Yes, yes it is, and it’s why I’m still here. My dream thread for this (or any) post:
Sarkeesian’s commentary is X, Y, and Z.
I appreciate your perspective, but X can be juxtaposed with A, and Y only counts if Z interacts with A, B, and possibly, C.
Speaking of C, I’d like to introduce D.
Well, D relates to X, and if you think about it, Y.
Yes! I’ve not thought of it in those terms!
Really, the hysterical & histrionic reaction to Tropes vs. Women and to Anita Sarkeesian herself has convinced me that it was absolutely needed, even though I don’t always agree with Ms. Sarkeesian
Overall, I don’t think this was as good as the previous episode on Hollywood whitewashing. I’d really like to see her continue the Ordinary Women series, which doesn’t seem to have been updated in a few months.
It always strikes me as hilarious when people start bringing up Sarkeesian’s financials. She provides her product completely free of charge, and allows people to pay exactly what they want to, voluntarily, with full knowledge of how over/under goal the project already is. She’s always been up front about cost and delivers exactly what she promised, which is generally very consistent with her previous work- In other words, pretty much the perfect model of how crowdfunding is supposed to work. I personally hope she’s making a good living off it just based on that.
Also, $20k for four 10 minute episodes sounds pretty cheap to me. If you need a baseline, your average 30 minute reality show costs well over $100k per episode, or you could always just call any videographer in the phone book and ask what they charge for a 40 minute wedding video- And neither of those things require research or scriptwriting. Professional production costs money, and if viewers are watching, the people doing it deserve to get paid- which brings me back to the whole “I hope she’s making a good living” thing. Honestly, I would be downright disgusted if she’s not earning a full time salary from these videos.
[quote=“MikeTheBard, post:66, topic:101364”]
It always strikes me as hilarious when people start bringing up Sarkeesian’s financials.
[/quote]Ugh, this fucking con artist, how dare she deliver exactly what she promised, and then some! Oh, Oh, Look! She’s doing it again! She must be stopped before she delivers exactly what’s promised, the vile fiend!
In reality, she didn’t con anyone. You know it, I know it, anyone who isn’t either delusional or a gullible dupe knows it. It’s just the whiny pissbabies throwing any old shit they can at the wall to see if it sticks, because they can’t stand the idea of what she’s doing.
And wouldn’t it be nice if more women felt safe enough to enter the conversation and have a real discussion?
I don’t have a strong opposing opinion on the other stuff posted, simple as that.[quote=“wysinwyg, post:40, topic:101364”]
It sounds like these videos make you really unhappy and I would strongly recommend you try to ignore or avoid them.
Unfortunately, you don’t provide any specific arguments for why I should agree with you, so that’s as far as I can say.
Notice I’m not accusing you of dishonesty as part of my disagreement, though. I can think that you don’t have good reasons for your opinion and still not accuse you of being a liar.
[/quote]
Embrace the filter bubble? Not my style 
. It’s true, I didn’t make specific enough arguments (like I said, I think Tf00t did a good job of making arguments, though as usual with an overly agressive tone). I guess my hope was, that I’d get a quality rebuttal. Also I never really engaged with people who agree with FF, so I was curious about the response to criticism.[quote=“wysinwyg, post:40, topic:101364”]
Since we’re talking about opinions and not facts, I think his clear bias makes it impossible for him to give constructive criticism – he’s against Sarkeesian’s project and wants it to stop, so his criticism is not going to be fair or reasonable or be phrased in such a way as to be useful for improving the videos.
[/quote]
I don’t see how that makes his arguments unsound. You’d have to show where he goes wrong to support that claim, otherwise it’s just ad homniem.
Depends on your definition of “constructive”.
I’d agree that it would be more effective. Similarily to how this forum would be more effective with some good faith and less GIFs. But that doesn’t make his arguments less sound.
I’m also a human being trying to have a conversation and understanding opposing positions. Fortunately some people here seem to be able to see that.
I’m not sure what’s entailed by respecting that. From my outsiders view it looks like groupthink, which I don’t respect much.
Those are good points, I didn’t really expect this to be an active message board, thought I might just get a link to a good rebuttal of FF criticism. Next time I’ll try making a well-reasoned argument (though like I said, in this case I think Tf00t already makes a whole bunch of those, to which I’d really like to see rebuttals).
I think this might be one of those issues where there is validity on both sides of the argument, but the BS on both sides just makes it too difficult to clearly see any of it. If anyone is interested in a platform that facilitates making well reasoned points and cuts back on the BS, hit me up. I really really want our society to have better discussions.
Not at all. I’m not asking you to respect their position, but that civility and burden of proof is higher for a newcomer in light of the situation (which you’ve acknowledged in your reply already).
Actually, while was rather meh towards his non-science stuff, my opinion of him went up a tick when he called out the skeptic community for going too far, being mired in tribalism, and joking about a feminist male atheist who had mental issues and was on mushrooms and shot a woman leaving with him. I guess that was the straw lead to him wanting no more part of it. Basically even if he agrees with some of the views and criticism initially, their over all toxicity and shit lording has poisoned the community and turned it into a joke.
And I guess to lend evidence to @wysinwyg 's argument, I read some Youtube Comments and the “savage reaction” I guess explains they squints and hair raising on hot topics such as this.
[quote=“gregor, post:69, topic:101364, full:true”]
Those are good points, I didn’t really expect this to be an active message board, thought I might just get a link to a good rebuttal of FF criticism.[/quote]
If you want my unsolicited outsider’s opinion, you did come on a little strong in that first post. I thought I caught a pretty strong reek myself of classic gamergater derail stratagem #8, a perfume folks all over the decent-o-sphere have gotten pretty tired of. That was perhaps just an unfortunate coincidence, but I don’t blame anyone who jumped in with a derisory meme rather than a thoughtful reply.
Doubly so since there wasn’t much to reply to: Feigning surprise that not everyone shares your oh-so-obviously-correct evaluation of the situation is rarely a good opening conversational gambit. (“I’m shocked and disappointed to discover that this forum is full of people who don’t enjoy white pizza with pickled earth worms. I thought everyone with any taste knew that was the best pizza topping.”) Especially if you don’t even give any specifics about what or why you think it’s so obvious.
FWIW, in your shoes I might have gone for making at least some kind of token comment about the actual topic at hand first (“Watched the video, thought she had a point about X but I don’t agree with Y because Z…”) then pivot (“I noticed the same thing in the FF videos, like thing P, Q, R and S…”) . That way you’re never straying too far off topic, but also throwing out some specifics on which to base a discussion. Respondents can have the choice of wandering further off with you or not from there.
[quote=“gregor, post:69, topic:101364, full:true”]
(though like I said, in this case I think Tf00t already makes a whole bunch of those, to which I’d really like to see rebuttals).[/quote]
This seems like a decent enough rebuttal:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Thunderf00t/Criticism_of_Anita_Sarkeesian
I’ll admit I don’t think I ever made it all the way through any of his FF videos. You say he makes a lot of well-reasoned arguments, but he must save those for the second half, because I don’t think I ever ran across a one.
To start with, it was never clear to me that he (or the rest of the gamergate crowd) were all that clear on what it was they were rebutting in the first place. As I understand it, the gist of Sarkeesian’s point goes 1) video game producers – like every other kind of mass media creators – use a ton of artistic shortcuts and mechanically regurgitated patterns (‘tropes’), 2) some of these tropes manifest as negative, unrealistic, demeaning or otherwise unhelpful portrayals of women, 3) that such negative fictional portrayals of women have undesirable real-world consequences, and 4) that tropes are lazy, and relying on them less usually results in better stories and gameplay anyway, 5) that we should want and demand better.
Points 1, 4 and 5 are uncontroversial – presumably we could all agree on the existence of at least some tropes (e.g., “sneaking in to the impenetrable stronghold through the ventilation ducts”) and that art and storytelling is often improved by at least being aware of the tropes in play, if not eliminating them altogether.
Point 3 is both fairly intuitive and backed by scientific data (which doesn’t make it beyond reproach, but few would-be critics have bothered to engage with it seriously).
Leaving only point 2. Which also seems like it should be pretty uncontroversial, TBH: if tropes exist, surely some of them will concern women. Since we’re living in a culture which is at the far end of at least 3 or 4 thousand years worth of both exploiting women and inventing myths about them to justify it, it’s likely that a fair number of those tropes concerning women aren’t going to be super positive, realistic, or engaging for women players (think about how hard HVAC engineers have to roll their eyes every time a movie does the ventilation duct thing).
And sure enough, you don’t have to look very hard to find lots of examples.
At which point I’m not actually sure what a successful rebuttal to point 2 would or could look like. And example of something existing sort of proves it exists. QED, really.
Certainly just pointing out a mistake or two isn’t going to cause the whole enterprise to collapse. That’s the same error global warming ‘skeptics’ make when they nitpick some minor point and act as if that’s the ball game – but an arithmetic error or two in one little paper somewhere doesn’t actually overturn the basic physics of GHGs, the measurements of global warming, or all the other interlocking piles of evidence.
Then there are the self-defeating arguments: like arguing that these tropes are just there because the studios are marketing to men. Newsflash: ostensibly profitable sexist tropes are still sexist tropes. (Also: remember point 3? Coddling those audiences and their expectations of how women should appear in entertainment is a feedback loop which is causing and reinforcing exactly those kinds of harms we’re worried about.)
And to top it all off, there’s just a general…unseemliness to a lot of Sarkeesian ‘criticism’ in particular. Suppose a well-known film critic reviews a movie and mentions that, say he found Event Y in act 3 confusing and poorly motivated. Fans would probably be able to point out that, no, that was a callback to Event X in act 1 without calling him, let’s say, a “reality distorting scam artist who’s ripping people off by spending FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS[/Dr. Evil voice] making a video.” (Okay, maybe one or two jerks, but there probably wouldn’t be a movement to point out what a fraud he is.)
It’s almost as if a lot of people get really uncomfortable when any instances of a particular kind of trope are pointed out. Weird that.
This seems harsher and less fair than anything I’ve heard Sarkeesian say about video games or video game culture. I can’t help but wonder why you’re so bent out of shape about what Sarkeesian has to say when apparently you’re even more critical and negative regarding the objects of her criticism.
Yeah, motifs repeat in gameplay too. Crawling through ducts is a good example – I know it came up in Deus Ex and Half-Life, and probably even earlier than that. It can be a great mechanic, especially for stealth games, and it provides opportunities for hiding easter eggs and similar. However, using it in a new game is a little bit lazy. You can’t incorporate it into your game without inviting comparisons to Deus Ex or Half-Life, so if you’re trying to set your game apart from the rest of the Adventure FPS genre, then it might be the wrong way to go. Then again, new games still need familiar elements to balance against the new elements, and if you’re making a stealth game it might be good to call back to those earlier games and give the player an opportunity to say: “Ah, I know what I’m supposed to do here!”
So yes, gameplay can definitely be improved when the designers are aware of the tropes and cliches they’re using so that they can change them out for novel elements or subvert them in the interest of making a compelling, unique game instead of a boring, derivative one.
Notice also that gameplay mechanics are heavily influenced by the setting of the game (obviously, it’s the space you’re moving around in) and the setting in turn is influenced by the story that the game is telling. So gameplay and story aren’t completely independent in the first place.
I don’t think science is really relevant. Women actually exist and you can just ask them, “What do you think of this story element? What do you think of how this character is portrayed?” And they can tell you, “I think it’s insulting and would send the wrong message to anyone who took the portrayal seriously.”
Google gives the definition of “objectification” as “the action of degrading someone to the status of a mere object.” I would argue that “Damsel in distress” because in almost any story where the trope occurs, the damsel in question is not very fully characterized and functions in the story as a “MacGuffin”, something for the protagonists to pursue but not important to the story in its own right. I think the parallel to unhealthy attitudes of men towards women should be pretty clear just from that much.
There are no doubt some stories where this isn’t the case. In many cases, that is because the trope has been subverted. Often, subverting tropes is a great way to inject novelty and interest into a story. “Wicked” is a really popular musical in part because it subverts the “wicked witch” trope in the original Oz stories and film. The subversion of a trope or cliche doesn’t disprove the existence of the cliche – it confirms it (the trope can’t be subverted if it didn’t exist in the first place).
Anyway, “I think this story element is tired and I think game designers should try to be more original, and also more fair to women” isn’t the kind of thing that a scientific study is ever going to prove.
If your friend told you a new TV series was kind of shitty and you probably shouldn’t bother to watch it, would you demand scientific evidence that the series was shitty? Probably not. Demanding it from Tropes vs Women is an isolated demand for rigor.
We’re not talking about science, social or otherwise. We’re talking about media criticism. Notice how few film critics cite scientific studies.
That is exactly what it means according to the dictionary definitions:
sexist: relating to or characterized by prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.
sexism: prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.
The thing is, people’s opinions on whether Sarkeesian is making “misrepresentations” seems vary, and as a result:
(Also important to note: you have misrepresented what Sarkeesian said about “not playing videogames”.)
So then I get really curious: why are people who didn’t pay for this so upset about it when people who did pay for it aren’t upset? Why would people who didn’t pay for it complain about the fact that someone did pay for it? I mean, there’s movies I don’t like that are nonetheless popular, but I don’t criticize them on the grounds that other people paid money for them because they enjoyed it.
Do you think that no one should be allowed to pay for or enjoy Sarkeesian’s work? Why do you think it’s important to call out people who enjoy it or appreciate it for being wrong? Do you have a problem with agreeing to disagree on this particular issue? Why?
I’m not saying his arguments are unsound. I’m saying that his intention is not to provide good constructive criticism, and therefore he is not providing good constructive criticism.
The audience for his videos is not people who enjoy Tropes vs. Women, or the people who make the series for that matter. His audience is people who hate Tropes vs. Women. Thus, the result is not good constructive criticism, but nasty diatribes to titillate people who already agree with him.
Fair criticism requires good faith and adherence to the principle of charity. If you’re not doing those things, then you’re not being fair. TF isn’t being fair. Yes, that’s ad hominem, but in this context ad hominem is not a fallacy. It’s not a fallacy to argue that pharmaceutical companies provide biased information about their drugs if you’re trying to evaluate information about a new medication.
Sorry, if I didn’t make clear enough that I was talking about the way some people perceive it, when things are misrepresented and there are videos that.
Well I’m stating that I personally find the stories dull and gameplay repetetive, I’m not insuating sexism.
I don’t quite see the point. While I’d definitely agree that a good story can help immersion and turn great gameplay into an amazing game (=> Portal), I also have many games in my mind that are great despite lacking in story (Nintendo games, Uncharted 1-3, MGS). It definitely makes games better, but I don’t think it necessary improves gameplay. But maybe I’m making a distinction without a difference here. 
in the very paragraph you quoted I responded to @jacklecou talking about scientific data.
I’d counter that few videogames take the time to full characterize anyone (apart from the protagonist). Mario, Double Dragon, Zelda,… All examples of games where the protagonist is about as fleshed out as the “damsel”.
I wouldn’t consider that an area of science either, nor did I state that. I’d agree that the trope is tired.
Again with the science, that trope is now getting tired as well. If you knew me, you’d know that my rigor is not isolated and that I do deep dive into why friends find shows shitty.
That is indeed the definition I’d use as well and in that sense I do not find the trope sexist. What I’d agree with is that it might lead to sexist outcomes (which is how I understand “systemic sexism”). But the definiton above imo implies intent or ideology and all I can see is laziness, aka “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity”.
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/566429325/tropes-vs-women-in-video-games/comments
Most seem indeed to be glad with it (though given that KS removes slander, it’s impossible to know what we missed). But some criticism is still there.
True, apologies for that. She actually said “I’m not a fan of video games.”.
You should hear me lamenting Transformers. I do think there is value in applying rigor to well-funded media (after all, that is what TvsW is about as well). Though Michael Bay never said Transformers would be well-researched, so…
Never said anything about anyone being allowed to do anything. I was just curious for the reasons an intelectual person would find her videos appealing.
It’s mockery, true. But when an argument is sound, it is constructive. Of course you better your chances of being heard when you’re less extreme but I guess TF knows that and goes for entertainment instead.
He’s probably not being fair yes. I can agree with that.
Anyway, thanks for the people who talked with me, it’s been interesting. Given that my posts are fading away and the overall GIFiness of this thread, I think I’m gonna jump ship. Stay woke, break the bubble, yada yada 
You’ve discovered Lewis’ Law!
Oh, I thought we were talking about why you have a problem with the videos. If you don’t agree with this perspective, then I’m not sure why you’re bringing it up.
Sarkeesian doesn’t “insinuate” sexism, she explicitly points it out. You think pointing out sexism is worse/more insulting then just broadly calling things “shit”? I would disagree. She is making specific criticisms that game designers could conceivably take to heart to make their writing and gameplay better. You’re just making a broad, negative, insulting generalization. To me, what you’re saying is much more like “shitting all over” game culture than anything Sarkeesian has said.
You don’t seem to have even read what I wrote, which was about gameplay not story.
So? I disagree with @jacklecou that it’s relevant in the first place.
You’re literally the one who brought it up.
You’re just wrong about this. The definitions do not imply intent in any way. (In fact, it would be absurd if they did. Who in the history of the world has ever intended to be racist or sexist? It’s like the idea of cartoon villains – the idea that someone actually relishes being evil. In real life, no one ever intends to be evil.) Your English is very good, but maybe you should defer to native English-speakers on matters of definitions of words.
I don’t really care enough to spend hours researching this. A quick peruse and I saw basically just positive feedback with very little criticism at all. But even if there is some criticism, it is probably very different in character from what you said:
As much as I like BoingBoing, I find it very unfortunate and surprising that you see value in FemFreq’s videos. Even if she has a point in “Tropes vs Women”, it’s hard to deny that it’s covered under a mountain of cherry picking and reality distortion.
Link please.
Then why did you start out with the comment you did? Surely you must have realized that anyone who enjoys it must disagree with you about the cherry picking and misrepresentations, so why beg the question about that in your very first comment?
You’ve gotten a remarkably fair hearing considering the nasty tone you set for the discussion.
Thanks for confirming my suspicions.
[quote=“wysinwyg, post:79, topic:101364”]
You’re just wrong about this. The definitions do not imply intent in any way. (In fact, it would be absurd if they did. Who in the history of the world has ever intended to be racist or sexist? It’s like the idea of cartoon villains – the idea that someone actually relishes being evil. In real life, no one ever intends to be evil.) Your English is very good, but maybe you should defer to native English-speakers on matters of definitions of words.[/quote]No need to make it about English, the very same mistake occurs in many languages. This being said, I think you pinned down quite well the main reason why so many people are offended by Anita Sarkeesian’s work.
If you go back to @jacklecou post I was quoting, it might make more sense to you.
Well yes and I’m fine with negative backlash about it. For me there is a difference in criticizing craftmanship vs ideology. Maybe for you there isn’t.
Well, you quoted me talking about story, so I kept talking about story.
Don’t color me convinced.
Well, that’s the nature of a protagonist in a videogame. Imo doesn’t make the character fleshed out. I don’t feel I’ve learned much about Mario’s character in all these years, but maybe I’ve missed some secret levels.
I literally responded to @jacklecou bringing it up. Though I also think an argument with scientific backing is a better one, after all it’s the most reliable truth approximation method we have.
I choose to take this as a compliment 
Though, let me tell you as a native german, that there were people who were explicitly racist in their intent. And I also said “OR ideology”. I don’t see how it makes sense to talk
around 12:50
An alternative explanation would be that that person has not looked into the misrepresentations.
Am I in court? Though I feel I’ve been very cheritable with this place as well. But I guess we all have our good-guy story.
Que pasa?
@wysinwyg went a bit too far by saying “no one”, but the core of the point stands: neither racism nor sexism imply intent nor ideology.
So what you’re saying is that you asked how paying attention to tropes can improve gameplay, and I gave an answer, and then you ignored that answer to disagree with me about something else.
Well don’t rush to provide a counterargument or rebuttal or anything.
No, you brought it up much earlier in the discussion than that.
So you’re arguing that Nazis are the only racist people in history? Has it ever occurred to you that the Nazis probably thought their beliefs were correct?
In context, she followed up immediately with “I’m not a part of fandom”, ie she doesn’t go to PAX and stuff like that. If you’re going to complain about Sarkeesian “misrepresenting stuff”, it probably behooves you to stop doing the same.
This seems a little like assuming people who disagree with you are stupid. Even if it’s what you think, do you really think you’re going to get a good discussion if you start out being really negative and insulting? Like if you wanted to start a discussion with people who like FF videos, wouldn’t it make more sense to be like “What do you like about them?” than “I can’t believe you like these videos, they’re so shitty!” I just don’t understand why you took the latter approach instead of the former.
And I especially don’t understand why you expect people to want to be fair and reasonable to you after starting out like that. It seemed like you were trying to be deliberately provocative, but now you’re crying foul that people are provoked?
How so? Your very first comment demonstrated extreme bad faith and you were digging your way out of that hole the entire time.
You’re not in court, but you are the one who set a really negative tone for the whole discussion. You can’t throw that back on the people who reacted negatively to your provocation. You need to accept some responsibility for your own words and actions.
I didn’t see how it related to story, and that’s also what I wrote.
I countered an opinion, with an opinion. Didn’t see anything to rebut there.
I don’t remember holding it up to scientific scrutiny and couldn’t find evidence of that either.
I don’t think this classifies as misrepresentation but we might drinking different Kool Aids.
Insulting? Please back that up. You’re putting quotes around something I never said. Which I find ironically almost insulting.
Edit: Realised that I posted “shitposters” a few posts back. That was not related to anyone engaging in the discussion but rather the random GIF-bros.
Where did I cry foul?
Jeez, it’s easy to set the tone here. I’d like to bet it’s not as easy in other domains here.
