Flash Game Makes Players Beat Up "Tropes vs. Women" Creator

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 . . . 31 NEXT
 

Matt_LRR:

That's a lot of words spent answering a question I didn't ask.

You did come close to touching on something important to my question though, and acknowledging that you can't respond, I'm going to address it.

Never say I can't do something. Cause realize that there is a major difference between having a conversation between two people to which are both lay people and unless we want to go back to the whole "you have to have a degree to be qualified" then that is only going to divide us from actually having a conversation that we should be more focused on our opinions and feelings. We aren't fact checking here. If you want me to actually do the research then I'm gonna need the time to actually do it.

Also, I really don't believe that having a degree makes you the only authority to talk about the issue. Especially when I know a lot of people who get their master's degrees and they still don't know jack shit about the degree they studied so hard in. Nevermind forget it all when they actually get a job that has nothing to do with what they studied.

Matt_LRR:

Tenmar:
nice loaded question.

That is its own ticking time bomb that blows up on me no matter how I answer cause it makes the logical leap that admitting there is a problem in the first place.

The fact is, the question wasn't loaded, because I was asking you if you understood why the creation of women-only spaces is not anti-feminist. Feminist theory asserts that a problem exists. Answering the question does not require you to agree with feminism on this issue (though you should anyhow), it requires you to understand why advocacy of minority safe spaces (but not necessarily majority safe spaces) squares with that particular assertion of feminist theory.

Because it's true that, on the surface, it appears like the creation of women-only spaces is antithetical to the idea of "equal rights", but contextually the creation of such a space is actually seen as either an unfortunate necessity of circumstance or as an actual interim step towards creating spaces that do hold men and women in equal regard.

I bring this up, because among the most common complaints of Ms. Sarkeesian's work has been to attack her understanding of feminist perspectives, and virtually ever criticism of the sort I've seen so far (including both your personal attacks onher arguments in the Bayonetta video, that destructoid article, and that "College Graduate" video, have been launched from a lay perspective that fundamentally misunderstands what feminist theory actually says, and how feminist theory underpins the specific claims Anita makes in her work.

-m

You are right that on the surface it does run contrary to equal rights. But on the other hand there was a reason that women did fight to be treated to be equal to that of men. Yet the issue comes towards that of safety and security comes the question of if there "is actually a problem?" that does warrant that trade of liberty for that security. Personally I will disagree with such a notion and while we all know that molestation is bad, violence is bad, the hard truth is that there are a lot of bad things out there that affect us. However it is up to us to be vigilant and also understand that we have a code of laws that empower people to stop such acts and also punish people who decide to violate said law based on our philosophical standards that are constantly changing.

However do note the action to solve a problem does not always relate to the quantity of the problem. As sad as this maybe for me to say this and this is coming from a person whose father was a police officer there is only so much crime you can prevent. It is up to the people to uphold the law and understand the consequences. You can't actually have a certified system and when it comes to urban areas where populations are extremely condensed and considering the various cultural standards other countries have there are going to be victims due to people being uneducated for their own personal heritage from their family where these people do not treat people as equals. That's the sad hard truth. However to then point to video games and ignore the economic situation, cultural, and individual heritage is a bit off. Especially when we make the cultural jump from applying more western standards and how we understand the world to other countries like Japan and India. Wouldn't their definition of feminist theory be quite different than our own? Or is it really meant to be a universal theory that should be applied regardless of the religion or culture?

But I think the reason that I try and ignore your statements is that more or less I find it to be a non-issue from the actual heart of the issue which is the actual development of video games. I mean we can bring up all these assholes who make flash games as kneejerk reactions with all the conspiracy of a scam but that doesn't really get us anywhere. Neither does a project that analyzes the characters but outright ignores the logical extension of her stance which is the question, "are video game developers making games for fun, or are they actually sexist pushing a sexist agenda?". As black and white it is that is the logical extension. Cause you can't really give a pass if you firmly beyond a shadow of a reasonable doubt to all the game developers and artists if you think they are causing or promoting sexism to which I would argue has actually gone down much like violence as a crime.

Call me a bit ignorant but I honestly can't look at a game like Duke nukem and say that Gearbox Software is sexist because of some feminist theory that is based on the treatment of women. I can't look at Shigero Miyamoto and say he's a sexist cause of his depiction of women with Princess Peach as a damsel in distress and even when she gets to be the protagonist she uses the powers of emotion to save the Mario Bros gets as much complaint despite the narrative offering a reason that there was a magic artifact explaining why she has those powers.

It all just seems like looking for ghosts where none exist and undermines the integrity of the video game industry who I'm pretty certain doesn't actively hire people who are sexist or are actively misogynistic. I'd rather allow developers to freely create the content they want and then once published be critiqued on how to make the game better and not have to actively in the mid development process appease a player base that could cause financial harm to the company and their deadline. Cause the way I see it is that people are trying to relate all these tragedies(cause that is what they are) and somehow have that tragedy affect the industry that doesn't actually have any relation to it at all yet now have to walk on eggshells and limit what they want to create cause of a sensitive subject of what is actually a loud minority.

P.S.

Matt, are you feeling okay man? I know these topics can get emotion but I've noticed you get quite negative in these topics. I mean "acknowledging I can't respond"? Really? That's a pretty low blow here cause it puts my intelligence on display and on judgement. Rather have a conversation with you than have you judging me. I don't do that crap to you cause I use these forums to have a discussion by sharing our thoughts and feelings on the subject. Neither of us are talking from some authoritative standpoint or talking as if our opinions are facts.

Also, "attacks"? Sorry but I'd like to think of them as dissents. You don't see me saying she is a bad person or any of that crap. Heck in a previous post on this thread I defended her cause he project as much as people want to think is a scam, isn't a scam. I'm sure she's also a nice person that I could get along with. But saying I attack her is a stretch from what it actually is, a dissent, a disagreement. I'm not actively trying to stop her project either but simply voicing my disagreement on her views or as of late how one sided the publishing of actual reasonable dissent gets buried in the tabloid trash where some asshole with a conspiracy somehow gets more attention and where you have the news section that should stick to the facts instead of making logical leaps that cause there is a dumbass attack from a random flash animation means that the video game industry is sexist. It's the same logical fallacy that exists when she herself used the youtube comments to critique the video game industry as sexist. That completely ignores the actual work of the video games and the employees involved in creating said video games and if they are in fact sexist and just jumps to the conclusion that the video game industry is sexist.

I mean by the same logic I can say that liberals and conservatives are "sexist, racist, homophobic and other slanderous terms I can't think of at the moment" because I saw an opinion piece on Fox News and Huff Po where all the commentators made lewd and nasty remarks. I see the same crap in politics and even candidates at least focus on the other candidate and people directly hired by the candidate instead of random forum posters when it comes to the smear. It's that logical leap that Anita made and Funk made that is a problem.

Sorry sidetracked, it happens a bit with so many issues thrown in. But I should be more concerned about you Matt. I like you man, you are a good person but when it comes to these kinda of issues you really come off as negative or questions the other person's intelligence as if they shouldn't say anything at all and just let conversations go one sided. Really shuts down communication or becomes some contest where it stops being about the subject and becomes an ego contest where no one actually gets anywhere. Cause sometimes the best way to take some posts is to just take their opinion as opinion and see where they are coming from. Sometimes deciding if a person is right or wrong doesn't really matter but understanding what exactly they really care about when it comes to the issue.

ElPatron:

blalien:
If you act on your hate by sending rape and death threats, then you are a misogynist.

Semantics time. If I act on my hate like you just described, but my targets are (say) exclusively gay men, how am I a misogynist? Not every rapist targets women.

How do death threats against men do not qualify as misandry?

How does rape (which is usually considered to be more about power than sex, sometimes leading heterosexual rapists into raping men) imply misandry/misogyny or any other kind of discrimination?

You keep using that word, etc etc etc

Dude, you can't just cut out one sentence out of context and go, "Where's the rest of your statements supporting this?" The majority of sexual assault and threats of sexual assault in our society are done by men against women. The vast majority of the people threatening Anita Sarkeesian are men. It is obvious in this particular situation that threats of rape and murder were the first resort for a group of men who became frustrated at a woman they couldn't control and who dared to criticize their hobby. You have to actually look at the world and think about what goes on in it, not just look up the strict dictionary definition of each word in a sentence.

To answer your questions, yes, if you are particularly targeting any group of people for violence, then you are acting out of bigotry against that group. And I suppose it is theoretically possible that there exists an equal opportunity rapist who goes for any victim without regard for gender. But that is clearly not what's going on here.

Lumber Barber:

That's still not misogyny. They won't hate a woman who doesn't agree with her.

No, they won't hate a woman who knows her place and doesn't contradict them. It's still misogyny.

Tenmar:

Before I respond to any of that, I want to note that when I said "acknowledging you can't respond" I was referring to the fact that you said you had to go and wouldn't be able to comment.

That is, "with the understanding that you aren't around to comment". That was in no way intended as a slight against you at all.

-m

Matt_LRR:

Before I respond to any of that, I want to note that when I said "acknowledging you can't respond" I was referring to the fact that you said you had to go and wouldn't be able to comment.

That is, "with the understanding that you aren't around to comment". That was in no way intended as a slight against you at all.

-m

Ahh terribly sorry. My mistake. Yeah but the way it was typed could be taken way out of context. Like I actually did :P.

EDIT: Can I get a facepalm?

Tenmar:

Treblaine:
I will say this is not a scam yet. Who knows, she may make the best and most insightful documentary ever with this $160'000 into this.

But if she does not. If she endlessly delays, puts out something short no effort badly researched piece and it emerges that she has blown most of the money on flippant luxuries... THEN it will be a scam.

$160'000 is based on a promise that it is for a video series about sexism in video GAMES, not stating the obvious that "hurr, trolls exist". If she doesn't actually spend it on the video series about the subject in question, then it is a scam. BUT ONLY THEN!

Right now it is a HUGE promise that she still has some time to deliver on... or return the money.

I wonder if she is woman enough to follow through with her commitment.

I got one second to post and I'd like to respond to this and this is coming from a person who is taking the stance that this project is quite unneeded.

1. Her project in itself is not a scam. There will always be some section of people who will take any stance. The project in terms of revenue was a critical success and regardless of what happens to the project itself be it defined as a "success"(yes this will be relative) or a "failure"(again relative) or an actual failure(as defined by that in she doesn't actually produce the project at all with zero content).

2. Gonna repeat myself here but the only way she can truly fail is that if she doesn't produce the project at all. She can certainly somewhat fail in many other ways such as messing up by actually turning her non-profit into a profit or running out of revenue halfway through the project itself. But failure does not instantly institute that the project was a scam.

3. To be defined as a scam would mean that revenue for said project is being used that does not result in producing content for the project at all. To that the only people who could and should demand financially transparency are the investors and the journalists to keep her honest.

4. I think more people when it comes to this project are more concerned about the integrity of the project given her past and present failure to actually grasp or understand the content of the games she has critiqued and going to critique.

Well when is never? Is a year too long? 13 years? She could always say "this is such a big project" and like fusion power stations, it'll always be "just around the corner". She is bound to no timetable, no deadlines, nothing.

Yes, where is her financial transparency. Not necessarily needed on a $6000 project but now she has a small fortune. There are people who REALLY need that kind of money for much more important things, how do we know she isn't blowing it all on goofballs and cigarettes?

And of course, money cannot buy quality. Though it might be a self serving rationalisation circle jerk of her preaching to the choir about how women ever being seen sexually is bad and never ever EVER giving a rational and solid explanation WHY this is in itself bad. But maybe that's what almost 7000 people paid almost $160'000 to hear.

Treblaine:

Well when is never? Is a year too long? 13 years? She could always say "this is such a big project" and like fusion power stations, it'll always be "just around the corner". She is bound to no timetable, no deadlines, nothing.

Yes, where is her financial transparency. Not necessarily needed on a $6000 project but now she has a small fortune. There are people who REALLY need that kind of money for much more important things, how do we know she isn't blowing it all on goofballs and cigarettes?

And of course, money cannot buy quality. Though it might be a self serving rationalisation circle jerk of her preaching to the choir about how women ever being seen sexually is bad and never ever EVER giving a rational and solid explanation WHY this is in itself bad. But maybe that's what almost 7000 people paid almost $160'000 to hear.

Well Treblaine, like I said I'm not going to be active in trying to stop her project at all. In fact, I'm pretty confident most dissenters aren't. Do note that when I say dissenter I mean a person who is actually going at this with reason and simply disagrees with the project and not bother with projects like the flash animation that this story is about. Honestly I think forums should just have some dump section now where you can just post all your stupid crap where you just want to attack the person directly in one category and then have another section where the actual criticism can be read. People are taking crap way to personally now.

Honestly, if you didn't donate to her cause then don't worry about it. That is what we should take away from the project. Cause she is not beholden to us from a fiscal standpoint. We can freely disagree with her and the work she has done and going to do but I wouldn't go out making forum posts trying to make hard and fast deadlines to signify some sort of failure. The more ya worry about that stuff the more it distracts you from the why you disagree with her. In short, it would make ya look petty.

But like I said everything from the quality to the fiscal transparency is not our problem. There is only one person who has that problem and that is Anita. Doners can certainly if there is enough of them to request for some transparency but that is up to them to be organized, not from some person who wants to be an asshole and shit on any project they don't like.

EDIT: In short, disagree, voice your disagreement, and move on.

blalien:
The majority of sexual assault and threats of sexual assault in our society are done by men against women.

This is like playing chess, I knew you were going to say that.

I called on you because you're using very broad accusations and honestly, I hate it when people do that. So I extrapolated your claims and take them silly enough.

I hate using analogies but here it goes. Just because there is friction between men and women during gender issues you should not attribute to malice what can be just stupidity. Not everything is a crusade. Not everything is misogyny.

Analogy being deployed: that same logic means that if I have to fight a person of another race, doesn't mean any of us is an actual racist. We were just stupid people escalating the situation because we had fun being confrontational.

Plus, since it is estimated that in the US only about 52% rapes are reported, it's arguable that most female-on-female/male-on-male rape is not even reported. Not only that, you can't imply that male-on-female rape is an effect of misogyny for reasons I have stated above.

ms_sunlight:
No, they won't hate a woman who knows her place and doesn't contradict them. It's still misogyny.

"Everyone step back! I'm a professional mind reader and armchair psychologist and I can understand exactly how people are trough the internet..."

If the person in case was a man he'd still get hated. Come on! It's the typical pretentious douchebag with college education shoving in our faces how much smarter she is because she went to college and reads a lot of "cultural" things because he/she is a very knowledgeable person. Who cares if it's a man or a woman? Being a woman only adds insult to injury because in the internet there are a lot of men that quickly assume misandry.

If I was the typical uneducated dickwad that strolls around the internet, I would use my powers of Armchair Freudian Bullshitter and assume she is a heterosexual woman with penis envy that licked a lot of pussy during college and decided to hate men after reading a bunch of books about feminism.

Of course, I am a *little* less judgmental and I don't actually think she hates men. I just think that she's another person taking advantage of a *real issue* to jerk her own ego off.

The worst part is that we're all going to be blamed for this...

Lumber Barber:

blalien:

Lumber Barber:
I hope you stop using the word "misogyny" like that. It would be misogyny if they hated all women this way, but they don't.
They just hate her.

They hate her because she's a woman who had the gall to speak for herself and criticize their beloved pastime. You can turn your head sideways and squint and maybe come up with a reason to dislike Anita Sarkeesian, but none of those reasons could possibly justify the numerous threats and endorsements of rape and violence against her. Whatever mild annoyance or disagreement these people might have had with her were amplified a million-fold because she happened to be a woman who is not currently making them a sandwich.

That's still not misogyny. They won't hate a woman who doesn't agree with her.

They don't hate other women, they just hate her. That is your stance?

Why do they hate Anita? Because of what she said.

Then maybe the next question you should ask is why do they hate what she says?

Maybe you think that they disagree with her opinion. That would be fine if it was simple disagrement. But that isn't the case is it.

Whenever someone disagrees this badly there is more to it than simple disagreement. I seriously doubt they disagree based on harm coming from her arguments.

I think maybe you protest too much, as you sure are pandering to make excuses for the stong reactions.

ElPatron:

4. She is a feminist woman that claimed that undressing a female is sexist.

Please don't add any reasonable motive for people who do the kind of shit like in the OP. May I quote the person I quoted:

"I'm not wondering what the people disagreeing with her smartly problem is, I'm asking the people who are throwing around sexist and Anti-Semitic slurs and who hate her enough to make this game why they're so pissed."

Also, would you be so kindly to add a source to your "all sex is rape" statement?

What if Sarkeesian made that game, to prove a point?

Poe's Law people (o.0)

(ConspiracyKeanu.jpg)

aba1:
I think the people community on Newgrounds in more impressive than this one as someone who goes to both sites regularly.

Well, you must be insane.
The people community on newgrounds is just a bunch of decent artists surrounded by ungrateful 10 year olds, or people who act as such.
Most of the people there have three opinions: "OMG AMAZING, LOLOLOLOLOL.", "It was OK, I suppose, but would hav been bettter with more *insert pointless addition here*.............." or "OMG, BLAM THIS CRAP, I COULD NOT COMPLETE IT so i rate 0, becUase IT'S CRAP!!!!!!!!!111!!! (also wud not work on my computer properly, and didn't load levels right, so CRAAAPPPP!".

Newgrounds is really not comparable to the Escapist. They just don't hold up. Newgrounds is just full of too many man-babies.

OK, this is dumb.

But it still doesn't exclude the fact the woman is a hack. Coincidentally, I was just watching this:

Blade_125:

Lumber Barber:

blalien:

They hate her because she's a woman who had the gall to speak for herself and criticize their beloved pastime. You can turn your head sideways and squint and maybe come up with a reason to dislike Anita Sarkeesian, but none of those reasons could possibly justify the numerous threats and endorsements of rape and violence against her. Whatever mild annoyance or disagreement these people might have had with her were amplified a million-fold because she happened to be a woman who is not currently making them a sandwich.

That's still not misogyny. They won't hate a woman who doesn't agree with her.

They don't hate other women, they just hate her. That is your stance?

Why do they hate Anita? Because of what she said.

Then maybe the next question you should ask is why do they hate what she says?

Maybe you think that they disagree with her opinion. That would be fine if it was simple disagrement. But that isn't the case is it.

Whenever someone disagrees this badly there is more to it than simple disagreement. I seriously doubt they disagree based on harm coming from her arguments.

I think maybe you protest too much, as you sure are pandering to make excuses for the stong reactions.

If they hate/fear/mistrust her for being a woman - and good luck with confirming that on personal basis - then it is misogyny. Watering down >2k years old definition into McLabel does nothing in terms of describing phenomenon.

If they hate/fear/mistrust her for engaging in certain activity it is either another -ism or there is no -ism invented for such case, probably because she is not "special" enough. Even "sexism" is not exactly convincing.

If they hate/fear/mistrust her because she brings PC world with make-believe science into segment of life that has been relatively free from them however... While methods used by our dear Internet Trollforce are not exactly subtle or tasteful, the issue itself is pretty familiar. When some politicians - cluelessly or not - defended ACTA a while ago, they've been basically buried under mountain of manure, courtesy of Internet. In both cases many people saw incompetent, hungry for attention, money-grubbing scammers trying to introduce some crap into their own enviroment. Guess what, instead of crying foul when politicians were melting in accumulated vitriol, many journalists described entire phenomenon as new generation getting territorial and saying GTFO.

That's what this entire "scandal" is as well. Loud, ugly, aggressive GTFO. Forcing diluted "misogyny" into equation feels like Unskippable: SWTOR - "to make sure people know Sith is evil, we also made him look like Satan".

Blade_125:

Lumber Barber:

blalien:

They hate her because she's a woman who had the gall to speak for herself and criticize their beloved pastime. You can turn your head sideways and squint and maybe come up with a reason to dislike Anita Sarkeesian, but none of those reasons could possibly justify the numerous threats and endorsements of rape and violence against her. Whatever mild annoyance or disagreement these people might have had with her were amplified a million-fold because she happened to be a woman who is not currently making them a sandwich.

That's still not misogyny. They won't hate a woman who doesn't agree with her.

They don't hate other women, they just hate her. That is your stance?

Why do they hate Anita? Because of what she said.

Then maybe the next question you should ask is why do they hate what she says?

Maybe you think that they disagree with her opinion. That would be fine if it was simple disagrement. But that isn't the case is it.

Whenever someone disagrees this badly there is more to it than simple disagreement. I seriously doubt they disagree based on harm coming from her arguments.

I think maybe you protest too much, as you sure are pandering to make excuses for the stong reactions.

Excuses? I just want the word "misogyny" to be used correctly, because it's becoming as useless as "entitlement" at this rate.

I personally believe that if a man came out with this exact same Kickstarter, stating the exact same things, and getting a ridiculous amount of money, the controversy would be about the same. That's why I don't see the "misogyny" business, because nothing would change if it was a man except maybe a few different cuss words.

TheKasp:
Also, would you be so kindly to add a source to your "all sex is rape" statement?

You didn't actually bother to read my post, did you?

I'll copypaste it. "She is doing the "all sex is rape" campaign against herself and this time it's not even a misquote."

Now, "all sex is rape". If you want source, google it. It happened. Since you might not read that sentence, here's a quick summary:

Andrea Dworkin. Quite stupidly (IMHO) she "wanted" to say that women should not subdue to men during sex (or so she claimed in hindsight) in her book Intercourse. Opponents usually criticized the book by saying that she was against sex ("violation is a synonym for intercourse" - the quote that started it all). You know how it goes with word of mouth. Basically people started misquoting her, and the "all sex is rape" situation did not make her look good even in the eyes of feminists.

So the lesson here is, if you want to say that "people obtain pleasure from sex in inequality, which is comparable to rape" you have to say that "violation is a synonym for intercourse" because you can be sure that nobody will ever misquote you.

EDIT: changed the name of the author. I got a bit confused because apparently there were TWO feminists that were accused of saying that all sex is rape. Learning everyday, huh?

John Funk:

Of course, the great irony here is that the vicious response is not only giving Sarkeesian's cause way more publicity than it would have otherwise gotten, but does more to illustrate the problem of misogyny in nerd/gamer culture way more than a video series ever could.

Because seriously, making a videogame about beating a woman in the face for daring to express the point of view that a male-dominated industry doesn't always treat women and female characters like it should, is kind of just making her point for her.

Funk. You really should know that there is no one geek/gaming culture. Just like saying youtube comments are an indicator of a specific group, saying this is an indicator that geek/gaming 'culture' hates women is a horrible misstatement. Horrible thing? no, these exist for anyone that ever pissed off someone that could make them. Professors, parents, celebrities. Literally anyone. Its not a slight against humanity for a dumbass to make a flash game where you beat up someone. Proof of a misogynist industry? No, This is some no-name jack ass on newgrounds that made it. Not an indie developers or a AA studio. To equate low level flash games with the rest of the industry, insults every game ever made. Its newgrounds, its so bad i wont even go there. Its loud, annoying, whiny, hateful. Its like someone took youtube comments & had them animated. Her point is not proven, because her goal was not to demonize the industry. It certainly comes off that way, but it wasn't. At least as far as we know.

Frankly i hope the escapist stops reporting on these issues since they have shown time & time again, they cannot handle the issue properly. At this point its long ceased to be journalism & has turned into an ad campaign for the project.

matrix3509:
That's it, I am making it my personal mission to wipe out the entire fucking Hominid family.

That's a lot of wiping out.

May I suggest a relaxing game of DEFCON before you start?

ElPatron:
I hate using analogies but here it goes. Just because there is friction between men and women during gender issues you should not attribute to malice what can be just stupidity. Not everything is a crusade. Not everything is misogyny.

Use some common sense. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. You could argue that it might be a goose that looks very similar to a duck. It might be a spy drone with a holographic projection to make it look like a duck. It might be a lily pad but I've been brainwashed to confuse lily pads with ducks. We could never prove with 100% certainty that it's a duck, but chances are it's a duck.

You can argue that the people who are endorsing rape and violence against Sarkeesian are not misogynist, and that not all rape is motivated by misogyny or whatever. But assuming that these people are primarily motivated by misogyny is the simplest and best explanation for what we have seen so far. You're correct that there's a slim chance it might not be misogyny, but it probably is, and I'm going to assume it is until I've seen evidence otherwise.

This kind of behavior is why i'm o.k. with a tropes vs woman web series -_-. I'd like to think that the gamer community is mature enough to not need it, but actions like this suggest otherwise

If this was a guy, do you think anyone would have as much issue with it?

Lumber Barber:

I personally believe that if a man came out with this exact same Kickstarter, stating the exact same things, and getting a ridiculous amount of money, the controversy would be about the same. That's why I don't see the "misogyny" business, because nothing would change if it was a man except maybe a few different cuss words.

I personally believe that if any other woman decided to take on this project & DIN'T spam 4chan with it, the hate would be drastically reduced & the news coverage would be non-existent. Had the project not found it way(multiple times) to 4chan, this whole issue would not exist. If i weren't so lazy, i might try & prove that.

blalien:
I'm going to assume it is until I've seen evidence otherwise.

The smallest asteroid in the universe is made of mushed peas and speaks French.

Prove me wrong.

The Lunatic:
If this was a guy, do you think anyone would have as much issue with it?

A pretentious guy with a college degree in bullshittism, shoving his "culture" and "ideals" on our faces to make himself look really smart and using real world issues (which very are serious) as a way of stroking his ego into orgasm? Not only that, but also pretending to speak for all women while making claims without any substance about music and books?

I say shitstorm incoming, with bonus points for being the typical "knight in shiny armor defending the fragile, weak women" (people would actually accuse him of being like that).

ElPatron:
snip

Huh, never heard of that. Go figure. But thanks, like you wrote: You learn everyday something new.

AnAutisticDog:
Meh, if it was about beating a man nobody would care.

This wins the thread. So absolutely and unfortunately true.

I'm going to edit out the parts relating to our misunderstanding as they aren't really relevant anymore.

Tenmar:
You are right that on the surface it does run contrary to equal rights. But on the other hand there was a reason that women did fight to be treated to be equal to that of men. Yet the issue comes towards that of safety and security comes the question of if there "is actually a problem?" that does warrant that trade of liberty for that security. Personally I will disagree with such a notion and while we all know that molestation is bad, violence is bad, the hard truth is that there are a lot of bad things out there that affect us. However it is up to us to be vigilant and also understand that we have a code of laws that empower people to stop such acts and also punish people who decide to violate said law based on our philosophical standards that are constantly changing.

So, what is the infringement on liberty in the case of creating a safe space for women? Let's go with the subway example some more. Given that the use of such safe spaces is voluntary, not mandated (that is, women may choose whether or not they wish to ride in a car that has been deemed "women only") Where is liberty being infringed?

Women are being given an option that allows them a chance to travel free from the threat of sexual assault. Men already travel free from the threat of sexual assault. That would seem to be generating liberty, rather than infringing it - not to mention making the state of being more equal between men and women.

Tenmar:
However do note the action to solve a problem does not always relate to the quantity of the problem. As sad as this maybe for me to say this and this is coming from a person whose father was a police officer there is only so much crime you can prevent. It is up to the people to uphold the law and understand the consequences. You can't actually have a certified system and when it comes to urban areas where populations are extremely condensed and considering the various cultural standards other countries have there are going to be victims due to people being uneducated for their own personal heritage from their family where these people do not treat people as equals. That's the sad hard truth. However to then point to video games and ignore the economic situation, cultural, and individual heritage is a bit off. Especially when we make the cultural jump from applying more western standards and how we understand the world to other countries like Japan and India. Wouldn't their definition of feminist theory be quite different than our own? Or is it really meant to be a universal theory that should be applied regardless of the religion or culture?

There are a couple of questions you've asked me to address here, and they're kind of bound up together., and they seem like they might be easier to answer from last to first.

1. is it really meant to be a universal theory that should be applied regardless of the religion or culture?

This is a question that modern feminism (like modern human rights philosophy) is currently struggling with - because it simultaneously has to weigh two competing ideals against each other. The first, that there is value inherent in every culture, and cultural superiority narratives tend to be wielded as tools of oppression, and the second, that women are fundamentally and universally of equal value to men and subsequently deserving of absolute equal rights. I don't have a specific answer to this question other than to state that oppression systems, and the rights arguments that are constructed around them are intersectional in nature, and that intersectionality must be held in consideration when discussing these issues if they are to be anything more than a discussion of the equal rights of straight, white, cisgender, western women in America.

2. Wouldn't their definition of feminist theory be quite different than our own?

Yes and no, dependent on your perspective, essentially for the reasons noted above. What equal rights means, and the specific struggles achievements of those rights entails is likely to vary somewhat dramatically from culture to culture. Women's issues in America include reproductive rights and wage gaps, issues that themselves might be incoherent in another cultural context where the issues are women's right not to be treated as property, or women's rights to work at all. But the fundamental principles would be likely to be similar - that all women deserve fundamental equality to men.

3. Especially when we make the cultural jump from applying more western standards and how we understand the world to other countries like Japan and India.

The thing is, we are also now operating in a marketplace of cultural export and import - and We are not wrong to criticize as problematic within our own cultural context a game that was developed in another. Even if the character of (say) Bayonetta is progressive from within a Japanese cultural context - that doesn't mean that an American that buys and plays it can't comment on, or criticize the ways in which it regressive according to our own. The critic may or may not have the goal of effecting a change in the developer's subsequent projects towards a more western perspective, and there may or may not be some cultural imperialism inherent in that end - but there's certainly nothing wrong with raising awareness of how imported media is problematic, and helping to educate those who may be exposing themselves to that media the subtle reinforcements of casual *isms the game may carry with it as a result.

Tenmar:
But I think the reason that I try and ignore your statements is that more or less I find it to be a non-issue from the actual heart of the issue which is the actual development of video games. I mean we can bring up all these assholes who make flash games as kneejerk reactions with all the conspiracy of a scam but that doesn't really get us anywhere. Neither does a project that analyzes the characters but outright ignores the logical extension of her stance which is the question, "are video game developers making games for fun, or are they actually sexist pushing a sexist agenda?". As black and white it is that is the logical extension. Cause you can't really give a pass if you firmly beyond a shadow of a reasonable doubt to all the game developers and artists if you think they are causing or promoting sexism to which I would argue has actually gone down much like violence as a crime.

No one, not even Ms. Sarkeesian herself would likely suggest that (for instance) all game developers, (or even most) are actively sexist and intentionally making sexist games. In fact, if that were the case, the video series we're talking about would be an entirely different animal. The purpose of a series like tropes versus women is to analyze the ways in which game developers are casually, subtly, and unintentionally sexist - with the aim of helping to make them aware of the ways in which their games alienate a large and potentially very lucrative audience. You can't fix an error you're not even aware you're committing.
Human beings are socialized from birth within a cultural context that affirms a whole bunch of casual and subconscious biases within us. Everyone is subject to this effect. Your cultural socialization will affect virtually every aspect of your personality, and will inform your preferences, opinions, tastes, assumptions, everything. We are very much creatures of our environment.

Everyone occasionally does things that are sexist, or racist, or whatever*ist, because those behaviours are culturally learned and ingrained - it's only by actually delving into and analyzing the formation, use, and effect of those biases that we can even begin to understand how to overcome them.

Tenmar:
Call me a bit ignorant but I honestly can't look at a game like Duke nukem and say that Gearbox Software is sexist because of some feminist theory that is based on the treatment of women. I can't look at Shigero Miyamoto and say he's a sexist cause of his depiction of women with Princess Peach as a damsel in distress and even when she gets to be the protagonist she uses the powers of emotion to save the Mario Bros gets as much complaint despite the narrative offering a reason that there was a magic artifact explaining why she has those powers.

Differentiate between "being a sexist" and "doing a sexist thing". Are the guys at gearbox all sexists? No. Is Duke Nukem a REALLY sexist piece of trash that they were involved in the creation of? Hell yes it is. Is Shigeru Miyamoto a sexist? Not to my knowledge. Did he make use of a sexist trope in the formulation of Mario and Peach? Yeah, he did.

The thing is, these acts don't make the people behind them bad people (not unless they were engaged in intentionally and with awareness of the implications, at least), just like any given mistake you might make in your life doesn't make you a bad person. But it does mean that you made a mistake, and by being made aware of that mistake, maybe you'll learn from it, and not want to repeat it.

And that's what this is all about - it's not about silencing game developers, or telling them they can't make their art. It is about informing their perspectives and the perspectives of their consumers though, with the hope that perhaps, in future, they'll want to make better art.

Tenmar:
It all just seems like looking for ghosts where none exist and undermines the integrity of the video game industry who I'm pretty certain doesn't actively hire people who are sexist or are actively misogynistic. I'd rather allow developers to freely create the content they want and then once published be critiqued on how to make the game better and not have to actively in the mid development process appease a player base that could cause financial harm to the company and their deadline. Cause the way I see it is that people are trying to relate all these tragedies(cause that is what they are) and somehow have that tragedy affect the industry that doesn't actually have any relation to it at all yet now have to walk on eggshells and limit what they want to create cause of a sensitive subject of what is actually a loud minority.

I pretty much covered this paragraph in my response to the one above.

Tenmar:
Also, "attacks"? Sorry but I'd like to think of them as dissents.

"Attack" in the rhetorical sense. To target a weakness in an argument and exploit it to undermine the argument. Again, not intended as a slight, or to imply hositility.

Tenmar:
Sorry sidetracked, it happens a bit with so many issues thrown in. But I should be more concerned about you Matt. I like you man, you are a good person but when it comes to these kinda of issues you really come off as negative or questions the other person's intelligence as if they shouldn't say anything at all and just let conversations go one sided. Really shuts down communication or becomes some contest where it stops being about the subject and becomes an ego contest where no one actually gets anywhere. Cause sometimes the best way to take some posts is to just take their opinion as opinion and see where they are coming from. Sometimes deciding if a person is right or wrong doesn't really matter but understanding what exactly they really care about when it comes to the issue.

Heh. I think you're good people, dude. I think I might just write in a pretty blunt and direct way that gets read as hostility by a lot of people. It's not. I promise. I'm really not angry, or trying to be a dick, or trying to shut down discussion, or anything like that.

-m

Edit: I'm out for the night. Have a good one.

She's now in the news over the weekend, another news cycle with positive publicity for her. This is why gamers are seen as stupid and cannot be taken seriously (outside the gaming community), they don't react in a manner that others think is mature or serious.

Captcha: sick puppy

I always felt that Newgrounds was more or less a flash version of 4chan. But even they have standards.

Good Lord...

CosmicCommander:
OK, this is dumb.

But it still doesn't exclude the fact the woman is a hack. Coincidentally, I was just watching this:

If she is a hack, at least she's a hack making tons of money off of the free publicity she's getting. I envy her that, but I don't think that making a video complaining about the plight of the modern white male gamer is likely to garner as much sympathy(or that opposite thing that Anita is getting). It might be worth a laugh though.

Treblaine:
I wonder, has this Anita Sarkeesian ever been on the internet before... or does she know exactly what she is doing?

"I'll just have totally unmoderated comment section and see what happens"

No way. No. Freaking. Way... that she didn't know what she was doing. Anyone, who has ever run a website from the very earliest days of the internet has known that you have to moderate what people post. This has been around since BEFORE the internet this has been known. You will ALWAYS get trolls and it will ALWAYS fill up with them, their vile vitriol can only breed more and even if a minority opinion it WILL be heard the most. It's an utter fantasy that a absolutist open forum with ZERO personal consequences is the ideal representative of opinion.

It's like judging a society by what graffiti is scrawled on the the back of a toilet door and then holding that up as representative of society.

Bullshot.

You judge the video game by its PRODUCTS, by its TALENT, by the MAJORITY opinion of its users.

I think she feeds on the trolls as ready made straw-men. And it's an agreeable relationship for the trolls, as they love this pathetic fight.

Meanwhile, people who REALLY CARE about this medium are looking on with dismay as Ms Sarkeesian and the Trolls are conducting this ugly charade, this sick theatre of underhanded attacks at each other. And it is all a HUGE fucking distraction from the real issue. You don't publicly argue with trolls.

Not to mention she seemed to think spamming 4chan with the link to her kickstarter was a good idea.

Matt_LRR:
No one, not even Ms. Sarkeesian herself would likely suggest that (for instance) all game developers, (or even most) are actively sexist and intentionally making sexist games.

Well, one could argue Funk is doing & claiming just that.

John Funk:

Of course, the great irony here is that the vicious response is not only giving Sarkeesian's cause way more publicity than it would have otherwise gotten, but does more to illustrate the problem of misogyny in nerd/gamer culture way more than a video series ever could.

Because seriously, making a videogame about beating a woman in the face for daring to express the point of view that a male-dominated industry doesn't always treat women and female characters like it should, is kind of just making her point for her.

Smart assery aside, i think his point was deeper feminist theory. Things like patriarchy, rape culture, that kind of thing. Not the equal rights part. Equal rights certainly included in the theories application, but not primary to applying it to see if it fits the culture.

Matt_LRR:

Heh. I think you're good people, dude. I think I might just write in a pretty blunt and direct way that gets read as hostility by a lot of people. It's not. I promise. I'm really not angry, or trying to be a dick, or trying to shut down discussion, or anything like that.

-m

Edit: I'm out for the night. Have a good one.

You have a good one too. Also I think I like it when you are talking more about the bigger picture than directly responding to a quote. It shows you do good work by your posts being earnest about what you write and what you think on the issues.

The only little issue I have is to wonder why we omit the history or origins of literary devices such as damsel in distress as the reason characters like Mario and Princess Toadstool exist but instead say that it is sexist? That's one thing that gets my goat is that discussions like these ignore the actual literary tools and history that writers rely on to tell their story. Even something as simple as The Legend of Zelda and Mario Bros which in terms of narrative difficulty can be found right in the children's library.

Cause I'm more concerned about the freedom developers and writers actually get to maintain when developing their game. I mean I wonder if this project would of affected the creation of games like Skull Girls to which was quite the rage when it came to fighting games(I don't own it but I hear while it won't be part of some fighting tournament scene it was a decent game)? Yeah it's a hypothetical but I'd rather not have companies all of a sudden have to go out of their way trying to please every single demographic when the game they want to create is something they know is a niche market. Or have the project anita creates become some sort of hindrance to creating the game they want to make even it would displease some people.

I hope the dubass who made this realizes he's just helping her argument, then again that would be gravely overestimating his mental ability.

of course.

at least one prick just HAD to know how to make a flash game eh?

I'm glad newgrounds didn't put up with that shit though.

Captcha: fire + brimstone

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 . . . 31 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