I think she’s well spoken and articulate. I think that she’s spot-on a lot of the time. But I also think that her research follows her opinion and not vice versa.
2 Likes
I could make the same distinction you just did…between my two daughters.
Our personal family experience leads me to believe people are unique individuals, not that half of the population is genetically destined to want to wear pink.
12 Likes
No, but there is something to be said about being put together looking in a visual medium.
Sort of. I’m not interested in hearing someone talk about video games who thinks playing games is a foolish or shameful thing to do.
As many have noted here, there are a lot of hurt feelings when people criticize video games. Many of us around my age grew up being told that video games were for nerds and losers, or being told they were bad for us, they make us stupid, they are a waste of time. It is no wonder we react defensively when we perceiving video games to be under attack.
The stigma is a lot less now, but it is still out there. I would never admit to anyone at work that I play video games as a hobby. I would never put it in an online dating profile or mention it to a person I met at a party. If my favourite activity were playing basketball or going hiking I wouldn’t feel the need to keep that close to my chest in the same way.
I am never going to be interested in the opinions regarding video games of a person who shames gamers. Frankly, I will never be much interested in their opinions on anything. Ad hominem is a logical fallacy, but deciding that someone isn’t worth your time because they hold opinions you find insulting is not a fallacy at all.
6 Likes
Why not? It would seem to be an excellent way to separate the chaff from the wheat. The potential dates who respond with enthusiasm or at least curiosity would be the keepers.
you did not respond to anything i said only something that i did not mention from the video.
the video was posted only for the short segment following 28 seconds to demonstrate.
“Deliberately misleading; deceptive”
I Repeat, I did not speak to or of the rest of the video in full. Is her saying that she does not play video games then says the opposite not intentionally deceitful as per the definition of two-faced?
well researched? hardly she seems to not have even played a single one of these games she has talked about to completion. there are many videos on youtube explaining that Anita has made factually inaccurate statements in each of her videos even from things within her “own” research.
Also tvtropes.org has everything she has said in so close a way that it would almost make the plagiarist rand paul blush.
edited for grammer.
I just found out that Friendster is still alive and kicking as a gaming interest social media site. My co-worker met her husband (who owns a game store) there.
It’s pretty sad when a bunch of men get more upset over a woman daring to wear earrings when talking about video games than they do at the rampant sexism fed to them in games because other men think they enjoy it.
It’s really a great example of Lewis’s Law: the comments on any article about feminism justify feminism.
19 Likes
To be fair, people with a good message can be insufferably annoying and Anita manages to get under people’s skins not just for her message but for her methodology and presentation.
3 Likes
There’s something deeply ironic about your patronizing, first name assurance to Sarkeesian that feminism is really no longer needed, and she need not fret her pretty little head.
I’ll leave it to you to puzzle out what it is.
14 Likes
You said, “Why should we continue to listen to her after she was twofaced about even liking video games.” I addressed this by agreeing with another commenter that it was an Ad Hominem attack. She may not like games, she may be a lizard species from the distant stars, it doesn’t undermine her points about the portrayal of women in games.
Maybe you want to ignore the points she’s making because she hasn’t played the complete Bomberman series?
Let’s talk about your video. First, a picture of her playing games at age ten. So we know she played video games as a kid or has created a fake image using Photoshop to perpetuate her billion dollar feminist empire. Let’s assume it’s real.
In the archive footage, she talks about fandom and says “I would love to play video games,” but it’s obvious that the male dominated stories turn her off to it – what with the exploding heads. Not that we can’t have games with exploding heads, but that maybe that’s not the game she wants to play.
She goes on to say “I’m not a fan of video games, I actually had to learn a lot about video games in the process of doing this.” Is it conceivable that in the process of learning about games she’s realized that she actually is a fan of video games and just experiences a disconnect because of the way women are portrayed?
I’m ok with people being allowed to self identify as fans. I don’t think anyone gets to tell you what you’re a fan of and I think what you’re a fan of can change over time. I think all perceptions can change over time. Maybe I’ll come around to thinking she’s wrong here but right now I feel like she’s made some good points that are relevant and probably embarrassing for game designers who have fallen for these obvious cliches.
8 Likes
NYU Basketball has the Bobcats and the Lady Violets. The mascot at games is still the bobcat, though.
I don’t always like what Sarkeesian’s videos have to say. Unfortunately, by the end of them I realize it’s due in large part to having a uncomfortable truth revealed to me about something I enjoy a great deal. I think Ms. Pacman’s issue isn’t being a female Ms. Pacman, so much as she is ONLY a female Pacman. The ‘Damsel’ videos overwhelmed me with the sheer volume of games that use the trope…many very recent.
Sarkeesian has taken the time to highlight examples of characters who defy the tropes, which is useful. It’s funny, I considered FemShep as a step forward (and I think Sarkeesian generally considers her to be elsewhere), but the othering factor is one I hadn’t considered. I think it’s details like this that are what truly upset some viewers…they don’t like having something pointed out about something they enjoy or love (and want everything to be unambiguously positive).
8 Likes
[quote=“sr105, post:24, topic:14545, full:true”]I’m very pro-woman. I always have been. I have a 10-month old daughter whom I want desperately to grow up to be a strong person and not be limited by her gender. I constantly over-think my choices around her to make sure I’m not unconsciously steering her into a pink stereotype. I push back on my wife when she wants to go overboard on pink.
However, I can’t deny human nature either. At 9 months, she walked over to the toy bin and pulled out a football and a pink purse. She naturally, if left alone, will grab a cute “girly” toy or stuffed animal. My son never did. I want her to be strong, but I also want her to be free to be a woman. That means, she can wear pink ribbons, costume jewelry, and tiaras while we cook breakfast in the driveway on a camp stove (eventually) or operate a drill press (also, eventually) which are both activities I did with my son when he was 2 years old.
Being a woman is not limited to having a vagina. It’s ok to be feminine as long as that’s not you’re complete sum.
[/quote]
Being a woman has nothing to do with “girly toys” or stuffed animals. A woman should be free to be herself, regardless of what her interests are. The reason why your daughter takes those toys is because they were there and because you and/or your wife subtly indicated that she should play with tiaras and purses and that your son shouldn’t.
When my nieces and nephews visit their grandparents (my parents), they play with the toys my parents saved from when my brother and I were children. There are no tiaras or purses. No army figurines or tools either. In other words, there are hardly any gendered toys to begin with. So they all play with little people and Lego and blocks and cars and pretend food and they like it just fine. They only gravitate to gendered toys when they’re with their parents who push gender stereotypes very heavily.
7 Likes
While much of what she says is true, there’s no denying there’s a certain arrogance, lack of cultural and period sensitivity, and just plain anger in how she says it. “There is no compelling reason to denote gender with a bow”. Um, yes there is. It’s easy to draw in a few pixels and little boys don’t wear them. She is right in that Minnie Mouse is the prototype here, but not the originator of the bow, which was common for girls back then and used frequently on female characters in comic strips and cartoons…
Like many vocal feminists, she carries an under current of anger (personal baggage?) at men in society that is palpable.
2 Likes
I don’t think it requires any parent influence for children to choose gender specific toys. I’ve tried pushing some “boy” toys on my girl, making her watch Star Wars, etc. and she would rather have Tinkerbell. She does kinda like Vader. YMMV.
3 Likes
I always hated the “Lady” sports team thing, too. I used to work in the scoring booth when my daughter played h.s. softball. I normally ran the scoreboard and played music between innings. Another guy did the PA work, including always announcing the teams as the “Lady” whatever. On those rare, rare occasions when I got to do the announcing, I never, ever added “Lady” to the team names. I sometimes got flack for it, though. Surprisingly, it was sometimes from the players. They kind of liked the separation from the boys’ teams. Go figure.
1 Like
Cardinals, one of the birds in Angry birds, are different colours depending on gender. Same with Blue Jays.
Bright red birds = boys.
Bright blue birds = boys.
Female cardinals and jays are mostly brown.
So no, not just genderless cartoons. Sorry.
1 Like
It doesn’t necessarily require parental influence only because kids pick up gender norms from their peers and from other adults as well. Women aren’t genetically compelled to gravitate towards the color pink as is easily demonstrated by the fact that pink was considered a masculine color (and blue a feminine one) about 100 years ago.
Always amazing to me how people go to pieces when someone dares to point out that particular gender norms (such as “feminine” colors) aren’t universal or intrinsic to human beings, or that in our society “male” is the default, or that writing in video games is lazy and often a little sexist. I don’t see these points as even particularly debatable.
5 Likes
She doesn’t only anger ‘misogynists’, she angers those who are upset by lies, fraud, superficiality, and shallow analysis. She disallows commenting on her own videos, and on her blog censors not just misogynistic comments, but any that don’t agree with her.
Undeniable proof Anita is a liar:
Also note that, for her $100K+ raised and piles of games visible in interviews with her, almost all of her clips were lifted, without permission or attribution, from other youtube videos. She did not bother to record her own gameplay footage, but passed off others’ work as her own. Her $100k went to doing a voice over on a narration clip; her production costs, assuming she had any computer made since 2007 and a digital camera, were around $0.
Many people said “if you want to improve video games so much, who don’t you create your own indie pro-women title?”
She responded with what basically amounted to a power point slide; a story line as deep as Super Mario Brothers, with absolutely no hint at gameplay or depth whatsoever. The video is more or less Oblivion reverted to SegaCD or Flash game graphics…except, um, in Oblivion you could absolutely choose to be a female and play the whole game through as a female protagonist. Oops.
You shouldn’t support her because she is ‘on your side,’ you should look more deeply into her character and her value as a critic and creator. And, frankly, Feminists should show her the door.
3 Likes
