Anita Sarkeesian's Tropes vs Women in Video Games

[RVonse]

..

 

[Arctish]

I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that the hobby horse I was riding in the Hating Obama thread was the Mined Quote Being Used To Misrepresent a Nuanced Position one. I didn't take the All Things Sarkeesian horse out of its stable until that thread turned into a discussion of her work and intentions, and even then I rode it right over here to M&CG where it belongs.

I started this thread so we'd have a place to discuss Sarkeesian's most well known work, Tropes vs. Women in Video Games. If you haven't yet watched the first installment you should consider doing so before commenting, because ignorance of her actual research and commentary will quickly become apparent.

So what did y'all think of the first installment? Sarkeesian makes several assertions about the history of game development and decisions throughout the series. Can we provisionally accept the history she provides as accurate? I'm not asking about her conclusions. I'm asking about her research. Granted, we haven't seen much of it yet, but from what we've seen would you say she has her facts straight, or do you think she's wrong?

 

[Mumbles]

It started with her as an obnoxious Feminist who had been indoctrinated by "systems" to see everything as sexist, racist and homophobic, and she had to point it all out. That's her self described background and that's how she came into this as a "journalist".

Literally not what she said. Instead, she described herself, far before any of this, as "obnoxious" because this was her newfound zeal, not because of any "systems" that "indoctrinated" her into any such thinking. The only reference to "systems" was when she later began to discuss the lopsided nature of these issues - as an example, as others have pointed out, both male and female body types in games are market-tested to appeal to male teens and 20-somethings, by choice. Then games that break outside that narrow audience are unadvertised, and ignored, by executives, and when they sell poor, it's used as justification for the narrow market targets.

Your take is laughably poor.

 

[Mumbles]

So she's a woman? What does that have to do with anything? Should she be expected to be treated any less harshly simply because of her sex?

No, but she in reality gets treated *more* harshly because of her sex - thus the litany of rape threads against her, and many other women online, by the 4chaners.

Guess who doesn't get routine rape threats? Hint: Any man who also gets mobbed by those sociopaths - and having seen several such mob attacks occur (against people discussing racism, against podcast networks, movies, and tv shows), I can say that this is always the case.. Again, it's an issue because said people openly make it one.

Now, that's two down. Try not to make such plainly ridiculous arguments in the future.

 

[Terrell]

So she's a woman? What does that have to do with anything? Should she be expected to be treated any less harshly simply because of her sex?

No, but she in reality gets treated *more* harshly because of her sex - thus the litany of rape threads against her, and many other women online, by the 4chaners.

Guess who doesn't get routine rape threats? Hint: Any man who also gets mobbed by those sociopaths. Again, it's an issue because said people openly make it one.

Now, that's two down. Try not to make such plainly ridiculous arguments in the future.

So are you saying that men who engage in controversial causes don't get threats of ass-rape? They don't get threats of murder? Beatings or other violence? Or do those type of threats not count compared to rape? Are you sure you're applying the rules evenly, and not having different standards based on biological sex? Threats are the price of trying to stick your nose into what other people enjoy in the privacy of their own homes. It is what it is. It's funny how she complains about damsels in distress being a trope, then whines about how threatened she feels.

So when are you going to address the question about what her purpose for these videos attacking a subtype of games? This isn't a case of these being the only type of games she can play. So why is she making these videos? Why should I believe it's anything other than an attempt at censorship of material that she doesn't like?

 

[DrZoidberg]

I don't think so. Ever since Clinton there has been a lot of hatred for the president from the other side, and it keeps getting worse. Hatred of Bush 43 was worse than hatred for Clinton, hatred for Obama was worse than Bush 43, and hatred for Trump is much worse than hatred for Obama. Obama is hardly an outlier in this trend, so there is no need to postulate race as a factor.


Gamergate is a response to radical feminist Anitra Sar-somethingorother complaining about games that do not have sufficient feminist content. If she doesn't like some games, she should not play them. Simple as that. Not all games have to meet with approval of the radical feminists like her.

But it is the folks that hated the most qualified black person to run for the presidency, and love the least qualified white guy to run in 2016.

Well first of all, Obama is biracial. Interesting how in American racial parlance the white half of a biracial person gets ignored and erased.
Second, Obama wasn't that experienced when he got elected.

Anita Sarkesian has been busted. She's not a gamer. She doesn't understand the stories or why characters look a certain way. She just looks at the graphics from it and tries to be offended. She's an absolute joke.

She also seems to be using her social justice warrior network in order to enrich herself. She's making a comfortable living from this bullshit. She only produces absolute garbage. She's not a serious researcher. She's just a Youtuber.

 

[Mumbles]

So she's a woman? What does that have to do with anything? Should she be expected to be treated any less harshly simply because of her sex?

No, but she in reality gets treated *more* harshly because of her sex - thus the litany of rape threads against her, and many other women online, by the 4chaners.

Guess who doesn't get routine rape threats? Hint: Any man who also gets mobbed by those sociopaths. Again, it's an issue because said people openly make it one.

Now, that's two down. Try not to make such plainly ridiculous arguments in the future.

So are you saying that men who engage in controversial causes don't get threats of ass-rape? They don't get threats of murder? Beatings or other violence? Or do those type of threats not count compared to rape? Are you sure you're applying the rules evenly, and not having different standards based on biological sex? Threats are the price of trying to stick your nose into what other people enjoy in the privacy of their own homes. It is what it is. It's funny how she complains about damsels in distress being a trope, then whines about how threatened she feels.

So when are you going to address the question about what her purpose for these videos attacking a subtype of games? This isn't a case of these being the only type of games she can play. So why is she making these videos? Why should I believe it's anything other than an attempt at censorship of material that she doesn't like?

Well, this is your third absurd post (no, men generally do not get rape threats beyond the usual "Bubba in prison" jokes).

At this point, I'm going to assume you simply don't want to have any reasonable discussion, so we're done.

 

[Terrell]

So are you saying that men who engage in controversial causes don't get threats of ass-rape? They don't get threats of murder? Beatings or other violence? Or do those type of threats not count compared to rape? Are you sure you're applying the rules evenly, and not having different standards based on biological sex? Threats are the price of trying to stick your nose into what other people enjoy in the privacy of their own homes. It is what it is. It's funny how she complains about damsels in distress being a trope, then whines about how threatened she feels.

So when are you going to address the question about what her purpose for these videos attacking a subtype of games? This isn't a case of these being the only type of games she can play. So why is she making these videos? Why should I believe it's anything other than an attempt at censorship of material that she doesn't like?

Well, this is your third absurd post (no, men generally do not get rape threats beyond the usual "Bubba in prison" jokes).

At this point, I'm going to assume you simply don't want to have any reasonable discussion, so we're done.

Nah, I want to see if you're ever going to address my question of "Why is she making these videos in the first place?" I don't see too many of her supporters/defenders wanting to address this. My guess is that Anita wants content she doesn't like made unavailable to those who wish to see it.

Oh really, why is my post absurd? Is it because I reject your premise that it's because she's a woman as opposed to her being a controversial figure? I also notice that you disregard the other types of threats that can be received? Is being threatened with rape worse than murder? If so, why?

Do threats against her invalidate the arguments of her other critics who are also harsh with her but don't threaten her? As far as I can see her defenders are simply hiding behind a threat narrative, instead of addressing the specific criticisms against her. Are they unable to address said criticisms? 4Chan posters aren't the only people who think she's full of shit. You can find plenty of YouTube videos criticizing her, as well as taking apart her position, without threatening her. Are those suddenly invalidated because of anonymous 4chan assholes?

 

[Juma]

I don't think so. Ever since Clinton there has been a lot of hatred for the president from the other side, and it keeps getting worse. Hatred of Bush 43 was worse than hatred for Clinton, hatred for Obama was worse than Bush 43, and hatred for Trump is much worse than hatred for Obama. Obama is hardly an outlier in this trend, so there is no need to postulate race as a factor.


Gamergate is a response to radical feminist Anitra Sar-somethingorother complaining about games that do not have sufficient feminist content. If she doesn't like some games, she should not play them. Simple as that. Not all games have to meet with approval of the radical feminists like her.

But it is the folks that hated the most qualified black person to run for the presidency, and love the least qualified white guy to run in 2016.

Well first of all, Obama is biracial. Interesting how in American racial parlance the white half of a biracial person gets ignored and erased.
Second, Obama wasn't that experienced when he got elected.

Anita Sarkesian has been busted. She's not a gamer. She doesn't understand the stories or why characters look a certain way. She just looks at the graphics from it and tries to be offended. She's an absolute joke.

She also seems to be using her social justice warrior network in order to enrich herself. She's making a comfortable living from this bullshit. She only produces absolute garbage. She's not a serious researcher. She's just a Youtuber.

Hmm.. ”she is not a gamer”? What sort of bullshit argument is that?
And shouldnt researchers be able to live on their research?
Seems you just throwing shit..

 

[Arctish]

So she's a woman? What does that have to do with anything? Should she be expected to be treated any less harshly simply because of her sex?

No, but she in reality gets treated *more* harshly because of her sex - thus the litany of rape threads against her, and many other women online, by the 4chaners.

Guess who doesn't get routine rape threats? Hint: Any man who also gets mobbed by those sociopaths. Again, it's an issue because said people openly make it one.

Now, that's two down. Try not to make such plainly ridiculous arguments in the future.

So are you saying that men who engage in controversial causes don't get threats of ass-rape? They don't get threats of murder? Beatings or other violence? Or do those type of threats not count compared to rape? Are you sure you're applying the rules evenly, and not having different standards based on biological sex? Threats are the price of trying to stick your nose into what other people enjoy in the privacy of their own homes. It is what it is. It's funny how she complains about damsels in distress being a trope, then whines about how threatened she feels.

So when are you going to address the question about what her purpose for these videos attacking a subtype of games? This isn't a case of these being the only type of games she can play. So why is she making these videos? Why should I believe it's anything other than an attempt at censorship of material that she doesn't like?

We'll get to that if and when it becomes apparent she is attempting to do more than offer a critique of video games, in the same manner and for the same reasons a movie reviewer writes a critique of a movie.

I have no idea why you think commenting on tropes in video games is such an terrible transgression it warrants rape threats but perhaps one of the later installments will explain it.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Hmm.. ”she is not a gamer”? What sort of bullshit argument is that?

Good luck understanding something if you can't be bothered to learn the context. She keeps confusing damsels in distress with capable kick-ass female characters. Because she can't be bothered to study her subject matter she keeps making dumb assumptions.

I remember when she had a go at 2K games for Bioshock infinite because it was sexist. Obviously she hadn't played it. That game bends over backward to be inclusive. They published a rebutal that cut her attack to shreds. But she didn't care.

And shouldnt researchers be able to live on their research?
Seems you just throwing shit..

Researchers are typically attached to a university. They get funding based on publication in journals and so on. There's an academic eco-system that works to support serious research. She just crowdfunds. Makes zero effort to publish in peer reviewed journals. She also over-charge for her work. Check her youtube channel. Each episode costs $30 000 to make. WTF is the money going to?

My point is that she's not a researcher. She's doing fan-service to militant feminists. She's just telling these people what they want to hear without managing to back anything of it up.

It's also eerily similar to the conservative Christians age old attacks on videogames. Also made by people who clearly don't understand the context... and also... unable to show that games has the effect they claim it does. At least the Christians weren't claiming it was research they were doing.

 

[Arctish]

Anita Sarkesian has been busted. She's not a gamer. She doesn't understand the stories or why characters look a certain way. She just looks at the graphics from it and tries to be offended. She's an absolute joke.

She also seems to be using her social justice warrior network in order to enrich herself. She's making a comfortable living from this bullshit. She only produces absolute garbage. She's not a serious researcher. She's just a Youtuber.

It appears you haven't watched all of the first installment. You missed the picture of her playing the game she's focused on throughout most of it. Also, can you point to specific parts of her commentary that strike you as problematic?

I don't want to get into Gamergate dogma until we've looked at all of the installments and considered a few critiques of her work that exist independent of it. I hope this thread will be about her actual work, not what mostly anonymous sources on 4Chan claim it contains.

Hmm.. ”she is not a gamer”? What sort of bullshit argument is that?

Good luck understanding something if you can't be bothered to learn the context. She keeps confusing damsels in distress with capable kick-ass female characters. Because she can't be bothered to study her subject matter she keeps making dumb assumptions.

I remember when she had a go at 2K games for Bioshock infinite because it was sexist. Obviously she hadn't played it. That game bends over backward to be inclusive. They published a rebutal that cut her attack to shreds. But she didn't care.

So did you watch the first installment all the way through, or didn't you?

Where does she confuse the damsel in distress with kick-ass female characters? I see her making some pretty clear distinctions. At one point she talks about female characters that are rather kick-ass who lose agency in service of the male character's storyline. In Sarkeesian's terminology, they were 'damselled'. Are you talking about them?

We haven't gotten to Part 2 of Damsels in Distress yet. I'm sure she has a lot more to say about that trope. If there are some characters she discusses later in the series we can talk about them after reviewing those installments.

 

[Terrell]

So are you saying that men who engage in controversial causes don't get threats of ass-rape? They don't get threats of murder? Beatings or other violence? Or do those type of threats not count compared to rape? Are you sure you're applying the rules evenly, and not having different standards based on biological sex? Threats are the price of trying to stick your nose into what other people enjoy in the privacy of their own homes. It is what it is. It's funny how she complains about damsels in distress being a trope, then whines about how threatened she feels.

So when are you going to address the question about what her purpose for these videos attacking a subtype of games? This isn't a case of these being the only type of games she can play. So why is she making these videos? Why should I believe it's anything other than an attempt at censorship of material that she doesn't like?

We'll get to that if and when it becomes apparent she is attempting to censor a subtype of games, rather than merely offering a critique much like a movie reviewer does after watching the latest studio release.

I have no idea why you think commenting on tropes in video games is such an terrible transgression it warrants rape threats but perhaps one of the later installments will explain it.

I think being threatened goes with the territory if you're a controversial figure, and she is. That's not the same as endorsement of threatening her. I just don't have any sympathy for her, just as I don't have any sympathy for any male who receives threats for attempting, in any fashion, to censor the content of video games. I don't buy into the idea that she's being treated worse for being a woman. I simply think she's receiving sympathy she wouldn't receive if she was a man in the same circumstances.

What's the purpose of said critique? What's the end goal? Why shouldn't I believe that her, and her supporters' end goal is the removal of content they find objectionable? If she doesn't think content needs to be changed, why have the series in the first place? People who aren't interested in violent games, or games with scantily clad sexy women, can choose to play games that don't have those things, or even to not play at all. Those aren't the only type of games available to those who want to play games.

I doubt her supporters can actually defend her content against her critics, or they're going to a threat narrative because it's easier. (Instead of addressing her critics points; they point to threats she's received, as if she doesn't have critics that don't threaten her) IMO it's no different than saying an adult should be prohibited from an activity "for the children" when said adult's engaging in said activity isn't involving a child.

 

[Arctish]

So are you saying that men who engage in controversial causes don't get threats of ass-rape? They don't get threats of murder? Beatings or other violence? Or do those type of threats not count compared to rape? Are you sure you're applying the rules evenly, and not having different standards based on biological sex? Threats are the price of trying to stick your nose into what other people enjoy in the privacy of their own homes. It is what it is. It's funny how she complains about damsels in distress being a trope, then whines about how threatened she feels.

So when are you going to address the question about what her purpose for these videos attacking a subtype of games? This isn't a case of these being the only type of games she can play. So why is she making these videos? Why should I believe it's anything other than an attempt at censorship of material that she doesn't like?

We'll get to that if and when it becomes apparent she is attempting to censor a subtype of games, rather than merely offering a critique much like a movie reviewer does after watching the latest studio release.

I have no idea why you think commenting on tropes in video games is such an terrible transgression it warrants rape threats but perhaps one of the later installments will explain it.

I think being threatened goes with the territory if you're a controversial figure, and she is.

I interested in exploring the question of why she's a controversial figure. I want to start by looking at what she has actually said and done. The points she raises don't look all that controversial to me. Tropes aren't a new and threatening concept. They're pretty well established in popular culture, and their function in storytelling is widely understood. But Sarkeesian's series on tropes in video games struck a nerve and I think that's worth discussing.

That's not the same as endorsement of threatening her. I just don't have any sympathy for her, just as I don't have any sympathy for any male who receives threats for attempting, in any fashion, to censor the content of video games. I don't buy into the idea that she's being treated worse for being a woman. I simply think she's receiving sympathy she wouldn't receive if she was a man in the same circumstances.

You keep alleging she wants to censor video games. If she calls for that anywhere in her series, we'll get to it.

What's the purpose of said critique? What's the end goal? Why shouldn't I believe that her, and her supporters' end goal is the removal of content they find objectionable? If she doesn't think content needs to be changed, why have the series in the first place?

That's like asking why people review books, why food critics write articles about the meals they've eaten, or why Margaret Mead wrote Coming of Age in Samoa. People are interested in those topics. People write and give lectures about them. Other people enjoy reading or listening to critiques and commentaries about them.

If you want to understand Sarkeesian's purpose in making this series then IMO the best place to start is by watching it. It's worth a try, anyway.

People who aren't interested in violent games, or games with scantily clad sexy women, can choose to play games that don't have those things, or even to not play at all. Those aren't the only type of games available to those who want to play games.

I doubt her supporters can actually defend her content against her critics, or they're going to a threat narrative because it's easier. (Instead of addressing her critics points; they point to threats she's received, as if she doesn't have critics that don't threaten her) IMO it's no different than saying an adult should be prohibited from an activity "for the children" when said adult's engaging in said activity isn't involving a child.

Well, let's examine the content and see if it needs defending by anyone. Have you watched Damsels in Distress Part 1 all the way through?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Good luck understanding something if you can't be bothered to learn the context. She keeps confusing damsels in distress with capable kick-ass female characters. Because she can't be bothered to study her subject matter she keeps making dumb assumptions.

I remember when she had a go at 2K games for Bioshock infinite because it was sexist. Obviously she hadn't played it. That game bends over backward to be inclusive. They published a rebutal that cut her attack to shreds. But she didn't care.

So did you watch the first installment all the way through, or didn't you?

Where does she confuse the damsel in distress with kick-ass female characters? I see her making some pretty clear distinctions. At one point she talks about female characters that are rather kick-ass who lose agency in service of the male character's storyline. In Sarkeesian's terminology, they were 'damselled'. Are you talking about them?

We haven't gotten to Part 2 of Damsels in Distress yet. I'm sure she has a lot more to say about that trope. If there are some characters she discusses later in the series we can talk about them after reviewing those installments.

Gamergate completely destroyed whatever credibility she had left. Her attempt to ride out the criticism and pull the victim card, made me lose all respect for her. Her defences were pathetic. I saw through her completely. There's loads of these kinds of journalists. Let's call her a journalist... because that's what she is. They pick a position and then filter reality to fit that position and then get angry and upset about it. Without ever engaging with reality or having anything of any genuine to say.

Are you saying that she's said something of value since? Really? If you say so, I'll give it a go. Are you?

 

[Arctish]

Good luck understanding something if you can't be bothered to learn the context. She keeps confusing damsels in distress with capable kick-ass female characters. Because she can't be bothered to study her subject matter she keeps making dumb assumptions.

I remember when she had a go at 2K games for Bioshock infinite because it was sexist. Obviously she hadn't played it. That game bends over backward to be inclusive. They published a rebutal that cut her attack to shreds. But she didn't care.

So did you watch the first installment all the way through, or didn't you?

Where does she confuse the damsel in distress with kick-ass female characters? I see her making some pretty clear distinctions. At one point she talks about female characters that are rather kick-ass who lose agency in service of the male character's storyline. In Sarkeesian's terminology, they were 'damselled'. Are you talking about them?

We haven't gotten to Part 2 of Damsels in Distress yet. I'm sure she has a lot more to say about that trope. If there are some characters she discusses later in the series we can talk about them after reviewing those installments.

Gamergate completely destroyed whatever credibility she had left. Her attempt to ride out the criticism and pull the victim card, made me lose all respect for her. Her defences were pathetic. I saw through her completely. There's loads of these kinds of journalists. Let's call her a journalist... because that's what she is. They pick a position and then filter reality to fit that position and then get angry and upset about it. Without ever engaging with reality or having anything of any genuine to say.

Are you saying that she's said something of value since? Really? If you say so, I'll give it a go. Are you?

As I said earlier, I started this thread so we'd have a place to discuss Sarkeesian's actual work. If you haven't yet watched the first installment you should consider doing so before commenting, because ignorance of her actual research and commentary will quickly become apparent.

Have you watched Damsels in Distress Part 1, or not?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Gamergate completely destroyed whatever credibility she had left. Her attempt to ride out the criticism and pull the victim card, made me lose all respect for her. Her defences were pathetic. I saw through her completely. There's loads of these kinds of journalists. Let's call her a journalist... because that's what she is. They pick a position and then filter reality to fit that position and then get angry and upset about it. Without ever engaging with reality or having anything of any genuine to say.

Are you saying that she's said something of value since? Really? If you say so, I'll give it a go. Are you?

As I said earlier, I started this thread so we'd have a place to discuss Sarkeesian's actual work. If you haven't yet watched the first installment you should consider doing so before commenting, because ignorance of her actual research and commentary will quickly become apparent.

Have you watched Damsels in Distress Part 1, or not?

Like I said... once Sarkesian was revealed as a fraud I stopped wasting my time on her. But you changed my mind, I'll have a look at it.

 

[Terrell]

I think being threatened goes with the territory if you're a controversial figure, and she is.

I interested in exploring the question of why she's a controversial figure. I want to start by looking at what she has actually said and done. The points she raises don't look all that controversial to me. Tropes aren't a new and threatening concept. They're pretty well established in popular culture, and their function in storytelling is widely understood. But Sarkeesian's series on tropes in video games struck a nerve and I think that's worth discussing.

That's not the same as endorsement of threatening her. I just don't have any sympathy for her, just as I don't have any sympathy for any male who receives threats for attempting, in any fashion, to censor the content of video games. I don't buy into the idea that she's being treated worse for being a woman. I simply think she's receiving sympathy she wouldn't receive if she was a man in the same circumstances.

You keep alleging she wants to censor video games. If she calls for that anywhere in her series, we'll get to it.

What's the purpose of said critique? What's the end goal? Why shouldn't I believe that her, and her supporters' end goal is the removal of content they find objectionable? If she doesn't think content needs to be changed, why have the series in the first place?

That's like asking why people review books, why food critics write articles about the meals they've eaten, or why Margaret Mead wrote Coming of Age in Samoa. People are interested in those topics. People write and give lectures about them. Other people enjoy reading or listening to critiques and commentaries about them.

If you want to understand Sarkeesian's purpose in making this series then IMO the best place to start is by watching it. It's worth a try, anyway.

People who aren't interested in violent games, or games with scantily clad sexy women, can choose to play games that don't have those things, or even to not play at all. Those aren't the only type of games available to those who want to play games.

I doubt her supporters can actually defend her content against her critics, or they're going to a threat narrative because it's easier. (Instead of addressing her critics points; they point to threats she's received, as if she doesn't have critics that don't threaten her) IMO it's no different than saying an adult should be prohibited from an activity "for the children" when said adult's engaging in said activity isn't involving a child.

Well, let's examine the content and see if it needs defending by anyone.

It's been mentioned upthread about why she's a controversial figure. It's even been discussed here in other threads.

Examples include things like her review of hitman absolution where she claims that it's encouraged to kill the women in the game, when they're not the target. You're supposed to sneak by them, the objective is to take out your target without being caught. Unlike she claims they're not background decoration, they're people who can notice you. (you don't want to attract attention)



Criticism of her about hitman absolution starts at about 2:34 into the video. It shows her footage, followed by why she's wrong. If you look at the top left you can see the point deduction for killing the strippers.

An example from an earlier thread was her calling Dixie Kong an example of the Ms. Male trope. I pointed out why she was wrong about that. here. In DKC Dixie's superior jumping & control of falls matters.

Her tweets about Doom & Fallout 4 at E3 2015 would be another thing. Also her complaints about pregnant women in Fallout Shelter.

Doom without violence, seriously? This is one of the first 1st person shooter games that popularized the genre. Why should the game remove the core element of what makes it Doom? Her complaints about killing things in a post apocalyptic wasteland (Fallout 4). Her complaints about pregnant women in Fallout Shelter running away from combat. If you're trying to repopulate a wasteland after nuclear war, do you really want pregnant women rushing into combat?

Copies of the actual tweets can be seen at the links immediately below w/r/t Doom
http://www.reaxxion.com/9993/anita-...hypocrisy-by-complaining-about-dooms-violence




You want to try and reason with Raiders? Super Mutants? Feral Ghouls? Radscorpions? Hostile mutated animals? Good luck with that.




Tell me again how you're supposed to repopulate without pregnant women following a nuclear holocaust? So there's some cheesy humor, while they run away, but getting them hurt or killed is inimical to repopulation.

Lying about the 2015 E3 badges doesn't help either




Her complaints about sexy/revealing armor that we discussed in the Lingerie != Armor thread. We're not the only ones to have this discussion. Here's a link to the discussion we had here on this topic.

https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?8494-Anita-Sarkeesian-Lingerie-!-Armor


If it's to be compared to food critics why is the channel called "Feminist Frequency"? Do food critics with non-political shows name said shows after political movements? One doesn't have to say "Censor this" for it to be a call for censorship; there are more subtle ways to do the same thing. Why should I see this as anything else, since she did name her channel after a political movement?

Why would I defend any of her footage? I'm opposed to her.

 

[Mumbles]

I'll say a few things: First, I recall nothing objectionable about her first video on the subject (As I recall, the second goes into more modern versions, while the third discusses men put in similar situations, subversions of the trope, and so forth, but I could be wrong.)

Second, Thunderfoot's claims are, as I noted in another thread, entirely disingenuous, to the point where he clearly and deliberately edits and cuts footage to create a strawman to attack. This is actually most of what passes for "responses" to her arguments.

Third, and most vitally, it's correct to say that this comes with any form of artwork or performance. And in fact I remember the rage that was kicked off when one Roger Ebert stated that video games are not art. This went complete with people looking to what they considered games that were artistic, like Flower on PS...2? 3? I forget. Sarkeesian seems to take them seriously as art, which means that you can look at them through a variety of perspectives, look for tropes of various types, and so forth.

Man, could I have fun with racial stereotypes in some of these games...

And a final note - she's neither the head of any group trying to ban video games, nor at the head of some evil feminist or "SJW" cabal (as I said before, this is entry-level material and that's about all). Again, it was a kickstarter with a goal of $6,000. No plans for statistical research into what percentage of games have this or that trope, no plan to "debate" anybody, just 5 videos and possibly some class materials. And as to why? Because she finds it interesting.

 

[Juma]

I interested in exploring the question of why she's a controversial figure. I want to start by looking at what she has actually said and done. The points she raises don't look all that controversial to me. Tropes aren't a new and threatening concept. They're pretty well established in popular culture, and their function in storytelling is widely understood. But Sarkeesian's series on tropes in video games struck a nerve and I think that's worth discussing.



You keep alleging she wants to censor video games. If she calls for that anywhere in her series, we'll get to it.

What's the purpose of said critique? What's the end goal? Why shouldn't I believe that her, and her supporters' end goal is the removal of content they find objectionable? If she doesn't think content needs to be changed, why have the series in the first place?

That's like asking why people review books, why food critics write articles about the meals they've eaten, or why Margaret Mead wrote Coming of Age in Samoa. People are interested in those topics. People write and give lectures about them. Other people enjoy reading or listening to critiques and commentaries about them.

If you want to understand Sarkeesian's purpose in making this series then IMO the best place to start is by watching it. It's worth a try, anyway.

People who aren't interested in violent games, or games with scantily clad sexy women, can choose to play games that don't have those things, or even to not play at all. Those aren't the only type of games available to those who want to play games.

I doubt her supporters can actually defend her content against her critics, or they're going to a threat narrative because it's easier. (Instead of addressing her critics points; they point to threats she's received, as if she doesn't have critics that don't threaten her) IMO it's no different than saying an adult should be prohibited from an activity "for the children" when said adult's engaging in said activity isn't involving a child.

Well, let's examine the content and see if it needs defending by anyone.

It's been mentioned upthread about why she's a controversial figure. It's even been discussed here in other threads.

Examples include things like her review of hitman absolution where she claims that it's encouraged to kill the women in the game, when they're not the target. You're supposed to sneak by them, the objective is to take out your target without being caught. Unlike she claims they're not background decoration, they're people who can notice you. (you don't want to attract attention)



Criticism of her about hitman absolution starts at about 2:34 into the video. It shows her footage, followed by why she's wrong. If you look at the top left you can see the point deduction for killing the strippers.

An example from an earlier thread was her calling Dixie Kong an example of the Ms. Male trope. I pointed out why she was wrong about that. here. In DKC Dixie's superior jumping & control of falls matters.

Her tweets about Doom & Fallout 4 at E3 2015 would be another thing. Also her complaints about pregnant women in Fallout Shelter.

Doom without violence, seriously? This is one of the first 1st person shooter games that popularized the genre. Why should the game remove the core element of what makes it Doom? Her complaints about killing things in a post apocalyptic wasteland (Fallout 4). Her complaints about pregnant women in Fallout Shelter running away from combat. If you're trying to repopulate a wasteland after nuclear war, do you really want pregnant women rushing into combat?

Copies of the actual tweets can be seen at the links immediately below w/r/t Doom
http://www.reaxxion.com/9993/anita-...hypocrisy-by-complaining-about-dooms-violence


View attachment 16359

You want to try and reason with Raiders? Super Mutants? Feral Ghouls? Radscorpions? Hostile mutated animals? Good luck with that.


View attachment 16358

Tell me again how you're supposed to repopulate without pregnant women following a nuclear holocaust? So there's some cheesy humor, while they run away, but getting them hurt or killed is inimical to repopulation.

Lying about the 2015 E3 badges doesn't help either


View attachment 16360

Her complaints about sexy/revealing armor that we discussed in the Lingerie != Armor thread. We're not the only ones to have this discussion. Here's a link to the discussion we had here on this topic.

https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?8494-Anita-Sarkeesian-Lingerie-!-Armor


If it's to be compared to food critics why is the channel called "Feminist Frequency"? Do food critics with non-political shows name said shows after political movements? One doesn't have to say "Censor this" for it to be a call for censorship; there are more subtle ways to do the same thing. Why should I see this as anything else, since she did name her channel after a political movement?

Why would I defend any of her footage? I'm opposed to her.

why are you so bothered? why dont you just ignore her?