make whatever game they want, I have every right to complain that they aren't making the kind of games I want to see. And hopefully, I can convince a few of you guys that this isn't the End of Video Games.

Because, much like porn, video games are awesome, and should be enjoyed by everyone.

My general attitude is that she never had a position to begin with, she's basically just an attention monger who managed to get a large platform due to a lot of people defending her for politically correct reasons without bothering to think things through.

To be honest, what Anita's doing is kind of old, the whole thing about "sexism in fantasy" has been around in one form or another forever. Video games are just the "attention grabbing medium for geek culture" of the moment, with geek culture being larger than ever before. We've seen all of this go around before with comic books, paper and pencil RPGs, fantasy artwork (novel covers, posters, etc...) and everything else.

For the most part it dies as soon as it comes up and struts around for 15 minutes. At the end of the day girls in fantasy represent a physical ideal, just like the men do, and the images are accurate to the characters girls themselves create for a female audience, in some cases being created by female artists, in others being artwork created based on the creation of a female writer, and in some cases the work of a female writer who is ALSO an artist. All it takes is trotting out some of the stuff painted by say "Julie Bell" (who has been around forever) or pointing to characters created by women in fantasy (especially nowadays) and it's almost an instant-win. At the end of the day in *fantasy* especially *heroic fantasy* tons of people represent a physical ideal, and are usually quite attractive on both sides
of the gender spectrum. You have your girls with perfect "Barbie doll" bodies, wandering around in exotic costumes, and dudes who might have unusually worn/rugged features on their face, but otherwise even when standing around casually look like they oiled their arms up for a Mr. Olympia contest (which they won). Dudes running around without sleeves or showing off their perfect 6 pack abs are just as prolific as girls with DD cups and bikini briefs.

When it comes to behavior, one can get into the entire gender roles thing and instinctual behavior, but the bottom line is that both guys and girls wind up both playing the role of hero and victim nowadays. Sure when you go back to less enlightened times when people were still writing you saw more of a gender bias, but even so it was never that bad as even vintage fantasy like Michael Moorcock has plenty of women kicking butt. It seems to mostly be a popular feminist rant that there is something wrong with a character being traditionally feminine and having lead that kind of lifestyle, and needing to be rescued. The idea being that there is something wrong with say Princess Peach acting traditionally feminine and being a politician/leader as opposed to some massive warrior, and needing to be rescued. In context it's
no worse than when you say get sent by a king/prince/town council full of old geezers, to save everyone, or rescue one of these leaders (oh no, the baddies are attacking the town leader's house... you must save him!... how many times have we been there?).

The point I'm getting at is that this has been going on for a long time, which is why I'm so good at more or less "shutting down" the gist of the major arguments. Anita is about scale, not the content of her message.

To be honest the problem with Anita is that people observing her become concerned she might be taken seriously, and this will lead to changes in gaming, and dare I say "tropes" that really don't need to be changed. She's frustrating also because she's more or less in an unassailable position, from which she spews her bile, that makes things worse. Basically the only way to really "stop her" or make headway would be something really over the top and out of context like actually attacking her... which has been threatened, and is probably why our video hosts were so specific about saying they were advocating that or trying to get personal.

In parting, I just want to leave one thought: "What exactly is wrong with DoA: Extreme Beach Volleyball?". Before you fire back off the cuff, seriously contemplate this.

I'm not a big fan of the game, but fundamentally it's a mini-game collection featuring a bunch of gorgeous women on the beach doing the things people on the beach do, albeit in a fairly exaggerated way for a video game. Apparently we've got pool horseplay, volleyball, jet ski racing, and things like that, the only thing really different from other mini-game collections is that it's set on a beach with girls in bikinis.

Now granted, when you go to a beach to discretely "see the sights" you don't generally see that many ultra-hot girls in the same place unless it's a private beach/resort and they are hired to be there (which now that I think about it, is close to the premise of DOA: Beach Volleyball, albeit they were apparently tricked into coming to the private beach). But still that is where you see girls showing off their bikini bodies.

So basically what we've got is a pretty typical mini-game collection, and a connecting premise that you can't even complain about too much because beaches are where you find girls in Bikinis, and this is simply the fantasy "Hollywood casting call" version. Basically the DoA beach is the one you always see in the backround on TV shows and movies apparently. :)

From everything I've seen, there isn't anything particularly sexist involved either, I mean it's all girls, and the games are pretty straightforward. It's not like you play as "Ace Manly" and dominate them all because your a dude, winning every event with your man avatar or something.

Now you can say "Well the idea of watching over proportioned cartoon characters is creepy", well, I suppose to some it might be, but honestly with the proliferation of anime especially in geek culture it's become almost mainstream. Outside of a discussion like this one 90% of the people likely to respond here are probably fans of something with just as much eye candy as this Volleyball game.... and this includes girls, as especially nowadays your seeing stuff making it to the US with catboys, and Japanese swimming teams (parodied in Critical Miss I believe) and similar things.

The point I'm making is not so much that it's a good game, but rather that it makes everyone's list for this kind of thing, but really, what can be objectively said is wrong with it? You can't even try and make the argument that the costumes are improbable for the setting (like the chainmail bikini). It's basically the video game equivalent of "Baywatch" minus "The Hoff" strutting his stuff for the ladies (well maybe not even that, I mean I believe Zack is in the game, and the dude is another guy with an improbable Mr. Olympia in terms of muscle definition... albeit in this case crossed with Dennis Rodman... who for a time was one of those "hot guys" dating Madonna and so forth). :)

thank you for posting that. it is a very thorough critique of what was wrong with this. this was the first time i had watched this show and i dont think i will in the future. not because i think they are sexist. instead i felt misled this would be an open discussion by the name No Right Answer. i didnt expect two guys to both take the same side (sort of goes against the idea of there being no right answer when they both select the same side).

anyone who hasnt read your post should.

Madmonk12345:
OK. Point by point rebuttal or concession, depending on the point.
0:38 - 0:52 - "Hate is not OK. Disagreement, though..."
While this statement is absolutely true, many of the arguments and facts and implicit statements you use to justify your disagreement aren't just invalid, but are actively harmful in their belief.

"Then louder people than most went nuts and said that they were attacking there precious thing.(image of gollum)"
This is a remarkably light coverage of what was pretty shitty behavior. Let's not forget that this got so extreme that someone made a game to beat her up. In fact, this doesn't seem like balanced coverage at all in any term but the fox news sense.
http://www.feministfrequency.com/2012/07/image-based-harassment-and-visual-misogyny/

Additionally, the portrayal of these asshats as something inhuman in Gollum along with the description of them as a vocal minority contributes to the disassociation of the actions of these "troll"s (who literally cannot be trolls because they form their own community that gives social praise for this behavior) with the gaming community as they see it and themselves, though it is far from the biggest example. By this view, these people aren't anything you could become, but some mythical other that you are forever separate from, just a "vocal minority". This is part of why rape is so prevalent; it isn't treated as something that you or I might do if we aren't careful and lack empathy, but the actions of monsters in modern culture.

1:20 - "Then suddenly the internet turned into the biggest white knights ever and decided they had to protect her"

To start, don't use the term "white knight" ever again without a hint of irony. It's a poisonous term that is used to discredit male feminist supporters that is rarely if ever provable, and the people who redefined the term from its feminist roots also created the title of "professional victim" for the harassed who actually post evidence that they are harassed and label women who get righteous or angry about shitty behavior hysterical, allowing them to ignore criticism from anyone. By describing the behavior of her supporters in this way without commentary you demonstrate approval for the term, which provides cover for the disgusting people who wrote those disgusting comments and images which have been and continue to be posted about Anita Sarkeesian as a person.

Secondly, The idea that they did it to "protect her" has little evidence. Of all the motives that exist that aren't direct support for her ideals, this is among the most insulting. Many arguing with trolls used the option of donating to spite those they were arguing with, for example. Additionally, there was a very high level of exposure by the ridiculous degree to which the response was. While many would support such a project, the number of people who would have known that this existed before the trolling would have been few in number, which raises the scope. I personally donated to spite the asshats who posted this nonsense along with actually caring about these issues.

Finally, here, the full scope of your comment is insulting. One phrase that describes a really disgusting behavior and the other describes a natural consequence of the first; the description of support, "protection", for someone dealing with shit on the caliber that she was dealing with as "the biggest white knights ever" gives hyperbole to the second, not even weighting them equally when the other is significantly more relevant and horrible. It would be like I described your video as "Anita Sarkeesian made some videos, was kinda nuts. Then, in the most misogynistic of moves, No Right Answer decided to endlessly whinge on and on about how their right to criticize was taken away from them without being called sexist asshats." Which isn't true; you clearly tried to not be sexist in this and give valid criticism of Anita Sarkeesian, and you do have some valid points about her earlier videos.

2:42 - "Her point is very valid. They way she has gone about it is very off-base because you can't just bring something up and then have a reaction and then assume that 'Well I'm going to keep making the same point and getting the same reaction'. If I slather myself with honey and put fish in my pockets, and start pushing at bears, I don't really have a case when I suddenly get mauled and I go to the bear judge and say,'Hey, why did your bears maul me?'.

I'm Just going to mention that I don't watch your show regularly, so I'm not quite sure if you do abstract metaphors like these often, but in the context of feminist discussions, such outlandish metaphors involving the wilderness are a common staple of rape apologetics for some awful reason. This includes women being told that they need to act like men in the wilderness avoiding mountain lions if they want to avoid rape or act like a wasp if they want to truly avoid rape(horrible rape apologetics courtesy of Thunderf00t). Sent me reeling. If we're going to criticize Anita Sarkeesian for content issues and examples over the actual valid points she makes, I at least get to criticize your choice of content. You aren't trying to get feminists to give bad first impressions of your opinions to validate your beliefs, of course?

"When you go on the internet and post your opinion, you're going to get a backlash, Whether you're right or wrong, whether you should be mauled or not, you can't not expect that. So, when that happens, and then you see the position of power that you're in - The most dangerous women in videogames - suddenly, you need to ask yourself 'Can I do what they need me to do, and am I doing any good?'"

Others have handled this. I'll let them deal with it.

"The title - The most dangerous women in video games - that she has adopted - I don't think she invented it."
"Oh it makes me very upset and I'm not saying its her fault BUT she is not dangerous because her opinions are dangerous; they're not unraveling the fabric of our society. Her opinions are dangerous because they're immune to scrutiny. You cannot go against her without immediately being labeled sexist or personally damaging against her, and I expect our comments to say, "Oh. You don't like her. You must hate women. Do you batter your wife?' No I don't"

Her perspectives cannot be immune to scrutiny, and the claim that she doesn't listen to criticism must be false. You concede that in this very video when you admit that she has at least listened to criticism.

4:33 - "And I said OK those exist, you can't deny those exist because yeah, those are pretty clear examples which come from so many places, but you haven't told me why is this bad? In the next two episodes she describes why the trope is kinda bad, but at the same time I'm going to pick examples from games that are way in the past, - When was the last time Double dragon was relevant to anything in gaming - or you're going to pick games that nobody played, or you pick examples like DNF where everyone AGREES with you on."

This was a response to a valid criticism, that she hadn't elaborated on why the damsel in distress was bad. Even if you don't like the response, and even if your criticisms of her response are valid, this was a common complaint, and she responded to it. How does that line up with the belief that her views are beyond scrutiny, that she doesn't listen to criticism? In the third video, she even went on to explain why the past games are relevant, which is a criticism you just made now, describing how indie games aim for retro and end up taking various sexist ideals from "games way in the past" with them.

Additionally, you fail to discuss her most recent work Ms, Male Character, which kept such issues under handle for the most part. Most are relatable and familiar, and those that aren't are used as examples for a specific goal, where awareness is sacrificed for bluntness and visibility or is otherwise not really avoidable.
A list of all examples specifically mentioned, sorted by discussed Topic and point of usage:

Ms. Pac Man was discussed as the first of the archetype, despite being retro. Additionally, the simple nature of sprites in the retro era not only makes the consequences of the decisions involved immediately visible and difficult to deny
The main standout issue section that still has an issue with this is the "Put a Bow on it" section, where we have Adventures of Lolo and Bubble Bobble, two retro games, and Where's My Water and Giant Boulder of Death being games that aren't particularly common knowledge. However, enough examples of the bow appear elsewhere so that it isn't a problem, and the examples are more immediately visible. The only issue this causes is that it is front loaded, so people viewing who left thinking this criticism wasn't addressed might leave early. Even if you haven't played the other games, most people have at least heard of them(Though Ice Climbers may be only notable through the SSB series).

In comparison, most of the games mentioned in part 2 of DiD were either too obscure or not new information to the viewers as you mentioned, unless your examples were cherry picking. Of about fifty examples, the only ones memorable explicitly mentioned by name being Borderlands 2, Resident Evil 4 + 5, God of War, and Max Payne 3. For the rest, long strings of aphorisms of these non-memorable games are pointed out, outnumbering well known games at least 2 to 1.

When it comes to argument, you mentioned prior that using relevant examples was a problem. Well, in Ms. Male Characters Every character used as an example for an argument that isn't itself referring to an obscure behavior is relevant. Angry Birds is universal beyond even gaming and is used as a case study in the results of Ms. Male character in gender neutral games, where it labels the original as male despite having no gender at all before several updates to the game. In addition, many of the changes are unfamiliar to most because the ongoing game is approaching over-saturation, with many many spin offs that few follow, even though the concept itself is ubiquitous. Likewise, the example of Bowser's children is both well known because of many recent appearances in NSMBU and NSMB2 along with their presence in Super Mario World and SMB 3. In contrast, Part 2 includes an in depth discussion of Prey, a game released nine years ago which was a footnote in history.This is a handling of your criticism of the second parts that wouldn't exist if she wasn't actively paying attention to feedback, which cannot be anywhere on the scale that it is claimed.

"... When you get enough money to buy a small house, you need to step up her game, which she hasn't, BUT she's protected by that firewall of being dangerous and nobody has told her that without personally insulting her."

1. Others have addressed the first point. As for dangerous firewall created by their fans, you have not demonstrated that disagreeing with her makes you some evil in this community or any other beyond fanboy or fangirl behavior. More whinging about how Nintendo is treated horribly on this website than baseless accusations of sexism. There's been about like maybe 3 - 5 in this thread of 121 posts, with everyone else either taking up the mantle of how "brave" you are to post the moderate opinion that they agree with and making similar positions about how easily people are accused of sexism or other people not knowing what the flying fish you are talking about.

Transcripts:
http://www.feministfrequency.com/2013/05/damsel-in-distress-part-2-tropes-vs-women/
http://www.feministfrequency.com/2013/11/ms-male-character-tropes-vs-women/

EDIT: Blerg, that was longer than I expected. Tired, will look at responses in the morning and see how badly I mangled this post.

LifeCharacter:

Really, your complaint is that she hasn't used enough of the games she bought, even though she's only on episode 2 of a 12 part series? Wouldn't the reasonable assumption be that she'll go on to use those games in the other 10 episodes, not that she just won't use them at all?

Slight correction:

She has not used "not enough" of these games.

She has used NONE of these games herselfe.

And in THREE videos.

All the footage she uses is from other people, she hasnt played a single one of them.

So why should i assume she suddenly will use them in further videos.. if those videos ever come out. 3 x 20 min videos in what? Two years is it now? And not even using her own game footage? Whats the long keepup? I could make ten videos in a week showing game footage in the background and quoting wikipedia articles... with a healthy sprinkle of personal bias thrown into the mix.

Face it dude your position is unsuportable.

Devil May Cry 4, Prototype, Prototype 2, Ghostbusters the Video Game, Splatterhouse (2010), Star Wars: The Force Unleashed II, Alan Wake, Max Payne 3, Hitman: Absolution, Kane & Lynch: Dead Men, Inversion, Dishonored, The Darkness II, Shadows of the Damned, Dante's Inferno, Castlevania: Lords of Shadow, Dead Space, Infamous, Gears of War 2, Duke Nukem Forever, Borderlands 2, Resident Evil 5...

These are some examples from her second video. She's done two more since then which also feature more modern games. Maybe you should know what the hell you're talking about before you try to make claims.

And still she didnt played a single one of these games and only repeated wiki entries, brushing most of these games aside.

Academic methods indeed.

My argument still stands that she didnt used the games she allegedly bought. She just parroted what others have written down before her and showed other peoples work and trailer material in the background.

Thats like me claiming to be an expert on american football.. yet i never played it.. i dont like it and all my info comes from wikipedia

Xanarch:

glider4:

Matt Gleason:

Yeah! Because reasons!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4luNFjHN_no
I think I will just leave this here. Oh yes and don't forget her connections to pyramid schemes.

Synopsis of that video: "Someone has an opinion about something that I don't agree with, so my opinion is that that person doesn't have a right to their opinion because they're not an expert. Please ignore the fact that I'm not an expert. Also I am angry because people didn't give me money to go on a media tour."

Anita's video series is the equivalent of me raising a kickstarter about how the fashion industry is sexist against men because I found a bunch of differences between men and women's clothing despite knowing nothing about the fashion industry. Of course I would use every tactic she has such as disabling comments on all video's except the one that will get me money because that way I can tell people that there is some coordinated attack on me every time somebody calls me out. I use the money to buy clothes and show them yet really don't but any and just take pictures from websites meaning that the money went towards nothing. Oh yea and I can connections to pyramid schemes.If I did that then nobody would take me seriously but thanks to feminists and white knights, people think that this ignorant con artist actually has a point because she knows how to use TV tropes and pretend that she's a victim.

Karadalis:
Slight correction:

She has not used "not enough" of these games.

She has used NONE of these games herselfe.

And in THREE videos.

All the footage she uses is from other people, she hasnt played a single one of them.

So why should i assume she suddenly will use them in further videos.. if those videos ever come out. 3 x 20 min videos in what? Two years is it now? And not even using her own game footage? Whats the long keepup? I could make ten videos in a week showing game footage in the background and quoting wikipedia articles... with a healthy sprinkle of personal bias thrown into the mix.

Face it dude your position is unsuportable.

So your argument is basically "pics or it didn't happen." You see, I've played lots of games and haven't recorded myself once, yet I doubt anyone would go out of their way to tell me how I haven't played any of the games I bought. But, because she hasn't recorded herself playing video games, for what a reasonable person would assume were practical reasons like not wanting to play an entire game over just to get one scene for the video, she hasn't played any games?

And still she didnt played a single one of these games and only repeated wiki entries, brushing most of these games aside.

Academic methods indeed.

My argument still stands that she didnt used the games she allegedly bought. She just parroted what others have written down before her and showed other peoples work and trailer material in the background.

Thats like me claiming to be an expert on american football.. yet i never played it.. i dont like it and all my info comes from wikipedia

So she has used more video games than you lied about her using, but those games don't count because you don't like what she said about them and don't believe she played them. Yeah, I can totally see why you'd think that was a good position to take in an argument.

And, to save me and possibly you any more wasted effort, if the only thing you're going to reply back with is a repeat of "She hasn't recorded herself/I don't like what she says so she didn't play any of the video games," just don't. Firstly, because it's a pathetic argument and secondly because the argument could be summed up with "Nuh uh! Uh huh!"

Caostotale:

Xanarch:

glider4:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4luNFjHN_no
I think I will just leave this here. Oh yes and don't forget her connections to pyramid schemes.

Synopsis of that video: "Someone has an opinion about something that I don't agree with, so my opinion is that that person doesn't have a right to their opinion because they're not an expert. Please ignore the fact that I'm not an expert. Also I am angry because people didn't give me money to go on a media tour."

I would say that the video's editorial elements are certainly lacking, but the point that she's completely dissonant and inconsistent about 'loving gaming for years' seems completely valid, given the video footage shown. Nothing in it remotely resembled jealousy whatsoever, unless asking people to 'subscribe to my channel if you like the video' is now tantamount to ill-willed sour grapes. As well, the dude didn't ask anyone for money or a media tour. Arguments that automatically shame criticism as petty opportunism are the worst sort of success-shilling B.S. You may as well skip the re-branding step and simply call for censorship.

So you're glossing over the possibility that someone could love video games as a concept but not like the current implementation of the concept? "I would love to play video games but I don't want to go around shooting people in the head." (4:19) ZOMG teh horrorz this chixorz hat3s FPS burn her at a steak LOLZ!!!

Let's face it, he has a point he wants to make and he's cut and edited segments of various larger works to support the point he wants to make. Which everyone's saying is horrible when Anita does it. Except it's not, of course, it's just how you support an argument. Other people then judge if the argument, as presented, has any merit. (Yay peer review, democracy works, etc!) So he's no better or worse on that point.

He is, however, angry. Calling her a con-artist of the highest caliber? Pretty sure she's not Madoff. The tone of voice and language used certainly suggests someone with quite a bee in their bonnet, and the constant reference to her funding suggests sour grapes. You don't have to agree, but I think I'm right and you're wrong.

Nobody's calling for censorship, and there's nothing automatic about the shaming, I assure you. I watched the entire video before deciding. Nevertheless, I'm of the opinion that his argument is weak, poorly supported and, above all else, hypocritical. Doesn't mean he's not entitled to his views, just as Anita's entitled to hers. If he wants to set up a Kickstarter of his own on this topic, then he can. I just won't be funding it. I do like his atheism videos though.

glider4:

Xanarch:

glider4:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4luNFjHN_no
I think I will just leave this here. Oh yes and don't forget her connections to pyramid schemes.

Synopsis of that video: "Someone has an opinion about something that I don't agree with, so my opinion is that that person doesn't have a right to their opinion because they're not an expert. Please ignore the fact that I'm not an expert. Also I am angry because people didn't give me money to go on a media tour."

Anita's video series is the equivalent of me raising a kickstarter about how the fashion industry is sexist against men because I found a bunch of differences between men and women's clothing despite knowing nothing about the fashion industry. Of course I would use every tactic she has such as disabling comments on all video's except the one that will get me money because that way I can tell people that there is some coordinated attack on me every time somebody calls me out. I use the money to buy clothes and show them yet really don't but any and just take pictures from websites meaning that the money went towards nothing. Oh yea and I can connections to pyramid schemes.If I did that then nobody would take me seriously but thanks to feminists and white knights, people think that this ignorant con artist actually has a point because she knows how to use TV tropes and pretend that she's a victim.

No, it's the equivalent of you starting a Kickstarter about anti-male sexism in the fashion industry (which I'd agree with and fund) and then having to disable comments because you received thousands of rape and/or death threats. Not quite the same as what you have posited.

Let's assume, however, that your hypothetical situation does in fact take place; you set up a Kickstarter, get funded, and let's also assume the links to pyramid schemes are true and you use the same tactics you're implying Anita is using. If the same sequence of events followed suit, you'd end up with a bunch of money, a place on the stage at TED, dozens of interviews, articles in major newspapers and magazines about you and your cause, hundreds of thousands of people talking about you and the ear of a few fashion developers for your future consulting career. There's a word for that, I believe it's "winning."

I swear, every single thread or argument that gets started against Sarkeesian takes the exact same form:

"She's wrong 'cause I don't like her!"

I don't think there's an original thinker left on the internet anywhere.

So there's no candy crush, no yoshi's island, no sims, no tiny deathstar, no world of warcraft, no farmville, no tetris...

See a common theme here? Famous games without any sexual bias except those you bring with you. That's 6 without even thinking about it. So whats the problem then? No gaming thats not specifically aimed at men? No "non sexist" games?

It's like someone saying "these games aren't aimed at my demographic, well they should be.. all games should be!" it reeks of self entitled immaturity. Seriously, get a grip. There's more then enough out there for you and it's quite easy to make your own game. So why are we fighting? What do you actually want?

EDIT: I think we're also failing to take one thing into account. These are stories written by a group of individuals with various perceptions and opinions of their own, filtered through a few hundred other perspectives and marketing and what not. But essentially they are opinions, not fact, not accurate representations. They are opinions. So some peoples opinions/stories aren't quite in mesh with the sensibilities of the world. People are still entitled to those opinions, you are not forced to listen to them, so why? Point is, you argue like these "inconsistencies" are attacks upon you. Fact is, they aren't. So stop acting like a child about it and find something you actually give to shits about instead of ruining someone else's day because your delicate sensibilities are offended.

Trilligan:
I swear, every single thread or argument that gets started against Sarkeesian takes the exact same form:

"She's wrong 'cause I don't like her!"

I don't think there's an original thinker left on the internet anywhere.

Not really no.

I think many people do fail to dispute her points and approach. In the video i think they did a pretty good job of demonstrating that their problems stem from her work, it's lack of progression or scope and it's rather narrow and flawed window on the issues.

bobleponge:

Developers don't have to cater to you, either. You're just upset because you think they're going to listen to people like me, and stop catering to people like you (which is what they are currently doing).

(also, of course I'm not being oppressed or ill-treated. I'm a white dude. The games industry caters entirely to me, and honestly, it's getting boring)

And no, I'm not going to make my own game. I don't know anything about coding, game design, or the video game business. Learning all of that would require to me to essentially change careers, which I'm not interested in doing. So instead I'm going to keep doing what I am doing: be one of many voices asking for more inclusive, better written games. Because this is America, dammit, and just like the developers have every right to make whatever game they want, I have every right to complain that they aren't making the kind of games I want to see. And hopefully, I can convince a few of you guys that this isn't the End of Video Games.

I'm upset that this topic has gotten as far as it did and this stupid "controversy" has no end in sight. People are discussing it like it's some big deal. It ain't. It's a video game, a luxury good. What can I say, #firstworldproblem.

There are many reasons for there being few to no "girl games", namely
a) developers just don't know how to appeal to them, you create what you know,
b) no publisher is going to pump in 10s of millions into a project unless the market is mature.

Competition in the video game market is steep with a lot on the line (specifically 10s of millions). Publishers and developers know who their target audience is and they will be damn if they don't exploit every trick in the book to keep that audience rather than try to court the female crowd that may or may not work out.

Because, much like porn, video games are awesome, and should be enjoyed by everyone.

This is where it goes wrong ...

Different people have different taste. When you make it so it's "enjoyable by everyone" you get watered down Hollywood crap designed to appeal to everyone (and no one in particular) that is afraid of stepping on toes. A restriction on developer freedom of expression right there - as if the restriction imposed by the budget and their need to recover it isn't enough.

Look there are girl games out there, like The Sims and in Japan in the form of Otome games (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otome_game), the market moves where the money is. If "girl games" are making people money, you will see more of it. If it isn't ... well ... you won't.

I'm going nowhere near these arguments. All I have to say is that OPENING WAS PERFECT!

Everyone else has probably already said everything interesting, I just wanted to add that I thought that last sentence of the video summed things up perfectly.

Scrumpmonkey:

Trilligan:
I swear, every single thread or argument that gets started against Sarkeesian takes the exact same form:

"She's wrong 'cause I don't like her!"

I don't think there's an original thinker left on the internet anywhere.

Not really no.

I think many people do fail to dispute her points and approach. In the video i think they did a pretty good job of demonstrating that their problems stem from her work, it's lack of progression or scope and it's rather narrow and flawed window on the issues.

The petty resentment these two show is palpable.

Bringing up the money she was donated, calling her supporters 'whiteknights', saying that her position is considered 'unassailable' though it is the single most assailed set of essays in the history of game criticism, and then after all that still having to admit that she's making valid points.

Her cash flow and her personality and the shitty way the internet decided to treat her are not arguments against her position. Nobody ever makes arguments against her position. They either agree with her but talk shit about her, or they agree with her but try to dismiss the problems she talks about, or they say she's wrong because of a bunch of stupid ad hominem bullshit that they pulled out of their collective asses.

You expect that kind of shit from forum trolls. It's especially disheartening to hear it from content creators - especially on a show that's ostensibly about debate.

I don't respect her opinion because she doesn't respect anyone else's opinion.
How do I know that? Because she disabled comments on everything she does. She claims that people attack her for her viewpoints and that we should feel bad for her because people are stifling her opinions, but then she does the same exact thing to people who have valid disagreements with the things that she's saying.
It's just like they say at the end of the video, "We don't want her to not be able too express her opinion, we just want it no too be the only opinion being expressed." That hits the nail on her head, she can't complain about people stifling what she has too say when she's doing the same thing, it's hypocrisy.

Tradjus:
I don't respect her opinion because she doesn't respect anyone else's opinion.
How do I know that? Because she disabled comments on everything she does. She claims that people attack her for her viewpoints and that we should feel bad for her because people are stifling her opinions, but then she does the same exact thing to people who have valid disagreements with the things that she's saying.
It's just like they say at the end of the video, "We don't want her to not be able too express her opinion, we just want it no too be the only opinion being expressed." That hits the nail on her head, she can't complain about people stifling what she has too say when she's doing the same thing, it's hypocrisy.

That is a dumb argument, for several reasons.

For one: Youtube comments are not and have never been a legitimate forum for discussion. They're a fucking joke, and they always have been.

For two: she opened comments up on a video, and what happened? Tons and tons of misogyny, death threats, rape threats and other vitriol.

For three (and this one really is the key point): not a single voice has been silenced by closing the Youtube comments on her videos. Not one.

Your opinion is objectively wrong.

Xanarch:

So you're glossing over the possibility that someone could love video games as a concept but not like the current implementation of the concept? "I would love to play video games but I don't want to go around shooting people in the head." (4:19) ZOMG teh horrorz this chixorz hat3s FPS burn her at a steak LOLZ!!!

Let's face it, he has a point he wants to make and he's cut and edited segments of various larger works to support the point he wants to make. Which everyone's saying is horrible when Anita does it. Except it's not, of course, it's just how you support an argument. Other people then judge if the argument, as presented, has any merit. (Yay peer review, democracy works, etc!) So he's no better or worse on that point.

As I said, I found the editorial content of his video very lacking, mostly because it was redundant, tiresome outrage. If I were to call into question the Sarkeesian phenomenon, I would certainly hope to see something resembling a wider assessment of academic initiatives such as hers and an examination of meteoric rises of fame that build on explosive 'Succès de scandale' situations. He indeed offers little of that.

For me, the video footage shown certainly seems to point towards the strong possibility that Sarkeesian's primarily an academic opportunist who ended up in the right place at the right time. Having worked with professional academics for years, I've come to simply expect that the majority of folks in those careers will almost always tailor their scholarly interests to match up with 'profitable' courses of study, 'hot topics', and the like. Such initiatives are all the more desirable when they offer pathways out of academia and into wider spotlights like the TED talks circuit. For me, based on the way things operate in a capitalist-consumerist system, where market-failing advertisement in the all-dictating language, one's best always starting from a point of view that 'nothing fails like success', or as Kevin Smith described Hollywood careers, a process of 'failing upward', a possibility I'd certainly keep on the table with Sarkeesian.

He is, however, angry. Calling her a con-artist of the highest caliber? Pretty sure she's not Madoff. The tone of voice and language used certainly suggests someone with quite a bee in their bonnet, and the constant reference to her funding suggests sour grapes. You don't have to agree, but I think I'm right and you're wrong.

Agreed that the language there is a bit overzealous. I suppose we're both extrapolating a bit on this one, but for me, the difference between the two is that Sarkeesian asked for money and he's asking for Youtube subscribers. I'd tend to side with his methodology. Most of my favorite video-game critics, bloggers, and online content creators followed similar approaches and simply did what they did for free and (a.) were eventually picked up by larger outlets (e.g. Moviebob --> Screwattack --> Escapist) or (b.) continued to do things on their own and found other ways of generating income (e.g. the different shows on RedLetterMedia earn money via advertising revenue, merchandise, and selling their old props on eBay).

I suppose my prejudices are firmly placed against Anita's 'in-road' of her liberal arts academic background. As far as I'm concerned, those areas of academia that coalesced during the last half-century in the post-modern era (i.e. 'fields' like musicology, American studies, cultural studies, gender studies, communications, media studies, etc....) are not even close to something that can be called time-tested fields (like mathematics, linguistics, economics, etc...). The lot of it seems like very well-dressed-up bullshit jargon, and for me loses credibility fast when one weighs in the declining quality of teaching and rising costs of education that get increasingly shouldered by society as these things flourish. For me, Sarkeesian's approach of asking the public for what's essentially a 'grant' is a practice quite far-removed from that of virtually every other decent critic who's contributed something to game criticism.

The name of this show has never been more inaccurate. There is a very clear right answer. Anita Sarkeesian is a negative influence ON THE WHOLE. There is no good that is directly caused by her actions. Your assertion that there is no scam is pretty provably false. While you're not white nights, you're certainly not helping by trying to be moderate. Anita Sarkeesian is damned, and anybody that pretends otherwise is dead wrong.

I agree with pretty much everything you said but god damn do I wish people, including you, would stop talking about her. Anita Sarkeesian is like Voldemort. Saying her name empowers her.

Karadalis:

Devil May Cry 4, Prototype, Prototype 2, Ghostbusters the Video Game, Splatterhouse (2010), Star Wars: The Force Unleashed II, Alan Wake, Max Payne 3, Hitman: Absolution, Kane & Lynch: Dead Men, Inversion, Dishonored, The Darkness II, Shadows of the Damned, Dante's Inferno, Castlevania: Lords of Shadow, Dead Space, Infamous, Gears of War 2, Duke Nukem Forever, Borderlands 2, Resident Evil 5...

These are some examples from her second video. She's done two more since then which also feature more modern games. Maybe you should know what the hell you're talking about before you try to make claims.

And still she didnt played a single one of these games and only repeated wiki entries, brushing most of these games aside.

Academic methods indeed.

So wyou admit that your baseless assertion that she hadn't used any modern gen games was completely wrong. Maybe she's not the one here that needs a lesson is academic methods.

Trilligan:
Nobody ever makes arguments against her position. They either agree with her but talk shit about her, or they agree with her but try to dismiss the problems she talks about, or they say she's wrong because of a bunch of stupid ad hominem bullshit that they pulled out of their collective asses.

You expect that kind of shit from forum trolls. It's especially disheartening to hear it from content creators - especially on a show that's ostensibly about debate.

No. You are perpetuating the same false idea that every person who dislikes her rather poorly made, thought out and repetitive series has a personal grudge against her. You are, again, spreading the lie that "disliking tropes vs. women is automatically hating Anita Sarkeesian.

Saying that nobody ever legitimately brings up things wrong with her work is a stupid back-out to ignore the fact that many people have both raised very decent points and been dismissed by people like. Lets take an example shall we; saying "This song/film/game isn't very good, it's poorly made and kind of dumb" isn't the same thing as saying "Shitfuck! i will kill this band/fim-maker/developer in their sleep!"

Tropes Vs. Women is a bad series. I can say that whilst completely ignoring who created it.

You know what the right answer is?

Stop talking about a personality and start talking about the issue. The very fact this thread gets so many people engorged in the waist reason is why we can't have sensible discussions or nice things.

Roads that don't have speed limit signs have limits that are specified in the law. In VA, the un-posted speed limit in 55mph (I believe, old country road I grew up on has a 45 sign now).

Mysnomer:
The name of this show has never been more inaccurate. There is a very clear right answer. Anita Sarkeesian is a negative influence ON THE WHOLE. There is no good that is directly caused by her actions. Your assertion that there is no scam is pretty provably false. While you're not white nights, you're certainly not helping by trying to be moderate. Anita Sarkeesian is damned, and anybody that pretends otherwise is dead wrong.

I would like you to explain this. I think it's clear that her videos and the issue with her kickstarter have been a positive influence ON THE WHOLE, because they started a discussion in the gaming community, a discussion which has lead to a number of positive changes.

You can't just say "Everyone who disagrees with me is wrong!" and expect anyone to take your opinion seriously.

bobleponge:

Mysnomer:
The name of this show has never been more inaccurate. There is a very clear right answer. Anita Sarkeesian is a negative influence ON THE WHOLE. There is no good that is directly caused by her actions. Your assertion that there is no scam is pretty provably false. While you're not white nights, you're certainly not helping by trying to be moderate. Anita Sarkeesian is damned, and anybody that pretends otherwise is dead wrong.

I would like you to explain this. I think it's clear that her videos and the issue with her kickstarter have been a positive influence ON THE WHOLE, because they started a discussion in the gaming community, a discussion which has lead to a number of positive changes.

You can't just say "Everyone who disagrees with me is wrong!" and expect anyone to take your opinion seriously.

As I remember it, the discussion was flaring up before she entered the fold... Albeit with less hyperbole flying from every angle, and the whole thing was supplying less fuel for the click-bait monsters internal engine.

Out of interest. What positive changes do you attribute directly to her work?

Scrumpmonkey:

Trilligan:
Nobody ever makes arguments against her position. They either agree with her but talk shit about her, or they agree with her but try to dismiss the problems she talks about, or they say she's wrong because of a bunch of stupid ad hominem bullshit that they pulled out of their collective asses.

You expect that kind of shit from forum trolls. It's especially disheartening to hear it from content creators - especially on a show that's ostensibly about debate.

No. You are perpetuating the same false idea that every person who dislikes her rather poorly made, thought out and repetitive series has a personal grudge against her. You are, again, spreading the lie that "disliking tropes vs. women is automatically hating Anita Sarkeesian.

Saying that nobody ever legitimately brings up things wrong with her work is a stupid back-out to ignore the fact that many people have both raised very decent points and been dismissed by people like. Lets take an example shall we; saying "This song/film/game isn't very good, it's poorly made and kind of dumb" isn't the same thing as saying "Shitfuck! i will kill this band/fim-maker/developer in their sleep!"

Tropes Vs. Women is a bad series. I can say that whilst completely ignoring who created it.

Are you sure you didn't mean "Hate that BITCH RABBLE RABBLE RARRRGHHH!!!"?

I find her work to be subjective, and... often pretty facile. I'm not impressed. I have been entertained by how much she has been reigning in the snarkiness lately though. Watch the pre-controversy stuff and you'll know what I mean. She was all bad-vibes and flippancy before, now it's more of a professional presenter approach.

It's true what they say, money changes people...

Sexual Harassment Panda:

Are you sure you didn't mean "Hate that BITCH RABBLE RABBLE RARRRGHHH!!!"?

I find her work to be subjective, and... often pretty facile. I'm not impressed. I have been entertained by how much she has been reigning in the snarkiness lately though. Watch the pre-controversy stuff and you'll know what I mean. She was all bad-vibes and flippancy before, now it's more of a professional presenter approach.

It's true what they say, money changes people...

I'm glad someone was entertained by any aspect of her work. She does seem more professional i agree but that leads to the malformed arguments she delivers being even more tedious. The controversy masks the fact that Tropes Vs. Women is so boooring and bland. She provides no insight, never mind original or new insight. She presents lacking content in an unentertaining way. If she was entertaining as a presenter or a personality it would be easier to swallow but both in content and presentation the series is lacking even when compared to YouTube series with £0.00 funding.

Without the controversy surrounding it and the idiots both attacking and defending it the series wouldn't be worth wasting energy on, she is a talking head with nothing interesting or original to talk about. It would simply fade into obscurity as a below average piece of YouTube fodder.

BUT the fact that she raised $158,922, became the defacto face of videogame related 'feminism' on the internet and continues to be lauded by many people as some kind of shining saint, to which any disagreement is regarded as misogynist heresy, means that her flawed methodology and continued turning off most within the gaming community needs to be adressed.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 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
Register for a free account here