Yikes… no, I am on that page where it still means something positive.
They say that about President Obama too. If only he would stop having Fox News say mean things about him!
Sarkeesian’s crime is stating the obvious about things some people would rather pretend not to know. Racism, sexism, all the “isms” only work if we all pretend they’re as neutral as oxygen. When somebody begins to deconstruct them, everybody else gets very uncomfortable - speaking for myself. Does it follow they should just shut the hell up, because it’s polarizing?
12 Likes
There are few thing in videogames that make me uncomfortable, that was one.
I always look for consistence and solid worldbuilding and that kind of shit totally breaks the “suspension of disbelief” ruining the whole experience for me…
-Hey, here are knights, and okrs, and dwarfts in hulking armour… and a elf in a skimpy bikini! Not even chainmail bikini!
-Hey, here are zombies, and soldiers, and rough survivors in jeans and denim… and a playboy bunny in thongs! Zombies get distracted by assess, dont they?
-Hey, here are robots, and cyborgs, and hulking futuristic armours… and a girl in skin thigh bodysuit! So thigh her obstetrician could examine her across the room!
It makes me sick. And I am an hetero thirty-something man.
9 Likes
I certainly can’t speak for Sarkeesian, or anyone with a well-known position in the porn-conflicts; but I suspect that the major issue(aside from the fact that even stating the obvious fact that many video games have an effectively pornographic bent, to the degree that technology allows them to pull it off without falling into the uncanny valley, seems to drive some people into a frothing denial rage) is that the aspects of treatment of women that Sarkeesian points to in games are quite normal, perhaps even typical, in the mainstream of video gaming.
As I understand it, part of the criticism of video games is not merely “There exist video games that degrade and objectify women”; but "such video games are treated as largely normative and occupy a commanding position in the video game market, such that prospective female gamers, and male gamers not looking for yet more chainmail bikinis, are relegated to comparatively slim pickings, mostly indie or genres light on human characters period(some RTSes, say).
Whatever your position on the good, evil, or potential-good-if-produced-like-so, of porn; it has the convenience of being relatively neatly self-classified. It may be a morass of the worst sorts of objectification; but it isn’t at all subtle or insidious about it, and it stays in its section. It’s the less dramatic; but more common and ‘normal’ expressions that are much more inescapable and much more likely to sneak into the plot, art design, etc. of the mainstream.
I imagine that this is why Sarkeesian largely doesn’t bother focusing on the ‘freaky Japanese-import rape simulators involving clearly-underage-except-that-they-go-to-‘Junior College’-and-are-totally-18’ genre of games. Yeah, it’d be all kinds of trivial to pick out all sorts of disturbing stuff from those; but everyone already knows that, and bastions of feminist discourse like SomethingAwful have already written pieces on them. Her focus appears to be the somewhat subtler, and more pervasive and insidious, attitudes of relatively mainstream games.
21 Likes
Very well put. And now that I think about it, obviously correct.
Perhaps we need an “IM-MA” for “Immature views on women” rating that gets games placed in their own section behind a curtain :-). Except one gets the impression they’d just end up hanging a curtain on the entrance door to the store…
(I know, I know - unfair to the large number of perfectly fine games.)
5 Likes
I know a (straight) guy who says he stopped, as much as he could, consuming culture that objectifies women. After awhile, he said, he started seeing real women differently. Imagine that.
15 Likes
WARNING: this post is by a well-intentioned straight dude so it might be wrong. 
This episode provoked a similar thought from me, and it started when she mentioned the Penthouse Pets. I mean, those women have agency, here, they’re getting paid for their time and talents and appearance. The episode’s topic is the commoditization of women’s bodies, which this is. All (straight male) porn is always that.
So I think my question sort of morphs into “Can you have porn that respects women, given that all porn always at the very least asking you to pay money to see that woman naked, turning her sexuality into a transaction?”
If I’m being idealistic, no person’s naked body should be considered a fungible asset like that. It is in the most literal of senses dehumanizing - you become a thing that is bought, not a fully, complex person.
If I’m being realistic, people’s bodies are always considered part of this capitalist super-system of which we are a part. ANY exceptional trait - your body, your mind, your skills, your youth - is considered something somewhere will likely pay you to use. Making money with that asset is kind of an empowering thing, because it can make life a little better for someone in exchange for some money for yourself. That is dehumanizing (as anyone who works for a modern conglomerate and/or the service industry will tell you! ), as well. We don’t appreciate people for being full people when we’re paying for a service for them, and “being naked” can be a service we provide for others.
Here I think that a solution might be the kind of ethical consumerism that could reform a lot of capitalism, where we care about the things that go into our transactions more than we have in our postindustrial society. Think of folks who buy ethically raised meats or ethically sourced coffee or whatever - it’s likely possible (though just as difficult!) to buy ethically sourced pornography. Which the Penthouse Pets DLC might qualify as. We restore the respect for the humans (and other beings) involved in the product we’re consuming, to make it healthy, sustainable, and positive. For one, these women have names and were paid for their appearance, they’re not just passive participants.
None of that removes Sarkeesian’s main point about bodies as prizes, of course - most of the examples she gives aren’t empowering anyone, they’re just (often badly) drawn tits. And there’s issues of parity and cultural reinforcement in play that have nothing to do with porn being OK or not and everything to do with why mass-market games are becoming a source of porn in the first place, and is that really the most welcoming environment for a diverse audience? But it’s an interesting nuance to the conversation that needs to be teased out more. Much like ethical consumerism, it might be the kind of thing where different people do different things - the “vegetarian” who swears off porn entirely, the “foodie” who wants their porn to be morally upstanding as well as sexy as hell, the “maker” who makes amateur porn in their bedroom and shares it with everyone on the internet…none of this stops treating women’s bodies as objects, but it maybe consumes that product with the minimum possible dehumanization, accepting the fact that none of us get to be fully human in the minds of everyone all the time (if you like bacon, somewhere, a fairly intelligent and probably adorable animal had to be killed for it; if you like the service at your restaurant, you know it is something you are paying for). Someday, maybe we’ll all be porn vegans?
You win by shoving the long straight piece down into the void, ultimately making the void disappear.
How is this not sexist!??!
8 Likes
By the end of this thread, we’re gonna need another .gif of Snow putting on chap-stick and getting a cheek massage. Poor guy.
6 Likes
And I know that you know that’s not all there is to it.
1 Like
You are right. Contrary to contemporary evidence, it isn’t even remotely hard to treat people with empathy and respect.
Some day I’d would love to have a long conversation about the points Anita brings up. But there is too much nuance for this medium. With that said her messages are Important with a capital I.
Joke mode enabled
Where’s my damn mankini DLC pack, buster?
7 Likes
I thought the same thing, and I expect that our newest friend @Norzhi was using it in the standard GG-accepted frame of “female X is making a claim that we don’t like, so she is obviously and with malice ignoring this mountain of evidence that clearly refutes her claim”.
To my mind, it’s one of the easiest dogwhistles to grab at, because, you know (to use your example), Donald Trump didn’t order his coffee by tacking on a “…and do it quickly, you ignorant vaginista!”, and when he said he loved his kids, he said it to Ivanka first and he didn’t call her a cumslut. See? Megyn Kelly was just cherry picking!
You are right. Contrary to contemporary evidence, I am an optimist. And I believe asshats can change for the better or not even become asshats.
I reject the notion that we are Natural Born Asshats.
(Title to the next Mad Max movie?)
1 Like
That dude has… (Snort) cajones >:)
Back reference comedy complete! Let’s all get some wings at McNutters! (They’re good!)
4 Likes
Just wanted to let all the misogynist Gamer Gaters know that I am here reading Ms. Sarkeesian’s wonderful work, and was made aware of it, by all the threats and harassment (and resultant media attention) that these wastes of space unleashed on this poor woman for having the audacity to speak her mind in public.
19 Likes
Perhaps “cherry-picking” is the wrong term to use, as I’ve said before English is not my native tongue. What I meant was that from the few videos I’ve seen, ms. Sarkeesian rarely points out games that are ‘good’. By which I mean games that have stories and characters and are not sexist. Plus some that she does mention get brushed off, though that is just a personal impression from the older videos I’ve seen, perhaps she has changed tact.
Maybe “overly negative” would be a better? I’ve just found that if all you do is point out what has been done wrong and never what has been done right, it ends up aggravating people instead of being constructive.
By the by, what does what does her kickstarter funds have to do with anything?
I would like to clarify that I do not think she is wrong in her claims, mainly I am opposed to the way she brings it across.
1 Like
That would be a very weird thing for a critique of games to do… she’s not a game reviewer.
As a woman, can I just say, I’m super duper tired of being told our “tone” is wrong… /sigh
22 Likes
It’s funny, you get a lot of people claiming that the media doesn’t influence them - violent games don’t make them violent, sexist games don’t make them sexist. Yet a significant element of the response to AS’ arguments is both violent and sexist. Even when it’s directly undermining their message, some people don’t seem to be able to help themselves. Or maybe they’re saying they don’t need video games to make them sexist? In any case, she couldn’t be doing a better job if she was trolling.
9 Likes
Lewis’ Law:
“Comments on any article about feminism justify feminism.”
13 Likes
