Why won’t Anita Sarkeesian talk about those parts of the punch bowl that DON"T have a turd floating in them?!?
20 Likes
He’s a troll. I don’t know if a mod deleted them, or he did, but his responses to me delivered by mail were fairly disrespectful.
Also, he joined today specifically to get into arguments in this comment thread.
Edit: He got himself suspended with the trolling.
2 Likes
You didn’t even bother to read the post, did you? How very telling.
I’m sure there will be no replies of value or interest.
Also very telling. eye roll
2 Likes
[quote=“brian_carnell, post:27, topic:40229”]
I mean, are we just going to pretend posts like this didn’t happen? Is it cool to criticize video games for excessive sex and violence if you’re a feminist, but not if you’re a conservative Christian?
[/quote]Sex is good. Sexism is bad. They’re not the same thing and criticism of them shouldn’t be conflated.
Neither should their critics. Thompson is calling for censorship, and doing so from a position of power. Sarkeesian is criticizing those in power, and doing so from the outside.
13 Likes
Often followed by "If you take the turds out of the punch bowl it will change the taste SIGNIFICANTLY & I have developed a thirst for turds over the years!!
9 Likes
Such a hot topic as of late. as a gamer (yes I consider myself a gamer)…I do not want every adventure I play to be Asteroids or Space Invaders. Mindless droning of level after level. I want depth and story in my gaming experience. Do I mind violence, sex, sexism…yes and no. It depends on the situation and game.
Personally, I avoid games like Hitman, Grand Theft, and the their ilk. I am not a fan of games that use wanton violence as the primary story driver in the game. For this very reason I also avoid games like Medal of Honor. As a retired soldier I find nothing entertaining about a game that depicts a real life combat situation as some form of entertainment.
I am however a fan of most sci-fi type games or fantasy adventures. Starcraft, World of Warcraft for example do use violence, but its fairly unrealistic and muted in tone and scope compared to many of their game peers. Perhaps I am biased to Blizzard developed games.
I find most of Anita’s series to have great points about the eventual result of game design decisions that are made. I would argue that many designers/developers are simply not thinking it through as to what the eventual message/meaning may be. Like the scientists in Jurassic Park they ask themselves if they could, but not if they should when it comes to many design/story choices when developing their games.
I will counter that Anita should be willing to break down some of her examples into relevant data points. So in stating XYZ game objectifies women during Mission 3 of level 2…well, what does that mean? What percentage of the total game play is that? If there are 500 minutes of game play in the title, what percentage is spent objectifying anyone. It can be said that it doesn’t matter. Doing it 1% of the time is the same as doing it 100% of the time. I could concede that, but I still would like to quantify it.
Also the criticism that was made regarding Anita’s use of the game Watch Dogs and how it objectifies women and the sex trade and how the game’s primary mission is to take down a sex trafficking ring…well there is fair rationale on both sides (holy run on sentence batman!). I would argue that there is some truth that if the game’s story line revolves around destroying a sex traffic ring…then sex trafficking must be ever-present in the game play in some form. However, perhaps there are better ways of interjecting it into the story. A film/movie example of this might be Sleepers. The clear story in the film is about the exposure and eventual take down of sexual predators at a school for boys. The violence and harm done to the boys is depicted in the film without objectifying those children and their pain and suffering at the hands of their abusers.
My ultimate point here is that while I may not agree with every point Anita makes completely, it does not diminish her perspective, nor does it negate the points we can agree upon. In the end, her criticism can help create a better product, better story, better game if the developers would simply listen to the whole of the narrative and find consensus.
My 2 cents fwiw.
6 Likes
The important thing is, I think: it doesn’t actually matter if she’s right.
What I mean is this; any discussion of the ridiculous hatred she spawns invariably includes a dissection of her points and how she’s wrong about them. But unless we’ve now decided that detailed death threats are the proper and acceptable way to say someone is wrong on the internet, it doesn’t matter. Conversely, if she’s 100% right about everything it’s not going to destroy video games. Some games will be different! Madden 20-forever will still get made. Army Guy Shooting Things 34982583 will still get made. But maybe we’ll see a game where the heroine’s husband gets stuffed in the fridge for a change, spawning her violent rampage across space and time.
7 Likes
I’ve said before, I don’t have much of a dog in this fight. The last three games I’ve played were South Park: The Stick of Truth, Minecraft, and Mechwarrior online. And I haven’t played Mechwarrior lately because they finally introduced the Clan mechs, but I don’t want to pay $80 to play them. So anyway, I haven’t played ANY of the games she has featured.
I think she has some valid points in the tendency to use hallow stereotypes, the gratuitous use of women as window dressing, and how some of the violence has a sexual aspect . But I also think some of the criticism towards her is warranted. One of the problems is the noise of mindless “fuck you, cunt” type criticism, drowns out and gets lumped into people who disagree with out name calling and making valid points.
I have watched her videos, as well as rebuttals by some people like Thunderfoot, whose science and anti-creationist videos I used to watch. One of his points with the Hitman example was he watched 40 walk throughs of that stripper dressing room level, and NONE of the players just went and and gratuitously abused the strippers, Most of them just snuck by. It wasn’t like they made the “knockout/kill a person and hide them in a box” mechanic just for the strippers. As I understand it, that mechanic is used in other parts of the game.
I also disagree with her statement (paraphrased) “the more you think it won’t effect you, the more likely you are to be affected”. It sounds way too much like people who say video games cause violence etc. I don’t think playing games is going to make you more sexist or misogynist.
Though to be clear, whether she is right or wrong or inflammatory etc, the mindless name calling and threats are completely unwarranted and wrong.
3 Likes
Unfortunately, this article addresses only the responses I already disagree with, so there’s not really much to say about that.
I would like to point out:
The strength of Anita Sarkeesian’s videos isn’t that they promote discussion of sexism in video games. There is, in fact, almost no actual discussion going on. It’s all snark, apologia, and name-calling. Their real strength is that they manage to bring all the latent prejudice out onto the surface, where everyone can see. If the reaction to (largely valid) criticism is death threats, then it’s time for some people to seriously reexamine their values.
5 Likes
I’m not going to comment on the trolls who’ve been threatening Sarkeesian, saying things only to hurt and intimidate.
Their arguments are invalid, and frankly- I don’t have the time to concern myself with them. It’s like a mad person, shouting obscenities on the street. Ignore, but keep an eye out on them. Maybe call the cops.
Anyway, I’m not overly familiar with her critiques either. What I have seen, is that games today are still having trouble treating women as, you know, regular people. If a game chooses to depict a certain woman, a group of women- or perhaps all women, in a particular manner (even if it’s bad), then I think that should be as a result of conscious choice. If it’s merely an emergent property born out of lazy writing…well, then. That’s a problem. If it’s an attitude the game creators wish to express, that’s OK in my book. I may disagree, maybe even boycott them - but I certainly won’t prohibit them from making an expression.
Why is it such a problem to portray woman as ordinary individuals?
It seems it shouldn’t be so god damn hard.
(Sorry for the rant, I’m just sick of this pointless fight. Everybody ought to see that it doesn’t matter what gender a character is. Only personality matters, In my humble opinion.)
1 Like
Arguments boil down into:
-
X game isn’t sexist - that’s just a small piece
answer: That’s the point - tropes aren’t the whole -
This game isn’t sexist they don’t make you kill the woman
answer: Not the point - casual violence against women is a trope and sexist - the single piece or act can be sexist without making the entire piece sexist. I know that’s a difficult concept - but it is true. -
She doesn’t talk about ‘X,Y,Z’ games where the female is empowered.
answer: Of course not - she’s not investigating the few games where sexisim doesn’t exist - games that empower women have been around for a long time - look at Kings Quest for an earlier example. Simply put her series is about tropes used in games - basic logic should say 'if a trope is not used in said game - it will not be mentioned. -
Her academic creds/research etc. are crap.
answer: Her research and points being made are viceral - poignant - and frankly in your face with video evidence - this is like saying Einstien was a fraud because he was a patent clerk. -
She picks inflamitory items and draws conclusions to incite people
answer: No - she shows the existing and already in the game tropes that point out how crazy batshit this type of thing has become, and how it’s so prevasive devs use it - and we consume it - without giving it even a second thought. She goes out of her way to state that being critical of a game doesn’t mean you shouldn’t enjoy it - and that it doesn’t make the game bad overall - how on earth you get ‘mario rescuing peach is now a sexist game’ because rescuing a female is a sexist trope that has been abused is such a leap in logic that it defies expanation. If the trope itself weren’t overused it wouldn’t be such a contentious point. -
She doesn’t allow people to comment on her videos on youtube
answer: I wouldn’t either - just look at the comment section of any youtube video - now add the unreal hate directed at her and multiply the general youtube comment = wow. Simply put her work is to produce a series identifiying these issues - it isn’t to have a debate - she wasn’t paid by her kickstarter backers to have a debate. -
She is a crook who took money from kickstarter
answer: besides the fact that she continue to do the series - Potato salad guy proves a point - if people want to fund a kickstarter (which shows you the current funding level on a real time basis - and allows you to withdraw a pledge up to the last second if you see the funding is way over goal) - it’s their right - kickstarter isn’t even a garuntee that a product will be made - it’s 100% blind faith in the person putting up the kickstarter - the fact that people funded this to that level is their choice and if she walked away after she completed her goals and pocked the rest of the money - then good for her - I imagine that potato salad guy didn’t make enough salad to send to the entire state of Texas - you know going in to a kickstarter that someone gets to make money as part of the production of said product - it’s not ‘this money will be 100% used for materials only and my time is free’.
16 Likes
Read in context. This is stupid identity politics, she presents herself as a “Feminist and media critic.” The people acting out have been conditioned with preconceptions on what those words mean: the shrill uninformed accusers that one of the other replies linked a recent BB post mocking, and the people who periodically show up to argue about video games not being a legitimate form of expression.
She made an effort to present herself as not and outsider, but it’s the same process as “I own guns but maybe some restrictions are OK” or “I’m a feminist but maybe this is just sexual dimorphism” and the resulting fired editors and shunned speakers that are the typical result.
Well…for some reason I checked this page, and as I suspected…
Yeah, I “get it”, he’s pretty abrasive about feminism in general. And for that reason, that video tends to be ignored.
My goodness! I completely missed that!
No, wait; no, I didn’t. They critiqued a completely different video from the one I mentioned, the one where he brings up this particular quote:
…so it’s not exactly a fandom, I’m not a fan of video games. I had to learn a lot about video games in the process of making this. And also, video games, I would love to play video games, but I don’t want to go around shooting people and ripping off their heads, and it’s just gross, so…"
And defend it by saying:
The idea that tastes change over time doesn’t appear relevant here. Nor the idea that ripping a five-second clip out of context might not be a watertight proof of duplicity and deception.
Surely we all realize that she’d claimed, in her initial Kickstarter video, that she’d been a fan of video games since she was a kid, right? Now, if she was meaning that, at that point in her life, she found mainstream videogames to be gross and off-putting, I’m right there with her. I like a FPS once in a while, but they’ve gotten progressively gross over the years. Realistic blood splatter should never have been a priority for graphics card manufacturers.
No, the video I brought up brings up, for example, where she calls a female character “weak” in a game where she defeats the final boss by punching him in the balls and breaking his body half in the process.
And these responses are why we can’t have an honest discussion on the subject; people are so desperate to prove that the reason you’re critiquing this particular woman is because you’re an ignorant, misogynist pig.
Again, there is absolutely nothing wrong with critiquing video games, and I think most people who have critiqued the critic in this case are critiquing whether or not the critic has a solid understanding of the source material. It’s not solely reserved for women, as some would have you believe; since Ebert was mentioned specifically in the article, many people disagreed strongly with Roger Ebert, and indeed people sent Roger Ebert really gross death and rapey threats when he was already dying. I only bring it up because it never got publicity, really; yet for some reason, one particular critic should be above all criticism. Nobody should get death threats for being critical of other people’s work, but there’s crazy people out there, man. Hell, people sent Steven Moffatt death threats because the new Doctor is an old white dude.
Having said all that…hell, if people are okay with the alleged ripping of Let’s Play, and it makes the gaming industry aware of the fact that the’yd descended into making games solely for the frat boy dudebros who want to see T&A and blood splatter and teabaging someone after you’ve gouged out their eyeballs (yes, really) and that they ought to change…that’s largely a win. I think people like me nitpick because we see some things to be concerned about…but if you don’t want to hear it, carry on.
2 Likes
The difference between the two things is obvious (for starters, christian conservatives represent an incumbent power structure that is punching down against sexual expression at large, whereas feminist gamers are a hitherto powerless faction punching up at exclusionary sexual tropes and forms of sexual harassment that are themselves representative of traditional, conservative values with respect to women).
I suppose it could be explained at length. But the premises there are clearly unacceptable to the guys involved in all this. They genuinely believe they are being oppressed by an all-powerful cabal of corrupt sluts, yet their behavior so perfectly reinforces the emerging stereotype of gamers as violent, stupid manbabies that they can’t win without sinking their own boat. They’re unaware of how appalling their behavior is and how comical their appeals to ethics are as a consequence, and completely clueless about how grossly public this whole thing is and what it’s doing to the public perception of gaming as a whole.
What you’re seeing is a sudden awareness, across an entire industry, along the lines of: “Oh my God, this is real, what are we to do?”
And this is a very fine point, which applies well to tabloids in general.
13 Likes
I’m glad she’s doing this research and those videos. This discussion needs to happen.
I would also like to see some well-thought-out discussion with civilized people, including critics, game designers, and other gamers, where she makes an effort to see why things are like she reports them (not putting people “on the spot”, but instead, trying to better understand the situation, as a whole.)
Cory’s post mentions criticism over “cherry-picking”. While I agree with the idea that she must do some cherry-picking, as she’s not there to review the video games as a whole, there remains a problem with cherry-picking. I was discussing this with a friend yesterday who works as a writer on AAA video games. It’s a problem that a lot of “crusaders” against sexism/racism/etc. have: singling out something that is sexist/racist only when taken out of context.
The example my friend gave was from one of the God of War games: at one point, the player uses a woman’s body to keep a particular door propped open so he can go through. Feminists have pointed this out as sexist or misogynist because of how that woman is “used”. But this skips over the point that the main character does similar things with many other characters elsewhere in the game, many of them not women. He’s an “equal-opportunity offender”. Not to mention, the character is basically evil, and hardly a role-model.
This reminds me of something I read in one of Isaac Asimov’s autobiographies. He tells the story of how his first “Treasury of Humor” (a book containing a collection of his favorite jokes) saw some self-righteous people attempting to ban it from a school library, on the argument that it contained “smut” that was inappropriate for a school. Asimov intentionally avoided overtly sexual language throughout the book, and only included a handful of “smutty” jokes at the very end of the book. And even then, these jokes were tame, by the standards of what school children already know by the time they get to that book.
The self-righteous censors were presenting the book as all-smut, even though the smut was less than 1% of the book’s content. When pressed, those censors admitted that they “didn’t read that smut” so they were going on hearsay in their attempt to ban a book. When one of the school board members eventually “forced” himself to read the book, he came back saying that there was very little that was objectionable in the book and it eventually remained on the shelves of the library.
Feminists still have a lot of work ahead of them. From the point of view of video games, they do need better representation. Video games do often tend to rely on tired tropes related to women (as does a lot of mainstream Western entertainment, from TV, to movies, to popular music.) But sometimes, the feminist critics also need to look wider, and make sure that the isolated, cherry-picked situations they present are actually sexist, and not just taken out of context. Doing otherwise is intellectually dishonest.
As in many isms, the British version is milder and more easily dissipated, but also more insidious. A kind of social glamour with a strange, self-sustaining momentum driven by false irony and unexamined pride.
1 Like
When we are made to see that something we have loved is troubled by demons, by sometimes dark and insidious undercurrents, it must give us pause. Such a confrontation with the object of our love (in this case: games) requires we take stock and make a choice. We can choose to turn our eyes away from the darkness, to deny and suppress it. We can choose to confront the deliverers of this news, in the hopes that by destroying either their arguments or their reputations, we can turn back the clock and restore what we love to its undisturbed form. We can accept what we have learned. Or we can transform that acceptance into action, and work to purge the dark.
What is the utility of debate? It serves multiple purposes: educating those who do not already understand the issues; affirming those of a particular viewpoint of the presence and solidarity of others who agree with them; persuading those on the fence by the public defeat of weaker proponents of the contra position; and, ultimately, motivating some people towards action. It does not, in my opinion, succeed in convincing people to reverse their positions, if they are already firmly rooted in them.
When we are engaged in debate, let’s be mindful of our purpose in doing so. If we are truly troubled by the state of video games, let’s not remain content to simply post argument and rebuttal, to identify fallacy and ad hominem, and so on. There is utility in debate, but at a certain point – assuming you are motivated by a desire to actually manifest change, and not merely extend or modify a discourse – we, on an individual level, must decide how we can move from words to action.
As a personal example, I have decided to begin developing games of my own, and I hope that those games will embody everything I believe the art form can be, and the kind of equality and respect women (and all people) deserve. This is my path. Not everyone need choose the same one. But ask yourself, before you elect to throw more fuel on the fire of debate, what can you do to manifest real change in the world?
Now don’t get me wrong, debate has a vital and important place. But it doesn’t end there. I would love to see a gaming industry telling rich and varied stories with complex female and male protagonists. Or transgendered protagonists. Or any number of other possible protagonists. There are countless stories out there waiting to be told, and none of them require cheap, harmful, and exploitative tropes to be told successfully. What can we do to make this happen?
2 Likes
Every time someone says “strawman” a kitten dies. Don’t accuse other people of logical fallacies by citing them from a named list, make a good point yourself. “This isn’t good enough for highschool” is “I don’t like it” in fancy dress.
“Strawman” without constructing a better version of the argument yourself is whining, “But you don’t get it.” For any rational person, it should be obvious that it is impossible to rule out whether it is them or you who does not get it.
Yes! I think a huge amount of the hate she gets isn’t driven by misogyny at all, but driven by identity-as-gamer. Still, rape threats are clearly a misogynist manifestation of identity driven anger-fear.
Thoroughly dealt with in the opening paragraphs of the article with the quotation from the critique of Clockwork Orange. Jack Thompson was a censor, but you don’t have to be a censor to speak about how you don’t like something, and in fact if we want to live without censorship then we need to listen to people saying that they don’t like things. The parallels between the two are very, very weak. I bet Sarkeesian and Thompson also both ate lunch.
And this is the problem with the criticism of her. People want to point out that they have found a flaw in this example or that. Basically, her critics wants to convince us that because she is a fool the sun is not coming up tomorrow.
How many people do you know who will actually change how they feel about something because of a carefully reasoned argument? I’m not saying argument is irrelevant, but the reason these videos are successful is because people find her message resonates with them. I would say, from the incredible backlash she gets, the videos resonate with her critics as well.
13 Likes
Cory’s not interested in that; he has made it clear that he would rather create a fox-news style echo chamber rather than an intelligent discussion.
Intellectually dishonest much like Anna, for taking a measured approach wouldn’t cause as much vitriol, publicity, clicks, or comments. If Anna or Cory were truly interested in social change, I suspect they would not choose to go full Tea Party.
We need to win the hearts and minds, like we strive to do in Iraq, rather than treat people like those in Ferguson.
1 Like
