So, how about that wacky Sarkeesian lady? Pages PREV 1 . . . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 . . . 24 NEXT | |
I'm waiting to see her gaming web series. mostly because I have my own web series and my viewers have been asking for a video about this whole mess. So I'm holding off for the sake of the lulz. If the show is bad, my video can take her down based on her merits as a game critic with real evidence. If the show is good or neutral, my video gets to call out gamers on hair trigger douchebaggery (which is a favorite pastime of mine). Win-win for me :D | |
time for my grian in this mill. i must agree. its basicly as scam if you look at it. first off. secondly third finally | |
1. You have a negative opinion about her academic papers when you aren't familiar with academic papers. My concern is that what you are stuck on, the references and citations, is a normal (if not required) part of a Master's level research paper. What led me to that concern was that you're obsessed with the fact that she's citing lots of resources. Read more Masters theses. They're written for academia, not public consumption. In academic writing there is often a lot more dotted i's and crossed t's than content. 2. She's not claiming that the games are 'bad' just because a few representations of women are weak. Her issue is that games portrays women and men in recurring, limiting ways. Not all these portrayals can be negated by including a token female character, and some of these token characters actually reinforce negative messages. 3. I'm not claiming that my professors are automatically right, but they don't have tenure for their looks. You mentioned no professors who disagreed with her, only other people on the internet and a vague comment that she's doing a disservice to feminism (what do you know about feminism?), so I don't really know what you're going on about. | |
Remember when games were fun? I remember when games were fun. Can this geo-political-social horse shit crawl back into whatever aborted fetus it hatched from? | |
Feminism. About sums it up. And nice title bob, but we all can tell you just do this for the paycheck and thats it. | |
Oh god it's happening. Boudica vs. The Legion... Run Boudica, just run! They're technologically superior in every way! | |
Heck I don't care. I just hate it when people use her as mean to demean feminism as a whole. And she hasn't even done anything all that bad in the big picture either. Of course I disagree with her on some points but it just really astounding that people continue with the constant criticism of her or as a indictment against feminism. If she is handling the creations of these video with incompetence than that is her own fault. Basically, she has no reason to be considered a 'persona-non-grata' in context to video game culture so why is she still being treated like one? Or the comparisons to people like Glenn Beck or Jack Thompson who actively lie in order to further their flawed worldview. Has Anita Sarkeesian ever lied about anything beyond giving her own opinion about subjects with a feminist based critique? Even more frustrating is that one cannot be indifferent to Sarkeesian due to all the people riling up against her for all kinds of terrible reasons. And it forces me in turn to defend both her and Feminism yet at a very very large slant because peoples only knowledge of feminism does not stretch very far beyond that false idea that feminism is some crazy movement trying to make women superior than men. Basically what I have observed is that people understand Feminism have no problem at all with Sarkeesian besides the mere act of disagreeing with her occasionally, people who do not seem to use it as a way to attack both her and feminism as some kinda hate group. I am not that much of a fan of Sarkeesian, most of her videos are alright, some are kinda weird and feel forced but otherwise hit on some very good points. And given that pop culture is very transcendent its not like her opinion on thing is not some be all end all thing. Its only one perspective of many and she makes that very clear. As a matter of comparison, the Amazing Atheist has some terrible viewpoints but its not like I outright and persistently dog him for it, he even makes videos expressing things that I agree with! Imagine that. Currently though it seems like Anita is being treated like a Steven Crowder or Lee Doran. Which is rather unfortunate because there is nothing redeeming about Steven Crowder or Lee Doran. Basically, I wish people would stop attacking feminism through Anita. Especially since Anita is not even that harmful in ANY case. Just let her do her thing, sheesh. | |
Yep... that's about what I expected. I've never had a problem with the premise or sociopolitical feelings of the director in question. I feel that the recent kickstarter phenomenon is a way for people to trick other people into paying for something that doesn't exist yet. While an inventive way to raise capital for a business venture, it really is terrible for anyone who decides to invests it. Essentially, when you talk to people who know a bit about investment and business, they don't feel highly of the kickstarter. I rate kickstarters right below "donating money to charity" and directly above "throwing your cash away in the garbage" as a good use for your money. Like charity, you're paying for an idea ("helping the poor" or "theoretical videos"). Charities, however, can be judged by their past deeds. My preferred charity to donate to and volunteer for is PUSH America, specifically because the money raised in an area directly helps people in the my area. The charity's history shows me that, while I'm giving over money for an idea and have no say in how it's spent, the evidence that it will go to good use is apparent in my neighborhood where they built a wheelchair ramp for a family who couldn't afford one. With kickstarters, you have the same "leap of faith", where you are giving up your money to an organization or person that will spend it how they feel. However, most kickstarters are started because they are unable to get actual investors interested in their product. Either because investors don't think that the idea will make money OR because the "inventor" of the idea does not want to give future profits to anyone but himself. Enter the kickstarter, where complete strangers assume all the financial risk and, aside from access to the finished product, will not be collecting any further revenue from the sale and use of the idea. In other words, you've purchased stock with the same risk (you not getting anything) and extremely limited upside potential (you get access to the item...maybe at a discount or maybe for retail). I guess what my rant is all about is that, if you feel like giving away your money, do so by supporting established organizations who do good in the world. Don't fatten an individual's pockets in the name of social progress. | |
When lego first started they had ads targeted to kids not girls not boys but rather both (or kids in general)at the same time.
Look a boy and a girl playing together on the box. Later Ads decided to make new lines for girls as the target audience while indirectly saying the main line is for boys.(if not only for them then mainly for them since there isn't a boy targeted version spinoff.) | |
Teaching at a college level is irrelevant, especially since her highly subjective rhetoric has been largely proven false (and often completely speculative) by others. On top of which, what did she teach? How does it pertain to the falsehood of the feminist patriarchy theory dogma? If she had any ground to stand on intellectually or from a viewpoint actually progressive to the empowerment of women in video games, media, Legos, or whatever else men/big business use to "oppress women" she'd lost it as soon as she began making her baseless claims. She was already in over her head, watch her videos, see some of the replies, or research the data for yourselves. She has absolutely no idea what she's talking about and contributes nothing to the feminist movement, not that they're doing much for themselves either. Not sure what to make of her failure other than to give everyone a big thumbs up and say "Good job helping her pay off student loans and get that nice new car." Let's not kid ourselves, six grand was way more than she needed, by at least six grand. $160,000? If people feel ripped off, they have only themselves to thank. | |
Well, what do you expect from people who live in a damn echo-chamber? Do you expect: Good ideas? No Something of use? No All I expected was... wait for it. Nothing. Absolutely nothing. She and her followers fear honest feedback (feminism in a nutshell). This in itself is a recipe for disaster. | |
I think people might be interested in her response... (taken from Kickstarter)
...and Anita's response...
...I'm going to abstain from commentary for the moment. | |
But wouldn't the target audience change when they found out that boys played with lego more than girls? It is still a business. i'm not 100% sure that boys do play with lego more, I'm just talking from my own experience. | |
Oh shit! Time for some popcorn! <edit> Seriously though. It's like I said earlier. Echo-chamber=bad ideas. | |
Okay, I get it now. But to be honest, how many haters do you think have actually looked at her work, or just jumped on the bandwagon? I have disagreed with her work in the past a couple of time, but it doesn't mean she has no right to do it. Which is what a lot of people seem to think. | |
Indeed. I'd go on further to say the the primary sexists are the people who DON'T criticize her because she is a woman. Generally speaking, if a person posts a bad idea in a public forum then they should be prepared to have that idea shit on. Since this has taken place in public, we have the right to shit on their opinion. I don't give a fuck about a person's gender, race, nor age because I'm not a sexist, racist nor am I an ageist. If you say some bullshit publicly, then I and a few others (emphasis on few) will call you out on your bullshit. Man, woman or child it doesn't matter. This is how you help people and this is how they learn. This is how GOOD ideas come into existence and how bad ones get weeded out. | |
I'm reminded of one of the most frustrating conversations in all of cinema when I read the woman's messages and her survey. From Underworld 1: "Viktor you don't understand Craven is a traitor! he didn't kill the Lycan king!" "I'll leave it to CRAVEN, to discover if there is evidence of such a treachery or not." Now, if you go back and watch that scene, the line is not focused on, or even seems important until you think about it . . . he's saying he wants to trust the person being accused of treason to find evidence of himself committing treason. Same issue here. She's looking for the conclusion of women being treated as sex objects, or weak characters who are incapable of self defense or not. And who is she looking to now for the research material of whether games always show women as weak and ineffectual? the people who think games always show women as weak and ineffectual. Congratulations Viktor on getting the answer you wanted instead of the truth. Captcha: hissy fit creepy don't you think? | |
Surely the same can be said of all these people on these threads who say things like this:
There is plenty of leaping to comforting conclusions being done on the other side of the debate. Confirmation bias is rampant amongst the people who want so badly to believe she's some out of touch Feminazi bitch because she's criticizing gaming for the way it treats women; they disregard any legitimate points, reject her arguments without ever hearing them, and demonize the woman with ad hominem attacks. I keep saying that if people want to debate her points, fine. They should. But debate her points with superior research and evidence. Show me how she is objectively wrong. But nobody ever does. Nobody really even tries. They just embrace the same vicious circle jerk, telling each other how horrible she is for having an opinion. | |
...Well this is a new development (not really). Oh I'm not even going to try to wade through the bile spewed in this topic. I tried in the last one but this is really just too much. This is like pushing a rock up a hill for an eternity. These threads are just going to keep coming up until this woman resigns from the public eye entirely, or dies (whichever comes first). And no one is going to concede an inch. Everyone who hates this woman should just admit that they will always hate this woman and that they only came to this forum to brag about how they knew she was no good all along, or to continue to complain about her as if yelling loud enough will make the big bad mean woman go away. So hip hip hooray for all of you who think you've finally proven yourselves right and claimed victory over that woman who's opinion on sexism differed from yours. Let's see how long that feeling lasts. (Good times) | |
You're chauvinist as well as sexist. You brought up the fact that she is a "woman" five times, in the same post, rather than actually point out the merits of her ideas. As if being a woman absolves someone from criticism. You are in fact, using her as an object. | |
Trilligan, I'm hurt that the conversation we had together meant so little to you that you would forget it so quickly. I think I'm going to go eat a big bucket of icecream and sob because I feel generalized! I thought I was special! /cry | |
That's the idea. Her project was so poorly thought out and planned that it borders on outright negligence. In any sort of legitimate investment scheme investors would be entitled to restitution or at least some form of recouped losses. But its crowd funding, so you don't. In that sense, and because of the expected rate of failure on most of these crowd funded projects, its a scam. From square one. Because regardless of what the initial plan is, suddenly that chick who just got many times over what she needed to fund her project is suddenly on her way to Europe. You can't tell me that these two things are mutually exclusive. If she legitimately didn't need the money, she wouldn't have asked for it (unless you want to claim her project is actually fraud, because that was one of the basis for her asking for funding) and if she did need the money, somehow a trip to Europe doesn't sound like it would have been thought of. | |
That isn't necessarily true. Several people have actually addressed her points and she isn't up for a debate. Which is why there is a problem. | |
does her trope leave any room for a good female character? i'm still waiting for the day she shows what a good character is, in her opinion. she already showed enough characters who were bad according to her even though many disagree. while ago i saw her bayonneta video, which showed she does not do her research properly (she could not have played that game for more then a couple of minutes) thus missing a proper context to make her statements. and whooo, she bought 300 games. you know how many those in context of all games? non-existing! and how did she decide which game was good or not? and is she planning to play them all for 100% completion? imo you can't attack a game if you did not properly played it. | |
I gave some of her videos a brief look when the issue reguarding her vidoes first came up on the escapist. I honestly can't remember a thing she tried to say (which might say something about the content of the video but I digress) so I fear that in order to try to make sense of and even contribute to this discussion im going to have to expose myself to them all over again. Unless anyone can answer something for me? Is her goal seemingly to point out potentially sexist elements found in games and if so does she ignore the context and go right into informing us that it is indeed sexist? This is the vibe I am getting from many of the threads which I have seen on the subject. | |
Uh no. Not a chauvinist. I brought up the fact that she is a woman that many times because that seems to be the reason people on here spit as much bile at her as they do (and I wasn't really paying that much attention to it, but you obviously had the courtesy to count them). Why would I need to point out the merits of her ideas? She does that just fine. And nice strawman there. I never said jack shit about her being immune from criticism for being a woman. But hey thanks for reading that into it without any evidence to back it up. Trying to reverse roles and claim that I'm an antifeminist? Clever. | |
At first it was because people wanted a series showing how the industry is sexist and should change for the better. But then she got hit with a mass of death/rape threats and sexist/anti-semitic insults. The resulting hatred caused other people to donate to spite the ones who sent in all the rape/death/sexist/anti-semitic insults and death threats. If people reacted more rationally to this whole thing, I doubt she would've gotten as much money. But no, the internet had to be the internet and react to this thing like a damn child. Personally I like the idea of the project. Would be nice to have a series of high-profile videos pointing out all the sexist things in gaming. Maybe that published for the world to see would change games for the better. Sadly that doesn't seem like it'll be the case.
Also, this guy pretty much said how I feel about this whole thing. | |
Not really, because any "good" female character is only "good" because they're acting "masculine", which is bad. I'm honestly not sure what she would classify as a successful feminine character to be honest; her restrictive structure (that she built mind you) of gender roles doesn't seem to accomodate success without masculenity. I'm not sure she realizes that.
Her goal is to confirm her bias. She isn't asking "are tropes harmful to women", or even "how tropes are harmful to women", she's asking "how can I prove that tropes are harmful to women". And her "research" (snicker), is devoted to illustrating the premise she has failed to qualify. | |
Doesn't she cite Buffy the Vampire Slayer as a positive female character? Personally I found that a bit strange, as soon as I heard that my mind immediately jumped to all the episodes about Buffy pining after Angel or Riley or Spike, the episodes where she's all moody because she doesn't have a boyfriend, the episodes that focus on how lonely she is etc. Doesn't that go against what she's said about positive female characters? Or am I missing something here? I ask you because you seem to know what the hell you're talking about. | |
Unfortunately it's hard to tell whether the marketing changed to alienate girls first or if girls stopped playing with them first.(I wouldn't know where to look for information on that.) Either way there's zero reason why they couldn't have made the same/similar sets be more in line with Legoland then the same things they intended to target girls would be there while allowing them to expand off into the rest of Legoland while letting boys and girls play together. | |
Lol, you're so tedious. Oh sure, the primary reason why people "spit as much bile at her as they do" is because she's a woman. Right. And yes, you are a chauvinist: "bias devotion to any cause, group or idea." You keep referring to "the woman." You're a chauvinist. Why bring up the fact that she's a woman? Several times? Aren't her arguments strong enough? Let the arguments stand for themselves. Also, I never said you were antifeminist nor would I give a fuck if you were. I specifically said that you are sexist and you are a chauvinist. No one needs to bring up the fact that she's a woman to prove her wrong. If you believe this, then you must be delusional. | |
Uhhhh...Yeahhhhhh... About that. Here's a couple definitions of Chauvinist: I'm just not seeing that in my posts. And as far as the use of the word woman in the original post, I was mocking people on this forum who would throw Sarkeesian under the bus because she's acknowledging sexism against women in video games. I don't know what else would motivate someone to be that spiteful towards her. Sure there's fanatical devotion to a beloved game to the point that anyone who so much as utters one negative comment against it is seen as the antichrist. But then, a lot of people criticize games, and gaming. Sarkeesian is criticizing from a feminist angle, so I'm thinking some people here are a little touchy about any indication that there is anything wrong with the status quo re: gender. Her arguments are strong enough to hold up on their own. But that's not what this is about. Very few people seem to want to have an open discussion on gender roles in gaming. If they were, then I'm sure that there would be fruitful discussion on the matter. But this is about Hundreds upon hundreds of posts tearing someone apart for essentially trying to investigate portrayals of women in video games. It's a giant circle jerk with a minority of people actually wanting to discuss the matter in a way that's even a little more sophisticated then flinging shit at Sarkeesian and feminists in general. I said antifeminist, I meant chauvinist/sexist. The point is, you claimed I was something that I was not without any evidence and in a way that made very little sense. Thanks for that. | |
Ya know I have to respond to this. Simply because while you do make some nice points I'm afraid the decisions and actions of Anita herself do merit actual criticism as she is quite incorrect in her views of the video game industry and making a sweeping generalization of the "video game community". But lets get a few things out of the way first. First feminism, you are right that you should hate it that people do use her to demean feminism as a whole. After all it is a school of thought in the end that is ever evolving. However on the other side of that coin do note that she is an activist and utilizes her status by virtue of having a master's degree to act as an authority figure on feminism. So what she does in fact affect how people do view feminism as what it means today. While I'm sure people will agree with the basics like women's suffrage and equal base pay for equal work the stances she is taking is certainly a deviation of the feminist theory as a good deal of the work she has published is often poorly researched and thus when she puts her opinion and judges other people and their views she gets to dismiss people as being sexist instead of actually engaging in an actual conversation. As for the comparison to Jack Thompson? Sorry to say but that is a legitimate criticism. If you look past her project and what she espouses to where her bias is. Her theory is this and I am going to quote her "...many games tend to reinforce and amplify sexist and downright misogynistic ideas about women.". So in other words, playing video games makes people sexist and you can see that noted in the youtube comment of the kickstarter video that she states rather plainly(to which I must note has been edited) that she firmly believes that people who play video games are sexist. However, the problem with her theory is that it is literally the same exact theory as what Jack Thompson did with the video game industry but instead of sexism the subject was violence. We have seen what was the result after YEARS of dealing with Jack Thompson and the many studies such as crime on the constant decrease despite games becoming more realistic and violent was simple. The Supreme Court of the USA decided that video games were expressions of free speech and with that a game can be as violent as it can be. Ever since that ruling there hasn't been that major increase of gory video games and if anything we have seen games become more diverse as developers are now empowered to express themselves through their work. But back to Anita, she uses the same logic that by virtue of playing video games that said people are sexist. I'm sorry but once again that doesn't add up either especially when you have a generation that has now grown up and you certainly don't see some major backswing or some video game clan or guild that is 100% against women in the majority. Video games do not make people sexist and what she sees as that amplification of sexism and misogyny is simply the artistic work from the developers that exists in any other medium because it is the tale or direction they want to take with that character. So it is fair to say that given the conclusion she has drawn and presses about people who play video games and the video game industry that calling her Jack Thompson is actually fair game because it is quite accurate. I should also mention as other people have linked that she or one of her most devoted followers posing as her went to 4chan herself and spammed the /v/ section asking for donations. To which I must stress that on 4chan it is against their rules to ask for donations or solicit people who use 4chan for money. Do note that while the link I give is only one example of her spam and even then what she has no problem calling trolls that most of the people responding were actually having a conversation with her. So it is quite dishonest of her to basically spam 4chan and violating the rules of 4chan to not go unpunished. http://archive.foolz.us/v/thread/139813364/ As for her videos I don't supposed you have watched her bayonetta video have you? You know the one that makes multiple logical leaps and completely dismisses the actual hard work and narrative of the developers Platinum Games for a quite shallow review of she labels as sexist. Or how about her review of Suckerpunch where she literally calls the director Zack Snyder a "parasite". You don't really get much of a review or background of the actual movie or other movies that Zack Snyder has worked on but just Anita using ad hominem attacks. There is no analysis of the plot or narrative but instead her complaining and rolls with the rhetoric that somehow hollywood is controlled by some group of men bent on keeping women down and thinking they are stupid. She is literally promoting her own little conspiracy. I should also quickly mention how she talks about the Powerpuff Girls and the feminist episode and completely omits the conversation between the powerpuff girls and Miss bellum, their teacher and other women on how their radical view was while not completely incorrect was certainly in error. She demonstrates that she doesn't do any real research and when she does put her videos out there by being poorly researched she is basically lying to all her subscribers because she couldn't take the time to correct her work. So the content she provides isn't alright but instead misinformation because people believe what she takes as gospel. Finally since you did decide to mention Lee Doran and Crowder. You know what all three have in common? They all have had in their lives a little money scandal where they each despite all being well payed and able to sustain their own personal lives living alone asked from their viewers for money. Also all three are incredibly biased and despite each of them being well educated they have no problem not doing proper research and often just give their own personal bias under a guise of professionalism and authority because they have the equipment and space to make their videos while your average person doesn't. So yes, Anita has the potential to be harmful because she is an activist, she doesn't demonstrate due diligence in her research and often puts her bias in front of anything else. One good article that demonstrates that lack of research is a editorial of a destructoid writer who after her interview with destructoid was published this editor demonstrated that her and knowledge of video games shows a lack of disbelief and often takes a negative view or doesn't even remember the female characters that you would think she would be so passionate about. Would you believe that she couldn't remember Zia's name in Bastion? She just refers to her as the girl in a game that only has four main characters. But in the end the other reason she has the potential to be harmful is because much like Doran, that is how she makes a living. She has to make this content or else she would have to find another job instead of relying on people to be her fans. EDIT: I should note that I am a republican and even I know the bullshit that Doran has spewed before he became famous is just as harmful to the GOP especially when he was recruited by Brietbart. If you ask me those three are peas in a pod. Also I remember Doran when he had crooked teeth and despite not telling his viewers that he has such good dental he was able to get them straightened out without braces. | |
I feel like she's not just trying to call things out on being sexist and say they need to stop it, but to illustrate how it's become kind of common place to have women only ever really get roles or parts in games other media because they need one for a quota, advance a guys story (WiR* is pretty disturbing once I heard about it.), get pregnant, or making a big deal of looking for a man to have a relationship and. The issue isn't that it happens period, but that it seems to almost always happen. | |
| Pages PREV 1 . . . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 . . . 24 NEXT | |
Yeah the deleting of the Bayonetta video lost her a lot of points with me. It was like when (prepare to barf) Ray William Jackass changed the title of one of his videos that got a lot of dislikes to "EVERYONE THUMBS DOWN THIS VIDEO". If you can't even take the criticisms to the point where you have to BS your works, you should probably leave the internet.[/quote]
I haven't watched her videos, but labeling LEGO as sexist pretty much told me all I needed to know about her. Though, there is an argument to be made to removing videos. If it got a lot flak for poor quality, I think she did the right thing by taking it down. If she's making money, she should deliver quality. Even if that quality stops at the logic border.