Since the launch of Feminist Frequency's Tropes vs Women in Games, creator Anita Sarkeesian has faced a wall of abuse and threats from enraged critics of her detailed research that highlights misogyny in game fiction.
This week, the abusers drove her out of her own home.
"Some very scary threats have just been made against me and my family. Contacting authorities now," she wrote on Twitter last night.
She later tweeted, "I'm safe. Authorities have been notified. Staying with friends tonight. I'm not giving up. But this harassment of women in tech must stop!"
Earlier today, Sarkeesian shared a particularly disturbing series of threats from one abuser, along with a trigger warning. "I usually don't share the really scary stuff. But it's important for folks to know how bad it gets."
This is sad, and I'm not sure if I'd really give a gak if some troll on the web threatened me. Rather than commenting on how scary it is, why not take steps to protect yourself and then keep doing what you're doing?
And honestly? Drove her out of her home? There isn't a person alive that could do that to me without killing me first.
Ok, I am definitely against, well.. pretty much everything harassment. I wouldn't even send them an email, let alone death threats, but still hear me out. Just because I have decided I dont like either of them very much doesnt mean it has anything to do with feminism.
Two days ago I didn't know who she, or Zoe Quinn was, thank Dakka for my intro.That is how interested I am in the whole thing.
Anyway, after spending half an hour reading about the pair, I think I have enough evidence to say that I doubt I would like either of them. I'm also left wondering why people spend to much time defending them. I mean seriously that Zoe chick seems like a genuinely disgusting human being. If a man cheated on his missus to that extent while always saying "CHeating is such a terrible thing" who on earth would defend him? It just reeks of hypocrisy. You know.. like the person who goes on and on and on about something being bad, like adultery or tax evasion or being gay, and then they get caught evading taxes and cheating on their wives with a bloke.
I'm pleased that people can make a living doing "social media" type of gak, good luck to them, but I have no interest in either of them and I honestly doubt they are sincere. They are less interested in issues and more interested in CASH, same as everybody else. I think they make a living from this gak because they are women. Smart girls know they can make money by either leaping into hobbys that are male orientated, or leaping onto a bandwagon, like feminism or LGBT rights or something.
For example I am very pro LGBT rights, but I wouldn't make a video and say "I will spread the message for 10 dollars!" because I think it reeks of patronizing snake oil salesmen. People will say and do anything to make a buck nowadays. The LGBT community are working hard themselves, they don't need me to take money off them. Same with that Zoey chick who made some 40k videos, she might be pleasant enough personally, but clearly its all about the money. Its actually damning of men when you think about it. That blokes are such sad bastards they will pay a girl with no qualifications or knowledge to go to a 40k tourney to make a documentary proves that women are smarter than men.
So don't start calling me a misogynist, I think America needs a female president and all of the best British leaders were women too, (Thatcher, Lizzie and Victoria!) but I actually do have a dislike for both of those chicks. not because they are women but because they take money off credulous sad bastards just because they are women/pretend to be all about feminism.
To me its got nothing to do with social justice issues and everything to do with.. you guessed it, making money.
I put them alongside the likes of Joel Osteen and the other televangelists frankly, and I hate people like that.
@mattrym I wonder just how much cash is generated from her. Is it all donation based?
Can I have more info on the zoey 40k thingy, never heard of it.
I agree though. A while ago, I think I made the mistake of clicking on melissas blog link and the women in the OP was linked in a video there. I pretty much came to the same conclusion as you and moved on.
Swastakowey wrote: @mattrym I wonder just how much cash is generated from her. Is it all donation based?
Can I have more info on the zoey 40k thingy, never heard of it.
I agree though. A while ago, I think I made the mistake of clicking on melissas blog link and the women in the OP was linked in a video there. I pretty much came to the same conclusion as you and moved on.
Mate just Google it and make your own mind up, I saw some Zoey Quinn thing on dakka, read about her on google and thought "yeah she sounds fething horrible" but maybe you will come to another conclusion.
Oh gak yeah, you mean the other Zoey one? That was something daft like she got 10,000 dollars via Kickstarter to fly to a con in America or something.. as I said, hats off to her, but why pretend it was about anything other than trying to make some cash?
Basically I don't think 99% of the gak we see on the internet is about what it says it is about. Alex Jones doesn't care about conspiracies, he is after making money. Why should anyone else be any different?
I know im a miserable fether but thats life.. its almost always about money. Its like that Ice Bucket gak. Twenty years ago people just have money to charity, they didn't tell everyone about it. Wrap it up in some thinly veiled narcissism disguised as charity and everyone is fething at it.
Sounds like Anita and her boyfriend are cashing in on all the riled up SJWs. This reminds me of when tumblr had reports of people with PTSD because of tweets they received.
Remember this is Anita "Im not a fan of gaming" Sarkeesian, who originally posted her project on 4chan, then immediately started a twitter storm over the abuse and threats she got. I could post that I like cupcakes on 4chan and get death threats FFS. After she was deemed a brave heroin all over media and gained $160,000 dollars on a $25,000 project and refuses to share how she uses the funds. She has been proven to steal play throughs and peoples art for her own gain. Refuses to address legitimate criticism, and disables comments on her videos.
Any of you who doubt she is a fraud look up her relationship with Bart Baggert a known fraud that she worked under for 3 years.
Also remember this is polygon, that were just stuck in a gak storm where some of its writers compared gamers to terrorists.
Also remember, her videos have been on the steady decline in viewership.
She is cashing in on Quinnspiracy and the Sarkeesian effect documentary business.
I'll wait to see the whole story, it seems too close to the Polygon and Quinn thing not to be connected, especially with the Sarkeesian effect documentary trying to get funding.
That and her views are really down and there are articles questioning her relevance and increased criticism. That and its Polygon reporting it. If the threats are published and traced back to anyone this will be big trouble.
She needs to be extremely transparent with this otherwise we have to trust her word, and it isn't worth much with how she has conducted herself.
mattyrm wrote: I have to say as well, why are people so scared of death threats? I am scared of people in my house with guns, not ten-a-penny internet death threats.
I think people looking for funding online use it to drum up interest, controversy, and ergo, cash.
I have had death threats when I've been arguing with people on political boards on Facebook, I yawn and tell them to feth off.
But then I'm not looking to fleece money off people.
From Purplefood.
Purplefood wrote:Must say I agree with you.
It also seems like people are less harassing women and more just harassing her about this...
mattyrm wrote: I have to say as well, why are people so scared of death threats? I am scared of people in my house with guns, not ten-a-penny internet death threats.
I think people looking for funding online use it to drum up interest, controversy, and ergo, cash.
I have had death threats when I've been arguing with people on political boards on Facebook, I yawn and tell them to feth off.
But then I'm not looking to fleece money off people.
Agreed... But then, when you head down range, and get a new job... Then within a week of that new job find out through intel that there's a bounty on you specifically (well, the description that they gave was definitely me/the guy doing my job)... kinda takes the edge off of any internet death threats
I mean, when it comes to things that I'm legitimately scared of, things like EFPs and "deep buried IEDs" tend to top the list. Online death threats don't even make the top 50.
mattyrm wrote: I have to say as well, why are people so scared of death threats?
Because some people are crazy enough to actually act on their threat. And because by being pretty prominent on the internet, she is way, way, way lore likely than you to get the interest of one of them. If the black boxes cover personal information that proves the guy making the threats has stalked her, that is a pretty normal reaction.
Death threats are bit much for my taste, but I really don't like her. Look up her Last of Us gak and you'll see what I mean. She goes on to say how Ellies, one of the strongest characters physically and emotionally, is a victim of misogynistic tropes and is not an inspiring character. She then proceeded to block all comments on her Youtube videos when people disagreed with her.
The lady is a total martyr and exists only to stir up media frenzy. Yeah, some games are mysoginistic. Guess what? Don't buy em.
I would jut say how stupid and attention whoring she is, how real feminism ideas are very well discussed in papers and journals..... but im buzzed, talking to the ghost of lincoln and trying to find a way to revive weaponsmith ornifex because i was having war flashbaks from my time in the painted world.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I would jut say how stupid and attention whoring she is, how real feminism ideas are very well discussed in papers and journals.....
but im buzzed, talking to the ghost of lincoln and trying to find a way to revive weaponsmith ornifex because i was having war flashbaks from my time in the painted world.
Feminist ideals can be well talked about/portrayed in video games and the industry, she is just not someone to listen to
For the record, I find it rather interesting how I only learned those buzzwords from the people argueing against feminism, rather than feminists. Gotta beat the dead horsemare, I presume.
mattyrm wrote:Mate just Google it and make your own mind up, I saw some Zoey Quinn thing on dakka, read about her on google and thought "yeah she sounds fething horrible" but maybe you will come to another conclusion.
Careful research might indeed sway one's opinion one way or the other, as apparently there's been a concerted effort by a segment of 4chan to discredit that person - and some blogs/newssites flat out misattributed or falsified quotes on the subject. I've posted examples regarding this in the thread we had on dakka.
I'm not overly interested in that case itself, but from what I've seen it was the boyfriend saying stuff about her and the internet going "lol feminism" again.
jrelly89 wrote:She goes on to say how Ellies, one of the strongest characters physically and emotionally, is a victim of misogynistic tropes and is not an inspiring character. She then proceeded to block all comments on her Youtube videos when people disagreed with her.
To be fair, it seems to be the game's purpose as "the white male character to protect that poor female child". I don't think the designers intentionally chose these gender roles as a statement on society, but it does sound pretty cliché to me.
And then there's the fact that the publisher wanted to push the character to the back of the box art specifically because eww girls. Interestingly and laudably, the studio "fought tooth and nail" and eventually prevailed, but in a roundabout kind of way this is a perfect example of how the industry looks like from the inside, and what kind of currents you have to deal with as a developer.
Has anyone truly questioned the veracity of the original claims made against Quinn (by a jilted ex). Seems a bit 'plastic Thunderhawk' to me.
And loathe or love Sarkeesian, is it really a good thing for idiots to troll anyone with such vitriol and hate? Really? Joss Wheadon supports her and he starts getting flamed for it, no well thought out counters, just frothing at the mouth. Ditto Tim Shaffer and others.
This isn't reasoned debate. Sakessian had a troll post that he would shove a pipe up her c£$%. But its okay and for the lulz cause she is getting attention..........
Jeez.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mechanical Crow wrote: I'll wait to see the whole story, it seems too close to the Polygon and Quinn thing not to be connected, especially with the Sarkeesian effect documentary trying to get funding.
That and her views are really down and there are articles questioning her relevance and increased criticism. That and its Polygon reporting it. If the threats are published and traced back to anyone this will be big trouble.
She needs to be extremely transparent with this otherwise we have to trust her word, and it isn't worth much with how she has conducted herself.
This really isn't about what she has produced (which is coherent).
This is about the idiots who have suddenly sprung up wanting her and anyone who supports her dead.
Wanting to drink her blood.
Releasing personal details.
Saying they will rape her dead.
She can keep her opacity.
This isn't even against what she was posted, it really is - plain and simply - an excuse to be base, vile, unerringly and chillingly misogynistic behind a wall of anonymity.
And loathe or love Sarkeesian, is it really a good thing for idiots to troll anyone with such vitriol and hate?
That's kind of the point.
Is it a good thing for idiots to troll people with vitirol and hate? No, but it happens on the internet all day every day, day in and day out, and yet... nobody cares.
Look at all the publicity this incident has gotten. Contrast it to the gak Warmachine had suffered at the hands of 4Chan and other troll-communities. Anyone know about that? You probably don't, which isn't surprising.
Last year Warmachine (the guy who beat the gak out of Christy Mack last month) had a bunch of his social media accounts and computers hacked by Anonymous, who dug up a whole bunch of personal information about him including the fact that his father had recently passed away from iirc cancer or something. They took all this information and posted it on 4Chan, and 4Chan spent days spreading the info across the internet and bombing Warmachine's e-mail and social media profiles with messages taunting him about the death of his Father and just generally flaming the gak out of him.
That happened last year. How many know about that incident? Even if he hadn't gone apeshit and beaten up Christy Mack, how many people would even care? Not very many I'm sure, because that sort of thing happens on the internet all the time, and has been happening since its inception. And yet incidences such as this one receive so much publicity and outrage. Why is that, one wonders?
jreilly89 wrote: Death threats are bit much for my taste, but I really don't like her. Look up her Last of Us gak and you'll see what I mean. She goes on to say how Ellies, one of the strongest characters physically and emotionally, is a victim of misogynistic tropes and is not an inspiring character. She then proceeded to block all comments on her Youtube videos when people disagreed with her.
The lady is a total martyr and exists only to stir up media frenzy. Yeah, some games are mysoginistic. Guess what? Don't buy em.
Yep Anita Sarkeesian has previous for this. She talks complete gak, blocks any legitimate criticism of her work then releases a handful of admittedly very nasty comments and attempts to present them representative of all those against her. Thus all those don't support her must support those making the death threats and any meaningful debate is shut down. It's a standard feminist tactic.
Likewise. People whine about there supposedly being legitimate criticism, but never really produce any.
Frequently, especially for the 4chan crowd, it's just an excuse for them to attack a woman they don't like in the most misogynistic way they can muster.
Really? She purposefully provoked people, lashed out at others and lies both her fans and others straight into the face...and then claims being unfairly harassed? Give me a break. She certainly isn't as much as a terrible person Zoe Quinn is, but if you can't stand the heat...
Three things though:
a) Is there legimitate proof of her being harassed or it being a PR thing? This coming just after the Quinn-thing is just...strange.
b) If she did indeed receive illegimitate and strongly offensive threats, those aren't, by any means, justified, but inappropriate and, actually, illegal.
c) This immediately being turned into "Men on the internet hate women!" is a pretty bland statement when she uses her example as proof. Not every woman on the internet is an attention w****.
There is this point in life where people go from some other person on the net to a celebrity.
In the case of this topic, it did not happen by accident and Sarkeesian chose to operate at a higher level of visibility.
She was more than willing to throw out some rather controversial opinions and that is good for her, getting some talk on these topics is a good thing.
She has also accepted some public money to fund her "campaign" which does lend some obligation on her to continue.
She is now a public figure and it would be rather unimaginative of her to not accept that some "crazies" will notice her.
She should take steps to see those contrary to the law especially with harassment to be investigated by the police.
I personally do not approve of her methods but agree with the inequity that is pointed out, some less enlightened individuals could take their response to an extreme.
The knuckle dragging man in me thinks:
"You literally asked to take on a leadership role, don't whine now that you got it with the benefits and liabilities that entails."
People will always envy when you have the ear of the public, been happening forever, do battle and show them why you are deserving.
The empathetic more understanding person in me thinks:
"Yeah, you never can quite tell what the next crazy will do and very well could show up at your doorstep: very hard to safeguard against."
Best I can figure is get into a dialogue with your local police ahead of time and see what recommendations and services they can offer.
Then take steps to safeguard yourself and property do not give the appearance of a victim and be prepared for the possible confrontation.
We are part of a civilized society and whatever the controversial viewpoint that is expressed should be only met with another viewpoint not threats or violence.
I have always had the viewpoint that there ARE those who think violence is a valid response and I usually have a few things prepared... just in case: love everyone, trust no-one.
<edit> To also post on Twitter that "scary threats" have been received is just stupid in the extreme: don't give the crazies satisfaction, they will only ramp it up.
Seeing her videos I would think she is smarter than this.
I really am assuming here this is more a publicity stunt on her part than actual concern.
I think she likes the attention and will sensationalize anything she receives or has to say.
It very well could be that the Zoe incident has taken some of the spotlight from her and she needed to create something.
What makes this all so difficult: it is wonderful when women get attention for their skills and ideas rather than the man's knee-jerk reaction of "oh lookee she be hot!!!" BUT women are human too: they can be nasty pieces of work just trying grab the limelight like a crooked politician. I still am undecided if I like the cut of her jib.
Talizvar wrote: She should take steps to see those contrary to the law especially with harassment to be investigated by the police.
Yeah, she really should. The donkey-caves will keep harassing and sending death threats and rape threats until someone makes it clear that it's unacceptable and it will be punished.
a) Is there legimitate proof of her being harassed or it being a PR thing? This coming just after the Quinn-thing is just...strange.
Actually not that strange. The Quinnspiracy immediately involved back references to Anita, so it's not surprising that when the hate started to roll Quinn's way, it started to roll Anita's way too. She's likely seeing a serious uptick in her hate mail right now.
Yep. Plus she voiced her support for Quinn, which took her from being "some other chick related to gaming who got into the news awhile back" to "that chick we all hate is now siding with this other chick we all hate. Lets hate them both at the same time." EDIT: Just look at our own thread on the subject XD
This “legitimate criticism”, I hear about it a lot, but I hardly ever hear it.
Creating videos to identify "misogynistic video game tropes" and then blocking comments when people call you out on your gak, then releasing a video about how everyone unfairly hates you because you're a woman. That legitimate enough?
jreilly89 wrote: Creating videos to identify "misogynistic video game tropes" and then blocking comments when people call you out on your gak, then releasing a video about how everyone unfairly hates you because you're a woman. That legitimate enough?
Creating videos to identify misogynistic video game trope is what she did, but I fail to see this as a valid criticism because that does not strike me as something bad.
Blocking comment on YouTube video, especially on a polemic subject, hardly seems out of the ordinary. I do not see how that is supposed to be a bad thing again, so again not valid criticism.
I am trying to make sense of your argument. You are angry that Anita Sarkeesian does not let you post your criticism on the fact she closed comments on her YouTube video, and your criticism of her is that she closed comments on her YouTube video? If she did open her YouTube video, what the freaking hell would you post there?
Sigvatr wrote: >> Claiming to research her facts
>> Not researching her facts
>> Presenting strongly biased opinions as "facts"
That alone is ridiculous enough to strip her from any credibility.
You know, it would be better if instead of saying “Not researching her facts”, you would say “Says that X when actually it is Y”. Because here, it looks like you are actually just presenting your own strongly biased opinions as facts. Oh, wait, what does that mean for your credibility, again?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Let us sum up Anita's sins. Apparently, she prevents people from giving their justified criticism. The main criticism that people are unjustly precluded from giving is that they are precluded from giving justified criticism, which seems pretty damn circular to me. Their second criticism is that what she say is not true/researched, no details provided ever. Their third criticism is that she uses footage from other YouTube video, and how that is in any way supposed to make her arguments less valid than if she had recorded it herself is left as an exercise to the reader or something. I honestly have no idea. Maybe video game automatically change when it is a woman playing and therefore the image would be totally different.
jreilly89 wrote: Creating videos to identify "misogynistic video game tropes" and then blocking comments when people call you out on your gak, then releasing a video about how everyone unfairly hates you because you're a woman. That legitimate enough?
Creating videos to identify misogynistic video game trope is what she did, but I fail to see this as a valid criticism because that does not strike me as something bad.
Blocking comment on YouTube video, especially on a polemic subject, hardly seems out of the ordinary. I do not see how that is supposed to be a bad thing again, so again not valid criticism.
I am trying to make sense of your argument. You are angry that Anita Sarkeesian does not let you post your criticism on the fact she closed comments on her YouTube video, and your criticism of her is that she closed comments on her YouTube video? If she did open her YouTube video, what the freaking hell would you post there?
By themselves, neither of first two are bad. Claiming to be an outspoken woman trying to unveil the misogyny of the video games industry, going so far as to be interviewed by game journalists, failing to back up your claims with legitimate evidence from said games, and then blocking comments so you can basically say "Nuh huh!" makes you a gigantic ass hat. Sorry, when something attacks something I love with complete unsupported gak, yeah, it gets me worked up.
jreilly89 wrote: failing to back up your claims with legitimate evidence from said games
I am a bit confused by this. For instance, her first videos were on the “damsel in distress” trope. Do you think she failed to provide evidence, even though she provided an ample list of games that do employ this trope? Or do you disagree with the fact that trope is misogynistic? Or what, exactly?
Please be specific, rather than random vague accusations like that.
jreilly89 wrote: and then blocking comments so you can basically say "Nuh huh!"
I do not see a problem with that. She never talked about establishing a debate about video game. She promised a short documentaries series on tropes concerning women in video games, and that is what she delivered. The fact she is not one bit interested in hearing your opinion is maybe infuriating to you, but it is perfectly within her right. And given the amount of abuse she likely received when the comments were open…
I mean, it would basically take two or three people working full-time to moderate that flux of hateful insults!
jreilly89 wrote: They do exist, but saying they exist in every single video game ever made holds no water.
And where did she said they exist in every single video game ever made?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, for the record, I am not saying her videos are exceptionally good or anything. I am saying all the criticism of them that I have seen is exceptionally poor or vague.
I do not see a problem with that. She never talked about establishing a debate about video game. She promised a short documentaries series on tropes concerning women in video games, and that is what she delivered. The fact she is not one bit interested in hearing your opinion is maybe infuriating to you, but it is perfectly within her right. And given the amount of abuse she likely received when the comments were open…
This.
'This chick prolly cant get laid I'll type that for the lulz'.
I am a bit confused by this. For instance, her first videos were on the “damsel in distress” trope. Do you think she failed to provide evidence, even though she provided an ample list of games that do employ this trope? Or do you disagree with the fact that trope is misogynistic? Or what, exactly?
Her evidence is entirely taken out of context in most cases. They are usually single clips or quotes. Link to her video. [/url]http://www.feministfrequency.com/2013/03/damsel-in-distress-part-1/[url]
I do not see a problem with that. She never talked about establishing a debate about video game. She promised a short documentaries series on tropes concerning women in video games, and that is what she delivered. The fact she is not one bit interested in hearing your opinion is maybe infuriating to you, but it is perfectly within her right. And given the amount of abuse she likely received when the comments were open…
I mean, it would basically take two or three people working full-time to moderate that flux of hateful insults!
I'm sorry the world sucks, but if you put something out there claiming critical analysis of a widely appreciated medium, you should be willing to engage in a discussion. Yeah, the comments she would receive are plenty vulgar, but outright blocking them seems a bit much.
"The Tropes vs Women in Video Games project aims to examine the plot devices and patterns most often associated with female characters in gaming from a systemic, big picture perspective. This series will include critical analysis of many beloved games and characters, but remember that it is both possible (and even necessary) to simultaneously enjoy media while also being critical of it’s more problematic or pernicious aspects."
And where did she said they exist in every single video game ever made?
"Ok, so we’ve established that the Damsel in Distress trope is one of the most widely used gendered cliché in the history of video games and has been core to the popularization and development of gaming as a medium." Direct quote from her transcript pretty much saying all video games ever made.
Honestly, my biggest problem with her is The Last of Us claim. I feel its unfounded, as the claims she makes are unsupported by three separate characters. I'm not saying misogyny doesn't exist in video games, but I think she is intentionally creating sexism where it doesn't exist. Developers already identify diversity as an issue in video games, but she is making it worse.
You can support either side, my problem is in the Houston Press he writes a review without having beaten the game.
She basically is a good example of how a lot of Kickstarters or similar concepts play out: you get your minutes of fame, over-promise and under-deliver when you realize that minutes of fame were...minutes indeed.
Slarg232 wrote: Didn't Sark promise somewhere upwards of 12+ videos or something like that, and has only delivered three of them?
Nope. She promised I do not care how many videos, and had been slowly but steadily releasing them.
jreilly89 wrote: Her evidence is entirely taken out of context in most cases. They are usually single clips or quotes. Link to her video. [/url]http://www.feministfrequency.com/2013/03/damsel-in-distress-part-1/[url]
So what? The aim of the video is not “presentation of various video games and why they are awesome and you should like them”. It is not even “Look at those bad misogynistic games that are awful and that you should definitely boycott”. It is about tropes. The rest of the game is largely irrelevant. That is why her video will do a better job by including very short clips from a lot of different games rather than very long clips from very few games.
jreilly89 wrote: I'm sorry the world sucks, but if you put something out there claiming critical analysis of a widely appreciated medium, you should be willing to engage in a discussion.
No. There is no single reason why you should be. Especially not with those kind of faceless, mindless interlocutor that is an internet mob.
jreilly89 wrote: "Ok, so we’ve established that the Damsel in Distress trope is one of the most widely used gendered cliché in the history of video games and has been core to the popularization and development of gaming as a medium." Direct quote from her transcript pretty much saying all video games ever made.
Except it is not. It just says this trope is used a lot, and is a big part of the history of video game. And that is completely true, hence why we have many games referring to it as self-reference. See Braid for instance, or Super Meat Boy.
jreilly89 wrote: Honestly, my biggest problem with her is The Last of Us claim. I feel its unfounded, as the claims she makes are unsupported by three separate characters.
I do not remember what she said about The Last of Us. What did she say?
But honestly, saying all her videos are completely wrong because of one clip on one game? Seems a bit excessive, no? Especially given the “trope” aspect I have been mentioning earlier.
I mean, it is like in that tumblr where she lists examples of the use of the Damsel tropes: yeah, I feel putting Kerrigan in is really stretching the definition quite a bit. For about every other game I know, it fits perfectly, and for those I do not, the screenshots seems pretty explicit anyway, so I am not going to let that detail derail me from the big picture.
jreilly89 wrote: You can support either side, my problem is in the Houston Press he writes a review without having beaten the game.
Okay, why did you switch to speaking about an article that was not written by Anita and that I have never heard about before?
mattyrm wrote: I mean seriously that Zoe chick seems like a genuinely disgusting human being.
Because she had nasty break-up and her ex accused her of cheating on him, with no one involved EXCEPT the ex agreeing that this was what happened?
Yeah see this is what I am saying, leaping to her defence seems popular, and I'm asking you (and everyone else obviously, but I know you better than all the other random strangers on the internet!) to be as honest with yourself as possible and ask yourself why you are defending her, because the evidence suggests it (my sole reason for saying I dont like the sound of her) or because you have a dog in the hunt being very active in feminist circles?
As I said, I didn't know any of this a week back, and I would definitely describe myself as a feminist, misogyny lacks any logic at all, not only becayse my wife is better than me at almost everything, but also because it ties in with my scorn for illogical emotional based decisions. And obviously many organized religions as well, (which is often inherently misogynist even though I am not allowed to talk about it anymore!)
That being said, acting with cold, methodical logic, surely you would certainly agree that at least the balance of probability suggests that many of the accusations were true? I watched a few videos and read that blog, it seems pretty on the level. And obviously jilted lovers make gak up all the time, so perhaps she didn't sleep with 5 guys and she didn't do it for reviews. I mean no doubt she didn't do plenty of what her ill-tempered ex says that she did, he is clearly motivated by spite and thus not a great witness, but if even half of it is true, that is enough for me to come to the conclusion that my missus and her probably wouldn't get along, because she has integrity and Quinn does not.
I mean, honestly I don't really care because I'm certainly not in-bed with the ridiculous men that constantly whinge about this stuff, I always say the same thing to my missus when we see it on TV regarding feminism, racism, and anti-gay gak, when you see truly pathetic men going "Oh if you swapped that around and made it a straight white man being abused then nobody would care!" because the power of the state was never against people like that! Its such a bad argument for that exact reason. It IS much worse for a white guy to abuse a black guy/LGBT individual/woman than vice versa, because I am one, and I can easily laugh off abuse from people because it feels entirely harmless, I am sure it does not feel that way if I start throwing crass comments at them, so I have never had any time for the reverse racism and reverse sexism gak that very many people seem to love so much, mainly because it just strikes me as a bit cringing and pathetic, and I'm a very proud man. One of my few flaws!
Anyway yeah, so don't think I massively give a gak about her, or the topic, or the men that moan about "reverse" anything, but this is a forum and we are here to talk so I was giving my two cents.
The point I'm getting at is simply this, surely the evidence certainly leans towards the fact that Ms Quinn actually did, at the very least, tell lots of lies, and feth at least two other people behind her boyfriends back while constantly saying how bad cheating was? I mean, all of those texts and gak have to have come from somewhere right? And it is illogical to suggest he would go to such extreme lengths, spend all of that time making that blog, and gathering the proof, if the entire thing was fictional. Plus, wouldn't she sue him for defamation rather than just try and keep mum about it all? This is America!
TLDR - I think even if some of the claims are false, and several DO seem dubious, the evidence definitely suggests that she doesn't sound like the type of person I would like to take to the prom.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: So what? The aim of the video is not “presentation of various video games and why they are awesome and you should like them”. It is not even “Look at those bad misogynistic games that are awful and that you should definitely boycott”. It is about tropes. The rest of the game is largely irrelevant. That is why her video will do a better job by including very short clips from a lot of different games rather than very long clips from very few games.
Because I can take anything out of context and make it fit my theory. If you take something out of context it no longer has any validity.
No. There is no single reason why you should be. Especially not with those kind of faceless, mindless interlocutor that is an internet mob.
While I agree about the internet mob, you're saying everyone on the internet is free to write things that get posted in the press without consequence or criticism?
Except it is not. It just says this trope is used a lot, and is a big part of the history of video game. And that is completely true, hence why we have many games referring to it as self-reference. See Braid for instance, or Super Meat Boy.
It is calling it a majority of the games, and I could come up with 50% I bet of games that don't have this trope. How is it completely true, other than games referencing it as a bias? Saying it exists versus completely true and in every video game is a big distinction.
I do not remember what she said about The Last of Us. What did she say?
But honestly, saying all her videos are completely wrong because of one clip on one game? Seems a bit excessive, no? Especially given the “trope” aspect I have been mentioning earlier.
I mean, it is like in that tumblr where she lists examples of the use of the Damsel tropes: yeah, I feel putting Kerrigan in is really stretching the definition quite a bit. For about every other game I know, it fits perfectly, and for those I do not, the screenshots seems pretty explicit anyway, so I am not going to let that detail derail me from the big picture.
Okay, why did you switch to speaking about an article that was not written by Anita and that I have never heard about before?
I provided the link because it shows what she said about the Last of Us, shows that it is pretty much just a way to whip up a media storm, and I would argue I'm not sure Anita has beaten half of the games she is claiming bias exists in. Again, context is everything.
jreilly89 wrote: Because I can take anything out of context and make it fit my theory. If you take something out of context it no longer has any validity.
If your theory is that there are a lot of people wearing red clothes in movies, posting tons of movie scene with wearing red clothes is a good argument, and giving context about why the people are wearing red clothes in those movies is unnecessary.
jreilly89 wrote: While I agree about the internet mob, you're saying everyone on the internet is free to write things that get posted in the press without consequence or criticism?
No, I am saying the person in question is not required by any moral or legal obligation to provide himself or herself a platform for such criticism. More precisely, I am saying anyone is free to post a YouTube video and deactivate comments on it.
No, it is not. The first part says it is one of the most used gendered trope. So, unless you can point out some gendered trope that is more used than the Damsel, you do not contradict that. The second part says it has been has been very present when video games have started to become popular. Want to know a game that is using this trope? Super Mario Bros. Basically the historical video game. And at that time, this trope was I think much more used than now.
jreilly89 wrote: How is it completely true, other than games referencing it as a bias? Saying it exists versus completely true and in every video game is a big distinction.
Chill out, dude. Noone ever said it was part of every video game. Noone. And certainly not me.
jreilly89 wrote: I provided the link because it shows what she said about the Last of Us
Could you point to the actual video? First hand account is always better than a recollection.
jreilly89 wrote: and I would argue I'm not sure Anita has beaten half of the games she is claiming bias exists in.
She is not listing game in which bias exists. She is listing game which use some trope. See, it is pretty much exactly like the Bechdel test. Failing the Bechdel test does not mean a movie is misogynistic, and passing the test does not mean a movie is feminist, but if 50% of movies fails such a simple test, it is telling something. Here it is the same: having one damsel in distress in one game does not make the game misogynistic, but the sheer number of time that trope is used is the problem.
Even if Zoe slept with five guys for leverage, it's the guys at fault, not hers; especially the Kotaku writer, as a journalist should NEVER be in bed with what he's writing about. Figuratively or literally.
Though since people seem to be saying 5 Guys and posting the chain, I just want to say that I love 5 Guys. I want 5 Guys in my mouth every day.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: If your theory is that there are a lot of people wearing red clothes in movies, posting tons of movie scene with wearing red clothes is a good argument, and giving context about why the people are wearing red clothes in those movies is unnecessary.
Pretty sure those two arguments are wildly different.
No, I am saying the person in question is not required by any moral or legal obligation to provide himself or herself a platform for such criticism. More precisely, I am saying anyone is free to post a YouTube video and deactivate comments on it.
Then by that same notion I am allowed to call her all manner of insults and disprove her theories without any actual evidence.
No, it is not.
The first part says it is one of the most used gendered trope. So, unless you can point out some gendered trope that is more used than the Damsel, you do not contradict that. The second part says it has been has been very present when video games have started to become popular. Want to know a game that is using this trope? Super Mario Bros. Basically the historical video game. And at that time, this trope was I think much more used than now.
If you're going to talk about tropes, how about main characters who are white? That trumps the damsel one every time. The second part? Guess what? Pong, Moonlanding, Pitfall, all the historical video games without the damsel trope!
Chill out, dude. Noone ever said it was part of every video game. Noone. And certainly not me.
You just said it was completely true...
Could you point to the actual video? First hand account is always better than a recollection
Well I apologize. I can;t find the actual source and it's been over a year, so that is my bad .
She is not listing game in which bias exists. She is listing game which use some trope. See, it is pretty much exactly like the Bechdel test. Failing the Bechdel test does not mean a movie is misogynistic, and passing the test does not mean a movie is feminist, but if 50% of movies fails such a simple test, it is telling something. Here it is the same: having one damsel in distress in one game does not make the game misogynistic, but the sheer number of time that trope is used is the problem.
Not quite sure how that applies. It's an interesting idea, but again, i feel without context, saying something has trope doesn't really count as critical analysis in my book. I feel by that right I could claim a million games as mysogynistic because I am killing women. It's the same vein as the old "RE 5 is racist" gak that happened a couple years ago, ts out of context.
Honestly, my biggest problem with her is in the same vein as Bill O'Reilly. She makes gak up, claims things without evidence, refuses to take criticism, and is genuinely sexist. A lot of her comments do come off as misandric and offensive.
No, I am saying the person in question is not required by any moral or legal obligation to provide himself or herself a platform for such criticism. More precisely, I am saying anyone is free to post a YouTube video and deactivate comments on it.
Then by that same notion I am allowed to call her all manner of insults and disprove her theories without any actual evidence.
Not really, it's one thing to say "This is my theory, take it or leave it" and put your fingers in your ears, but entirely different to just automatically nay-say whatever someone says.
No, I am saying the person in question is not required by any moral or legal obligation to provide himself or herself a platform for such criticism. More precisely, I am saying anyone is free to post a YouTube video and deactivate comments on it.
Then by that same notion I am allowed to call her all manner of insults and disprove her theories without any actual evidence.
Not really, it's one thing to say "This is my theory, take it or leave it" and put your fingers in your ears, but entirely different to just automatically nay-say whatever someone says.
That's not how you have an Argument.
Please expand upon this. I don't understand how they are not the same both foster no discussion, both are basically saying "I'm right, you're wrong", both refuse to take criticism.
John Smedley (the Sony Online head) has been receiving gakloads of death threats from Lizard Squad, and even had one of his flights diverted because of a bomb threat made against it - by Lizard Squad. Dudes knew which plane he was on. He hasn't fled his home, by the way.
But some guy in Ohio tweets gak at Sarkeesian, and it's the end of the world.
Seaward wrote: John Smedley (the Sony Online head) has been receiving gakloads of death threats from Lizard Squad, and even had one of his flights diverted because of a bomb threat made against it - by Lizard Squad. Dudes knew which plane he was on. He hasn't fled his home, by the way.
But some guy in Ohio tweets gak at Sarkeesian, and it's the end of the world.
No, I am saying the person in question is not required by any moral or legal obligation to provide himself or herself a platform for such criticism. More precisely, I am saying anyone is free to post a YouTube video and deactivate comments on it.
Then by that same notion I am allowed to call her all manner of insults and disprove her theories without any actual evidence.
Not really, it's one thing to say "This is my theory, take it or leave it" and put your fingers in your ears, but entirely different to just automatically nay-say whatever someone says.
That's not how you have an Argument.
Please expand upon this. I don't understand how they are not the same both foster no discussion, both are basically saying "I'm right, you're wrong", both refuse to take criticism.
YAY! FOOD!
If I were to say "I love my steak marinated in lovely marinade", there is no way you can possibly say "Nuh-uh"; I love what I love, and you can't keep us apart, damnit.
But if you were to respond with "Marinade makes steak unhealthy, here's why", there's really no way I could deny it. Sure, I can keep on keeping on with my Marinade and my steak, but you've actually put forth a legit discussion on the subject.
The reason I can get away with it as the person stating something, and you can't because you're the one refuting it, is because I'm the one engaging the conversation.
No, I am saying the person in question is not required by any moral or legal obligation to provide himself or herself a platform for such criticism. More precisely, I am saying anyone is free to post a YouTube video and deactivate comments on it.
Then by that same notion I am allowed to call her all manner of insults and disprove her theories without any actual evidence.
Not really, it's one thing to say "This is my theory, take it or leave it" and put your fingers in your ears, but entirely different to just automatically nay-say whatever someone says.
That's not how you have an Argument.
Please expand upon this. I don't understand how they are not the same both foster no discussion, both are basically saying "I'm right, you're wrong", both refuse to take criticism.
YAY! FOOD!
If I were to say "I love my steak marinated in lovely marinade", there is no way you can possibly say "Nuh-uh"; I love what I love, and you can't keep us apart, damnit.
But if you were to respond with "Marinade makes steak unhealthy, here's why", there's really no way I could deny it. Sure, I can keep on keeping on with my Marinade and my steak, but you've actually put forth a legit discussion on the subject.
The reason I can get away with it as the person stating something, and you can't because you're the one refuting it, is because I'm the one engaging the conversation.
Eh, I disagree and agree. I see your point, but I think these statements are two sides of the same coin. One is the statement of the engager, and the other is the statement of the responder.
No, I am saying the person in question is not required by any moral or legal obligation to provide himself or herself a platform for such criticism. More precisely, I am saying anyone is free to post a YouTube video and deactivate comments on it.
Then by that same notion I am allowed to call her all manner of insults and disprove her theories without any actual evidence.
Not really, it's one thing to say "This is my theory, take it or leave it" and put your fingers in your ears, but entirely different to just automatically nay-say whatever someone says.
That's not how you have an Argument.
Please expand upon this. I don't understand how they are not the same both foster no discussion, both are basically saying "I'm right, you're wrong", both refuse to take criticism.
careful guys, you aren't allowed to discuss other members of dakka and she may or may not be one
Manchu wrote: Please refrain from discussing other members of this site. If you want to know about someone's opinion on a certain subject, just PM them. Thanks.
No, I am saying the person in question is not required by any moral or legal obligation to provide himself or herself a platform for such criticism. More precisely, I am saying anyone is free to post a YouTube video and deactivate comments on it.
Then by that same notion I am allowed to call her all manner of insults and disprove her theories without any actual evidence.
Not really, it's one thing to say "This is my theory, take it or leave it" and put your fingers in your ears, but entirely different to just automatically nay-say whatever someone says.
That's not how you have an Argument.
Please expand upon this. I don't understand how they are not the same both foster no discussion, both are basically saying "I'm right, you're wrong", both refuse to take criticism.
careful guys, you aren't allowed to discuss other members of dakka and she may or may not be one
Manchu wrote: Please refrain from discussing other members of this site. If you want to know about someone's opinion on a certain subject, just PM them. Thanks.
You'd have to shut down all of OT for that, then, because for all we know any of the politicians or Obama himself could be on Dakka.
Obama is probably a dirty Eldar player. Wouldn't put it past him.....
careful guys, you aren't allowed to discuss other members of dakka and she may or may not be one
Manchu wrote: Please refrain from discussing other members of this site. If you want to know about someone's opinion on a certain subject, just PM them. Thanks.
I dont think it works that way mate.
Think about it, if someone is actually on the site because they say so and they talk to people on it, then obviously you cant talk about them.
But you cant just say "Oh I suspect someone might be using it on an alias!" because if that was the case we couldn't speak about anyone at all, I mean, Barrack Obama and Tom Cruise might collect minis and occasionally come on to post under a pseudonym!
I know the moderators are famously strict and ban all kinds of topics, but you cant start banning anything and everything on the off-chance that maybe it might offend someone somewhere even though they didn't say they posted here in the first place surely?
Not a fan to sarkeesians work even though I think the IDea to look at how gender is treated in games is a important one I don't think she is doing a good job of it or really understands how to research something. No idea if the claims levied again Quinn are true or not but either way the abuse and threats sent their way are utterly disgusting.
careful guys, you aren't allowed to discuss other members of dakka and she may or may not be one
Manchu wrote: Please refrain from discussing other members of this site. If you want to know about someone's opinion on a certain subject, just PM them. Thanks.
But you cant just say "Oh I suspect someone might be using it on an alias!" because if that was the case we couldn't speak about anyone at all, I mean, Barrack Obama and Tom Cruise might collect minis and occasionally come on to post under a pseudonym!
Why not? I dont care about rule enforcement as long as its consistent, I expect every post which mentions another human being anywhere to be deleted with no notice or feedback!
careful guys, you aren't allowed to discuss other members of dakka and she may or may not be one
Manchu wrote: Please refrain from discussing other members of this site. If you want to know about someone's opinion on a certain subject, just PM them. Thanks.
But you cant just say "Oh I suspect someone might be using it on an alias!" because if that was the case we couldn't speak about anyone at all, I mean, Barrack Obama and Tom Cruise might collect minis and occasionally come on to post under a pseudonym!
Why not? I dont care about rule enforcement as long as its consistent, I expect every post which mentions another human being anywhere to be deleted with no notice or feedback!
Mate why not go and grind your axe in PM rather than derailing a thread?
Though i don't agree with Sarkeesian on her view points on things and proberaly never will. I still find it ridiculous and stupid to go about doing things like that to some one who's opinions and values you don't like not matter how good they might be,or in this case terrible.
"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
Voltaire
That statement kinda sums things up for me really.
careful guys, you aren't allowed to discuss other members of dakka and she may or may not be one
Manchu wrote: Please refrain from discussing other members of this site. If you want to know about someone's opinion on a certain subject, just PM them. Thanks.
But you cant just say "Oh I suspect someone might be using it on an alias!" because if that was the case we couldn't speak about anyone at all, I mean, Barrack Obama and Tom Cruise might collect minis and occasionally come on to post under a pseudonym!
Why not? I dont care about rule enforcement as long as its consistent, I expect every post which mentions another human being anywhere to be deleted with no notice or feedback!
Mate why not go and grind your axe in PM rather than derailing a thread?
If a dude slept with five women, he'd be getting high-fives and "atta boys!". If a woman sleeps with five guys, she's labeled a slut, a tramp, and things I can't print here.
Psienesis wrote: If a dude slept with five women, he'd be getting high-fives and "atta boys!". If a woman sleeps with five guys, she's labeled a slut, a tramp, and things I can't print here.
Psienesis wrote: If a dude slept with five women, he'd be getting high-fives and "atta boys!". If a woman sleeps with five guys, she's labeled a slut, a tramp, and things I can't print here.
You don't see a double-standard here?
Nobody is berating her because she banged five guys, they're berating her because she used sex to gain undeserved benefits. if you want to prove a double standard, you're gonna need to find a widely publicized story about a dude who banged 5 chicks so they would give him public support and compare the levels of outrage over the two stories.
or you could just, you know, continue to spew propaganda.
Well the differences here is that Zoe already had a husband from the start,when she started to sleep with the other five guys. and to further her own career and own goals by doing so.
cheating is never okay in my book,it doesn't matter if you are a female or male,it's still wrong.
Also if a guy sleeps with 5 girls,that also means that the women are okay with it,and vice versa so blaming one gender for something is just an excuse cover up something equally as bad that the other gender is doing.
Well, you actually ninja'd in a response to the person it was intended for, but the fact remains that, socially-speaking, male sexual promiscuity is not something that is ever really looked down upon (in the US, at least, can't speak for the rest of the world), and is, in fact, how we are socially programmed to think from puberty onwards... but female promiscuity is worse than four Hitlers.
I dont fully understand the argument that Sarkeesian is trying to make... art imitates life, those 'tropes' exist for a reason. Beyond that, she turns a blind eye to the fact that many of the crimes perpetrated against female NPC's in those games are also done to men (likewise by other male characters), further still she ignores the fact that ultimately it is always men committing the crime, one could make the argument that that too is misogynistic, implying that females cannot be criminals. I think the best point she makes is the Hitman marketing campaign, but beyond that she seems to fall a bit short, a lot of the 'sexualization' of female victims is in actuality just standard evening wear, or situational as a result of the fact that the action is taking place inside of a strip club/brothel.
Psienesis wrote: Well, you actually ninja'd in a response to the person it was intended for, but the fact remains that, socially-speaking, male sexual promiscuity is not something that is ever really looked down upon (in the US, at least, can't speak for the rest of the world), and is, in fact, how we are socially programmed to think from puberty onwards... but female promiscuity is worse than four Hitlers.
mattyrm wrote: I mean seriously that Zoe chick seems like a genuinely disgusting human being.
Because she had nasty break-up and her ex accused her of cheating on him, with no one involved EXCEPT the ex agreeing that this was what happened?
Yeah see this is what I am saying, leaping to her defence seems popular, and I'm asking you (and everyone else obviously, but I know you better than all the other random strangers on the internet!) to be as honest with yourself as possible and ask yourself why you are defending her, because the evidence suggests it (my sole reason for saying I dont like the sound of her) or because you have a dog in the hunt being very active in feminist circles?
I'm not defending her at all. I am stating the facts. She could be a horrible person . She could be the only reason that the relationship broke up. But the facts of the matter are that there has been no proof of a conflict of interest, no matter how hard the people hating her have searched.
Psienesis wrote: Well, you actually ninja'd in a response to the person it was intended for, but the fact remains that, socially-speaking, male sexual promiscuity is not something that is ever really looked down upon (in the US, at least, can't speak for the rest of the world), and is, in fact, how we are socially programmed to think from puberty onwards... but female promiscuity is worse than four Hitlers.
Psienesis wrote: Well, you actually ninja'd in a response to the person it was intended for, but the fact remains that, socially-speaking, male sexual promiscuity is not something that is ever really looked down upon (in the US, at least, can't speak for the rest of the world), and is, in fact, how we are socially programmed to think from puberty onwards... but female promiscuity is worse than four Hitlers.
93% of workplace deaths are male.
My statement has about the same relevance to the case at hand as yours.
The thing about this is that we see the same kind of behaviour towards for example someone who dares to suggest that Jane Austen, a woman, should be put on a new banknote.
The blunt fact is that there is appalling, disgusting mysogyny online and it is not acceptable in 21st century society.
Psienesis wrote: If a dude slept with five women, he'd be getting high-fives and "atta boys!". If a woman sleeps with five guys, she's labeled a slut, a tramp, and things I can't print here.
You don't see a double-standard here?
Nobody is berating her because she banged five guys, they're berating her because she used sex to gain undeserved benefits
or you could just, you know, continue to spew propaganda.
She supposedly did. In gaming journalism.
Gaming journalism. The industry where a developer gives a magazine the non-exclusive rights to some early copy of a video game for review purposes in exchange for higher review scores.
The whore, in this scenario, is the magazine/media outlet. Gaming Journalism, from any published magazine or website featuring any sort of advertisements, has *zero* credibility. Kotaku, RPS, Game Informer, the lot of them... they exist to sell ad-space and to act as mouthpieces for the publishers of video games. This is where their bread is buttered. They don't care if they give a game an triple-A-nine-plus review and you drop $60 on it and it sets your console on fire. They got paid already.
if you want to prove a double standard, you're gonna need to find a widely publicized story about a dude who banged 5 chicks so they would give him public support and compare the levels of outrage over the two stories.
Slarg232 wrote: Even if Zoe slept with five guys for leverage, it's the guys at fault, not hers
3rd wave feminism summed up in one line, congrats
Just because your ignorance of the topic is willful doesn't make the decision you make using said ignorance correct.
Third wave feminism is not "first, blame the men".
Automatically Appended Next Post: In fact, a better summary is that third-wave feminism incorporates the needs of women of color and the anti-racism movement, along with the needs of lesbians and trans*women in the LGBTQ rights movement, and other minority groups such as women of non-Christian faiths and the like; similarly, there has been more and more a focus on local and/or specific issues as opposed to the second wave's focus on bigger things such as federal laws. Generally speaking, third-wave feminism is broader and less unified than second or first wave feminism was, instead, individuals and groups within the movement tend to define for themselves what is most important to focus on.
As Amy Richards put it: "being liberated doesn't mean copying what came before but finding one's own way-- a way that is genuine to one's own generation."
Melissia wrote: Even if Zoe slept with five guys for leverage, it's the guys at fault, not hers
Third wave feminism is not "first, blame the men"
You sure?
Lemme get this straight, you go on twitter, and find posts threatening you within 12 seconds of them being posted and a minute or so after the account was created, without being logged in (which means you were specifically searching for those terms), then blame men for free publicity to your cause, yet no one questions the original source as genuine.
You dont jump straight to blame the men, blame the men is the only possible outcome to anything.
The entire term "third wave feminism" is just stupid as it sounds like an "evolution" of "second wave feminism" which still is the most important one and which still has tons of women fighting for it. They just aren't slacktivists as TONS and TONS of "third wave feminists" who dabble in small fields just to get attention.
It's heavily offensive to those people. Sounds like "second wave feminism" is "over" and "outdated". Which is as far from the truth as it can be.
Kilkrazy wrote: The blunt fact is that there is appalling, disgusting mysogyny online and it is not acceptable in 21st century society.
I agree. And I'm afraid there's also appalling, disgusting misandry online, usually coming from the people complaining about the misogyny, but we rarely talk about that and the people who try get death threats from lunatics, same as on the other side.
She supposedly did. In gaming journalism.
Gaming journalism. The industry where a developer gives a magazine the non-exclusive rights to some early copy of a video game for review purposes in exchange for higher review scores.
The whore, in this scenario, is the magazine/media outlet.
Now you're juts making excuses and trying to trivialize the perceived transgression. How sad.
... and that's just a quick pick off the top of a Google search for "dudes get famous banging chicks".
I'm sorry, at a quick glimpse I didn't catch where the unjust benefits were of them sleeping around. Did they sleep with female directors to get movie roles or something?
Kilkrazy wrote: Is it acceptable for men or women to issue threats of rape to people on line?
is it acceptable for men or women to issue threats of rape to themselves online in order to drum up sales?
Are you denying that people have issued threats of rape and violence to people online?
I'm just throwing out there that in this individual case, the person involved is using her victim status to her advantage, yet that is never the subject, the subject is always, "you boys and your girl hatred, why are you so bad? tsk tsk tsk, here let us throw some money at this poor victim to ease her obvious pain."
at this point i'm not even sure how obvious you have to get to be caught.
I'm just throwing out there that in this individual case, the person involved is using her victim status to her advantage, yet that is never the subject, the subject is always, "you boys and your girl hatred, why are you so bad? tsk tsk tsk, here let us throw some money at this poor victim to ease her obvious pain."
at this point i'm not even sure how obvious you have to get to be caught.
Come on, everybody knows women don't lie about something as serious as rape
Grundz wrote: I'm just throwing out there that in this individual case, the person involved is using her victim status to her advantage
And I don't have a problem with this.
She shouldn't have been made a victim in the first place. Good for her ife she can turn it around and make an otherwise gakky situation in to a benefit.
You sound like you're just mad that she hasn't suffered enough, or some other nonsense.
Come on, everybody knows women don't lie about something as serious as rape
I know, right? its far more logical that the account was come across in a random search about a minute after it was created while premade comments were cut and pasted into it. It couldn't possibly be that some certifiably crazy broad is counting on her feminist sisters in rushing to her aid and throwing money at her
Kilkrazy wrote: Is it acceptable for men or women to issue threats of rape to people on line?
is it acceptable for men or women to issue threats of rape to themselves online in order to drum up sales?
Are you denying that people have issued threats of rape and violence to people online?
I'm just throwing out there that in this individual case, the person involved is using her victim status to her advantage, yet that is never the subject, the subject is always, "you boys and your girl hatred, why are you so bad? tsk tsk tsk, here let us throw some money at this poor victim to ease her obvious pain."
at this point i'm not even sure how obvious you have to get to be caught.
You accept that there is vile abuse online.
Why would you believe Sarkeesian needs to invent such claims given that it happens quite routinely to women online.
Melissia wrote: Just because you find it offensive doesn't mean you get to force your opinions on other people. You don't have that right, nor do you deserve it.
My wife is more of a feminist than you and your fauxminism attitude will ever even close to be. She heavily influenced better wages across tons of German industry standards, we created and actively support female help hotlines and trauma recovery centres and she is currently involved in 3 active lawsuits concerning the matter.
And you? You are just ranting on an internet forum, claiming the moral high ground while being nothing more than a bitter user on the internet, manically lashing out at anyone disagreeing with your point of view because you read up on wikis what feminism is supposed to be and then follow whatever bandtrain is currently going on.
You have no right whatsover to judge others on feminism. You have no right to claim superior moral grounds. You have no right to be pretentious about you being the go-to when it comes to feminism.
You talk big, but have nothing to back it up. Your keyboard typing will not make any actual victim's life better. It will make you feel better. Nothing else.
@ZoeQuinn if directed at her:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slarg232 wrote: I don't know too much of the situation, but didn't she kind of put herself into the position of being a Victim?
Sigvatr wrote: Zoe Quinn made a game about depression yet she fakes an internet "raid" of a forum that mostly consists of people very likely to suffer from or being prone depression or at least social anxiet, showing a severe lack of empathy and making her a terrible person on all possible levels.
She can be blamed. And she should be blamed.
@Anita: She basically does the same everyone who wants to get media attention does in -ism cases. Take some opiniated stuff, make it look pretty, sell out.
Slarg232 wrote: didn't she kind of put herself into the position of being a Victim?
By talking about video games on the internet???
Anita or Zoe?
Anita didn't deserve it, I honestly don't believe; other than talking about Vidja games and taking an unpopular stance that I and many others do not agree with, she has done absolutely nothing and what she has done is not detestable.
Zoe, however, did sleep with someone whom technically could make or break her game through press, in the initial months anyway. Even with the purest of intentions (Doubtful, as I stated in the other thread) that had to have popped in her mind at least once.
Kilkrazy wrote: The thing about this is that we see the same kind of behaviour towards for example someone who dares to suggest that Jane Austen, a woman, should be put on a new banknote.
The blunt fact is that there is appalling, disgusting mysogyny online and it is not acceptable in 21st century society.
See, I tend to lean towards the media making mountains out of molehills there as well personally.
I mean think about it, Thatcher was elected. Most of the public, even if they are not ardent monarchists, certainly respect the Queen, even Christoper Hitchens who hated the idea of a monarchy, said she was very charming and it made it more difficult for him to argue about the idea until her "gibbering jug eared son" took over.
Oh yeah, and we already had a woman on a note, and nobody said feth all about it.
How much of it is total nonsense just to generate a story?
Seriously.. do you know a single human male in the UK that has ever even remotely sounded annoyed by the idea, of putting a woman on a bank note?
Especially since one has been on the fiver for bloody ages. You know what I mean?
Slarg232 wrote: Zoe, however, did sleep with someone whom technically could make or break her game through press, in the initial months anyway. Even with the purest of intentions (Doubtful, as I stated in the other thread) that had to have popped in her mind at least once.
Even assuming she was cheating on her boyfriend by sleeping with the guy, this qualifies her as deserving to receive death and rape threats?
Kilkrazy wrote: The thing about this is that we see the same kind of behaviour towards for example someone who dares to suggest that Jane Austen, a woman, should be put on a new banknote.
The blunt fact is that there is appalling, disgusting mysogyny online and it is not acceptable in 21st century society.
See, I tend to lean towards the media making mountains out of molehills there as well personally.
I don't. I deal with the people who honestly get offended by this crap every day. Both in real life and on the internet.
mattyrm wrote: Seriously.. do you know a single human male in the UK that has ever even remotely sounded annoyed by the idea, of putting a woman on a bank note?
I remember there being one on this forum that was offended by the idea, though admittedly that was a long time ago so I could also have been remembering it from somewhere else.
Slarg232 wrote: Zoe, however, did sleep with someone whom technically could make or break her game through press, in the initial months anyway. Even with the purest of intentions (Doubtful, as I stated in the other thread) that had to have popped in her mind at least once.
Even assuming she was cheating on her boyfriend by sleeping with the guy, this qualifies her as deserving to receive death and rape threats?
The boyfriend "issue" doesn't enter into it; she slept with someone who could have/could have not helped her along with getting her game out there. End of.
And no, it does not qualify death/rape threats. But it does qualify hatred.
Slarg232 wrote: The boyfriend "issue" doesn't enter into it; she slept with someone who could have/could have not helped her along with getting her game out there. End of.
And no, it does not qualify death/rape threats. But it does qualify hatred.
So every person who is in a relationship with (she didn't just "sleep with him", note-- they're dating and are a "thing" now) someone where there could ever be any potential conflict of interest deserves this kind of frothing-at-the-mouth hatred?
Slarg232 wrote: The boyfriend "issue" doesn't enter into it; she slept with someone who could have/could have not helped her along with getting her game out there. End of.
And no, it does not qualify death/rape threats. But it does qualify hatred.
So every person who is in a relationship with (she didn't just "sleep with him", note-- they're dating and are a "thing" now) someone where there could ever be any potential conflict of interest deserves this kind of frothing-at-the-mouth hatred?
Look at politics, any business, and this situation and you tell me.
Slarg232 wrote: The boyfriend "issue" doesn't enter into it; she slept with someone who could have/could have not helped her along with getting her game out there. End of.
And no, it does not qualify death/rape threats. But it does qualify hatred.
So every person who is in a relationship with (she didn't just "sleep with him", note-- they're dating and are a "thing" now) someone where there could ever be any potential conflict of interest deserves this kind of frothing-at-the-mouth hatred?
Look at politics, any business, and this situation and you tell me.
My answer is an emphatic "no."
People should not be punished merely because of a potential to commit something immoral or criminal. Regulated perhaps-- but given that the man wrote nothing about her after they started dating, this is clearly not an issue for them. But punished ,no.
Melissia wrote: So every person who is in a relationship with someone where there could ever be any potential conflict of interest deserves this kind of frothing-at-the-mouth hatred?
yes lets generalize everything to make your immediate white knighting of any female that does anything for any terrible reason sound justified
Slarg232 wrote: The boyfriend "issue" doesn't enter into it; she slept with someone who could have/could have not helped her along with getting her game out there. End of.
And no, it does not qualify death/rape threats. But it does qualify hatred.
So every person who is in a relationship with (she didn't just "sleep with him", note-- they're dating and are a "thing" now) someone where there could ever be any potential conflict of interest deserves this kind of frothing-at-the-mouth hatred?
Look at politics, any business, and this situation and you tell me.
My answer is an emphatic "no."
People should not be punished merely because of a potential to commit something immoral or criminal. Regulated perhaps-- but given that the man wrote nothing about her after they started dating, this is clearly not an issue for them. But punished ,no.
There is that issue of him (or Kotaku/the other site) potentially not reporting on her shutting down that gaming charity thing because of him/her as well, though. Can that be ignored?
Slarg232 wrote: The boyfriend "issue" doesn't enter into it; she slept with someone who could have/could have not helped her along with getting her game out there. End of.
And no, it does not qualify death/rape threats. But it does qualify hatred.
So every person who is in a relationship with (she didn't just "sleep with him", note-- they're dating and are a "thing" now) someone where there could ever be any potential conflict of interest deserves this kind of frothing-at-the-mouth hatred?
Look at politics, any business, and this situation and you tell me.
My answer is an emphatic "no."
People should not be punished merely because of a potential to commit something immoral or criminal. Regulated perhaps-- but given that the man wrote nothing about her after they started dating, this is clearly not an issue for them. But punished ,no.
Definately, I disagree entirely wiht the idea that she did something wrong because she might have shagged some bloke for a favor, so what?
Men do it as well, at the end of the day if a human being wants to bang their way to success that is their perogative. It only becomes genuinely immoral if you have a convincing reason not to be doing that kind of thing, such as decieving/cheating on a loving partner or something.
If someone that is single bangs their way around the globe on some sort of... bizarre capitalist feth fest, that it their business. Jesus I dont even want to think about what goes on in the seedy world of capitlism and politics.
Slarg232 wrote: The boyfriend "issue" doesn't enter into it; she slept with someone who could have/could have not helped her along with getting her game out there. End of.
And no, it does not qualify death/rape threats. But it does qualify hatred.
So every person who is in a relationship with (she didn't just "sleep with him", note-- they're dating and are a "thing" now) someone where there could ever be any potential conflict of interest deserves this kind of frothing-at-the-mouth hatred?
Look at politics, any business, and this situation and you tell me.
My answer is an emphatic "no."
People should not be punished merely because of a potential to commit something immoral or criminal. Regulated perhaps-- but given that the man wrote nothing about her after they started dating, this is clearly not an issue for them. But punished ,no.
There is that issue of him (or Kotaku/the other site) potentially not reporting on her shutting down that gaming charity thing because of him/her as well, though. Can that be ignored?
Slarg232 wrote: The boyfriend "issue" doesn't enter into it; she slept with someone who could have/could have not helped her along with getting her game out there. End of.
And no, it does not qualify death/rape threats. But it does qualify hatred.
So every person who is in a relationship with (she didn't just "sleep with him", note-- they're dating and are a "thing" now) someone where there could ever be any potential conflict of interest deserves this kind of frothing-at-the-mouth hatred?
Look at politics, any business, and this situation and you tell me.
My answer is an emphatic "no."
People should not be punished merely because of a potential to commit something immoral or criminal. Regulated perhaps-- but given that the man wrote nothing about her after they started dating, this is clearly not an issue for them. But punished ,no.
There is that issue of him (or Kotaku/the other site) potentially not reporting on her shutting down that gaming charity thing because of him/her as well, though. Can that be ignored?
Be more specific. I see no such issue. Kotaku researched the problem and found that no one has violated any conflict of interest issues, and released a statement on it. He posted about it on his blog, and about how he's not going to report on her because they're dating and there's a conflict of interest.
Regarding the gaming charity thing, IIRC it was shut down because of lack of funding or something. I'm not sure there's much of an issue of it not being reported on, considering it was never reported on to begin with really.
Slarg232 wrote: The boyfriend "issue" doesn't enter into it; she slept with someone who could have/could have not helped her along with getting her game out there. End of.
And no, it does not qualify death/rape threats. But it does qualify hatred.
So every person who is in a relationship with (she didn't just "sleep with him", note-- they're dating and are a "thing" now) someone where there could ever be any potential conflict of interest deserves this kind of frothing-at-the-mouth hatred?
Look at politics, any business, and this situation and you tell me.
My answer is an emphatic "no."
People should not be punished merely because of a potential to commit something immoral or criminal. Regulated perhaps-- but given that the man wrote nothing about her after they started dating, this is clearly not an issue for them. But punished ,no.
Definately, I disagree entirely wiht the idea that she did something wrong because she might have shagged some bloke for a favor, so what?
Men do it as well, at the end of the day if a human being wants to bang their way to success that is their perogative. It only becomes genuinely immoral if you have a convincing reason not to be doing that kind of thing, such as decieving/cheating on a loving partner or something.
If someone that is single bangs their way around the globe on some sort of... bizarre capitalist feth fest, that it their business. Jesus I dont even want to think about what goes on in the seedy world of capitlism and politics.
THINK ABOUT IT!
I personally would say it's also only really immoral if you gots de herpes, because then it's no longer happy happy fun fun time. There are some who take exception to that, though.
Edit: Blech, getting tired. Graveyard shifts and all that.
Yes, I do believe fething for work related favors isn't right when it's boss/worker (Which this essentially could have been/is), but if you want to have 5 Guys in yer mouth, that's your business, not mine.
Seaward wrote:John Smedley (the Sony Online head) has been receiving gakloads of death threats from Lizard Squad, and even had one of his flights diverted because of a bomb threat made against it - by Lizard Squad. Dudes knew which plane he was on. He hasn't fled his home, by the way.
But some guy in Ohio tweets gak at Sarkeesian, and it's the end of the world.
It's a popular topic because it involves polarised fronts. I'd wager everyone but a small amount of trolls would agree on Smedley's flight being diverted (which was in the news as well *gasp*) being a bad thing. As soon as you throw in the name of an outspoken feminist, however, the internet goes into Defcon 1.
How is this hard to understand? You're part of the reason yourself, as is everyone else posting in this thread. Don't claim moral superiority when you keep fanning the flames.
jreilly89 wrote:Yeah, the comments she would receive are plenty vulgar, but outright blocking them seems a bit much.
Nonsense. We're talking about Youtupe. Fethin' Youtube. Do you honestly, really believe you can have a civilised discussion there? Because I've seen plenty of evidence that you won't.
Totalbiscuit is blocking comments on his own videos as well, for the very same reason. I suppose that means we should flame him now as well. Of course that won't happen, because he's not attacking somethings which an alarmingly large number of people seem to hold so dear that they have to resort to witch hunts and death threats.
mattyrm wrote:Yeah see this is what I am saying, leaping to her defence seems popular, and I'm asking you (and everyone else obviously, but I know you better than all the other random strangers on the internet!) to be as honest with yourself as possible and ask yourself why you are defending her
In my case it's a kneejerk reaction based on the amount of lies and misquotes being thrown around for the sole reason to dismantle this person, whilst at the same time the usual types of people are jumping at this incident, soaking up this flawed coverage and going "ha-ha, I told you so". It's obvious that there is an agenda at work here, and this automatically makes me sceptical.
The louder someone screams, the less likely I am to accept the veracity of their claims at face value. And the amount of hate being published on the internet makes Al-Qaeda seem like a reasonable organisation. Think on that for a while.
I've never even heard of that woman except in connection to that failed Game Jam (which was, coincidentally, sabotaged by the moderator being a sexist jerk, though) - but yes, the amount of gak being flung at her, and the type of people who do the flinging, does affect my opinion. I'm not offering my opinion of her (frankly, I don't know her well enough to have one), or whether I believe or not that she has slept with two other guys (this does seem to be the case). But in this case, I do see myself as a foghorn warning against those arguments that are obviously fabricated, and to better look twice if you realise that there is a powerful and influential segment of the internet that has committed to underhanded tactics in a concerted effort to exploit this incident.
Slarg232 wrote:Even if Zoe slept with five guys for leverage, it's the guys at fault, not hers; especially the Kotaku writer, as a journalist should NEVER be in bed with what he's writing about. Figuratively or literally.
^ Good example for the flawed coverage and how it gets picked up without questioning, by the way.
#1 - It was not five guys. Her ex made this up as a sarcastic reference to a fast food chain, as apparently it was more than one guy. Assuming her ex's story is true.
It just seems to be that half the internet has disregarded this little piece of information of the original source and now claims that it really was five guys. Reason number one of why you should get suspicious about what those sites say.
#2 - The journalist she apparently slept with has never, ever written about her or any of her games. Kotaku released the results of their investigation regarding this matter, and you can easily verify it yourself if you simply google it.
SneakyMek wrote:Well the differences here is that Zoe already had a husband from the start,when she started to sleep with the other five guys.
Sigvatr wrote:She did not have a boyfriend.
She had a HUSBAND.
No. She cheated on her boyfriend with a husband - according to the ex-BF's own blog.
She was married to a husband who cheated on her, and this marriage was annulled before she dated said ex-BF.
It's obvious that there is an agenda at work here, and this automatically makes me sceptical.
The louder someone screams, the less likely I am to accept the veracity of their claims at face value..
with some feminists' propensity to milk troll comments for all the sympathy their little wounded gazelles can muster, there are a lot of people that will think this.
Slarg232 wrote:Even if Zoe slept with five guys for leverage, it's the guys at fault, not hers; especially the Kotaku writer, as a journalist should NEVER be in bed with what he's writing about. Figuratively or literally.
^ Good example for the flawed coverage and how it gets picked up without questioning, by the way.
#1 - It was not five guys. Her ex made this up as a sarcastic reference to a fast food chain, as apparently it was more than one guy. Assuming her ex's story is true.
It just seems to be that half the internet has disregarded this little piece of information of the original source and now claims that it really was five guys. Reason number one of why you should get suspicious about what those sites say.
#2 - The journalist she apparently slept with has never, ever written about her or any of her games. Kotaku released the results of their investigation regarding this matter, and you can easily verify it yourself if you simply google it.
You will notice with my wording I spoke as though it were hypothetical; Even if she slept with five guys, it's not her fault.
She supposedly did. In gaming journalism. Gaming journalism. The industry where a developer gives a magazine the non-exclusive rights to some early copy of a video game for review purposes in exchange for higher review scores.
That the state of the enviroment is rife with dishonesty doesn't justify dishonesty any more than society being rife with murder justifies me committing murder. It's still sheisty, and if the accusations about her are true, she deserves whatever official ramifications (i.e. being fired) she gets.
... and that's just a quick pick off the top of a Google search for "dudes get famous banging chicks".
Which isn't what he asked. All of the people who you've listed are famous because they're promiscuous. They didn't become promiscuous to get famous. There's a distinction there. Using your logic here, Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian both fit this criteria as well.
You're right that general promiscuity is less of a social stigma for men than it is for women. You're wrong that screwing purely for material gain is only considered dishonest and shady for women.
Society has long first tried to know women by who they slept with. It's not really a new thing-- it's been assumed for centuries that it was the only part of a woman's history that mattered.
That this obsession carries on to the modern age is not emblematic of a problem with women, but with society as a whole.
Melissia wrote: Society has long first tried to know women by who they slept with. It's not really a new thing-- it's been assumed for centuries that it was the only part of a woman's history that mattered.
That this obsession carries on to the modern age is not emblematic of a problem with women, but with society as a whole.
Yes, but we could start a WHOLE new topic about problems with society as a whole and be talking about that till judgement day.
Melissia wrote: Society has long first tried to know women by who they slept with. It's not really a new thing-- it's been assumed for centuries that it was the only part of a woman's history that mattered.
That this obsession carries on to the modern age is not emblematic of a problem with women, but with society as a whole.
Yes, but we could start a WHOLE new topic about problems with society as a whole and be talking about that till judgement day.
My point is more that the focus on "well how many men vs how many women are known for this" is simply asking the wrong question to begin with.
Sigvatr wrote: Then it's a good thing the actual main problem with Zoe Quinn isn't her sleeping with a few random guys.
If you believe that to be the case, perhaps you should try talking about something other than her supposedly sleeping around, then.
The only other criticisms I've seen of her is how she supposedly counter-trolled a bunch of misogynistic jerks (which, if true, means it's two groups of trolls duking it out; excuse me while I put some popcorn in the oven), and how she supposedly had a failing charity shut down.
Neither of which merits this kind of focus or hatred.
Grundz wrote:with some feminists' propensity to milk troll comments for all the sympathy their little wounded gazelles can muster, there are a lot of people that will think this.
You mean like with some dakkanauts propensity to milk feminists' troll comments in a desperate attempt to ridicule the entire movement?
Slarg232 wrote:You will notice with my wording I spoke as though it were hypothetical; Even if she slept with five guys, it's not her fault.
Indeed. It just sounded "undecided", as if there was actually a question.
For the record, though, I don't approve of cheating. To me, it is her fault. If she is a feminist, I'd expect her to accept that she is capable of making her own decisions and thus has just as much agency as the people she's been in a relationship with. According to the BF's own blog, they didn't see each other, so I suppose it was a classic case of "I'm lonely". Doesn't justify her actions, but perhaps puts them into a more relate-able light, in that she might've simply been weak instead of being the evil, man-hating exploitative capitalist whore the internet currently makes her out to be.
As far as her professional image is concerned, however, my amount of care for Quinn supposedly cheating on her BF is about equal to that for Clinton having gotten blowjobs from Lewinsky. Zero.
It'd be different if she was some icon of traditional marriage or Christian values or whatever, but here I don't see the hypocrisy. Cheating on someone has nothing whatsoever to do with feminism or sexism.
Manchu wrote:That seems problematic, to say the least.
I'm just saying that it pays off to look a little bit deeper and consider multiple angles, 's all.
To me, it has already paid off in that I am apparently better informed than several other people in this thread. Without even having had interest in this incident right away.
Melissia wrote: If you believe that to be the case, perhaps you should try talking about something other than her supposedly sleeping around, then.
As has already been stated multiple times before? She asked for trouble to come up. She did not get the massive assault because she's a woman. Some of it? Yes. Most of it? No. She lied and brought up a huge part of the internet on her, she purposefully victimized herself and then shouted out "Misogny! MISOGNY!" to shift the blame. Positive sexism at is very best. Or worst, depends on your point of view.
Does that justify all the things happening to her? Hell no. I merely state that she purposefully asked for trouble and got it.
Lynata wrote: I'm just saying that it pays off to look a little bit deeper and consider multiple angles, 's all.
Oh I see, I agree with that. I thought you were saying that speaking out made you skeptical of victims. It didn't seem in line with your usual comments.
Somebody posts thread about someone getting threats. Entire thread is "Yeah but she...". Classy as feth guys.*
*"Except the people arguing against that, but the conversation is still framed in terms of evaluating the criticism levied at her, when this is clearly not really the appropriate context to be having that discussion. However there really isn't much you can do to help it, given how aggressively the other side is pushing the point."
Manchu wrote: Wilt Chamberlain, already famous before claiming to have had sex with 20,000+ women.
What? I call bullskin on this!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Chongara wrote: Somebody posts thread about someone getting threats. Entire thread is "Yeah but she...". Classy as feth guys.
What is wrong with it? I don't see anyone actually saying that she deserved it. People have been giving reasons for why they dislike her and / or for why there is such an uproar. There is a difference between justifying actions with reasons and merely pointing out reasons.
Kilkrazy wrote: I haven't heard of Will Chamberlain but the other two were famous before they were known as promiscuous.
I have no idea what difference this point makes.
Just because you don't know who a famous person is does not mean that others do not... and if you don't recall the "Tiger's blood! WINNING!" thing from a couple years back... then I don't know what to say about that. This was, of course, following a situation involving, explicitly, hookers and blow.
lord_blackfang wrote:I'm sorry, at a quick glimpse I didn't catch where the unjust benefits were of them sleeping around. Did they sleep with female directors to get movie roles or something?
"Unjust benefits" was never part of the argument, and has nothing to do with the discussion.
Did these men receive negative attention for sleeping around? No. That's the argument... and part of the problem
Be careful how you wave that tar brush around, thanks.
1) It's a bucket, not a brush.
2) I'll add in an asterisk to the the comment with addendum "Except the people arguing against that, but the conversation is still framed in terms of evaluating the criticism levied at her, when this is clearly not really the appropriate context to be having that discussion. However there really isn't much you can do to help, given how agressively the other side is pushing the point.". I excluded it originally as it didn't sound nearly snippy and indignant, which is kind of what I was going for.
3) I love you too man.
4)
What is wrong with it? I don't see anyone actually saying that she deserved it. People have been giving reasons for why they dislike her and / or for why there is such an uproar. There is a difference between justifying actions with reasons and merely pointing out reasons.
Brah? Are you like stealing my old shtick of just making hyper-exaggerated satire posts endorsing untenable positions? Because if you are you need way more animated .gifs. Like they're central to the whole dynamic brah.
I assumed that you were serious about your previous post and claimed that everyone stating reasons for why there is such an uproar was just victim-blaming. Therefore, I replied and said that it ain't that simple.
I'm not sure on what you're trying to convey with this post...
Grundz wrote:with some feminists' propensity to milk troll comments for all the sympathy their little wounded gazelles can muster, there are a lot of people that will think this.
You mean like with some dakkanauts propensity to milk feminists' troll comments in a desperate attempt to ridicule the entire movement?
If the entire movement wasn't largely woe-is-me ridiculousness there'd be a lot less to millk
I assumed that you were serious about your previous post and claimed that everyone stating reasons for why there is such an uproar was just victim-blaming. Therefore, I replied and said that it ain't that simple.
I'm not sure on what you're trying to convey with this post...
I was saying you need to use more animated gifs in your posts.
The Graphics Interchange Format (better known by its acronym GIF; /ˈdʒɪf/ or /ˈɡɪf/) is a bitmap image format that was introduced by CompuServe in 1987[1] and has since come into widespread usage on the World Wide Web due to its wide support and portability.
Like skulls:
Rotating Skulls:
Flaming Skulls:
Flaming Skulls, that also rotate:
It's just friendly advice. I think they'd help accentuate your points .It doesn't just have to be skulls either. I could be anything, maybe even a dancing banana. Sorry, I'm not trying to be bossy here. I'm just trying to help a brotha out is all.
"Unjust benefits" was never part of the argument, and has nothing to do with the discussion.
Did these men receive negative attention for sleeping around? No. That's the argument... and part of the problem
The problem in this specific case is allegedly using sex for leverage, not promiscuity. You're the only one here talking about promiscuity. So maybe stop reading off the standard white knight crib sheet and actually comment on the topic?
jreilly89 wrote: Honestly, my biggest problem with her is in the same vein as Bill O'Reilly. She makes gak up, claims things without evidence, refuses to take criticism, and is genuinely sexist. A lot of her comments do come off as misandric and offensive.
This pretty much sums up my dislike for Anita Sarkeesian. She is the Feminist equivalent of Bill O' Reilly.
Which is probably why so many people love and hate her in equal measure.
Manchu wrote: He was a hall of famer before making the claim. Or are you saying you doubt he slept with nearly a quarter of a million women?
Just 20k wasn't it? 200,000 would be physically impossible because even 4 a day every single day from 16 to 66 wouldn't get you that high.
I would doubt that as well mind, who counts past the age of 25? I was stacks growing up on account of my baby-blue eyes and natural charm, and I stopped counting after I actually fething grew up.
Same with fethers like Warren Beaty, Russell Brand, and all the other famous swordsmen.. I take them with a pinch of salt. Like they must just go "loads" and then a journo demands a figure so they go "er..... 20,000" but nobody over the age of 25 actually sits and marks them off on a tally on the wall surely?
Sarkeesian's vids seem entirely restrained and cautious to me. As far as I can tell, she makes an effort to communicate with those who are likely to disagree -- and honestly that often seems to be more than her detractors are willing to offer her.
@mattyrm: Can't say I would be surprised that people who seek to be famous for a living might make up stuff about themselves that is outlandish by any measure.
"Unjust benefits" was never part of the argument, and has nothing to do with the discussion.
Did these men receive negative attention for sleeping around? No. That's the argument... and part of the problem
The problem in this specific case is allegedly using sex for leverage, not promiscuity. You're the only one here talking about promiscuity. So maybe stop reading off the standard white knight crib sheet and actually comment on the topic?
If a dude slept with a lady reviewer and got five stars on his game, no one would bat a freakin' eye. VG Journalism is less-credible than Fox News. It is *known* that A+ reviews are bought by publishers, and magazines that publish unfavorable reviews lose the sponsorship and business (those sweet, sweet advertising dollars) from the companies whose games they reviewed poorly.
Further, if it was revealed that he did, the majority of internet commentators would be saying "Yeah, buddy, get some!", not issuing him death threats or calling him a slut, because internet communities are, by and large, terrible places filled with terrible people. One need only read YouTube comments, Yahoo! Answers, their local news affiliate's website, or Reddit to know this.
Nothing about threatening someone's life is right or "ok". I condemn the individuals who sent anita sarkeesian death threats.
I will simply posit that plenty of individuals around the world receive death threats WITHOUT profiting $160,000. And my bias perspective of anita sarkeesian clouds most of my sympathy because I can't help but feel this news will simply result in more gains for anita sarkeesian, be it celebrity sympathy or actual financial gain.
So yeah, there is an element of "crocodile tears" all the way to the bank. If the threats are legit, hopefully those making death threats will get arrested.
Psienesis wrote: If a dude slept with a lady reviewer and got five stars on his game, no one would bat a freakin' eye.
Do you have a single fact to back this up?
And it strikes me as odd that you'd conclude your post with basically "yeah the internet is a nasty place and high-profile people getting bombarded with death threats and personal, nasty insults isn't at all uncommon" yet still insist that this is specifically a gender issue and a man would never be attacked in this manner.
You finally said something honest about her and you. Everything before and after were crap, but one honest moment is good.
Saying people shouldn't make death threats is crap?
When bad things happen to people you don't care for, are you often sympathetic? I can rationalize that it's not ok to threaten violence against anyone, that doesn't shut off the side of me that thinks "well at least she made a buck".
My favourite thing about anita is her propensity whilst railing against "women as victims" in video games is to use the same schtick herself to get publicity. Does she realise the innate humour of this action? I doubt it.
Death threats are bad mmmmk
Calling the cops is the right thing to do.
Going on the internet to say you're not home is bad mmmmk
it's professional acting the victim and letting others know the house is empty so come rob it. It could also impede the polices efforts to catch the person making the threats. As she's just told the people who made the threats, it worked, and she called the cops.
SlaveToDorkness wrote: Some big man should really go in and rescue her. After a prolonged montage of gearing up with guns and knives and tactical gear.
And armor whiter than the sun. Just remember. You move in an L
jreilly89 wrote: Pretty sure those two arguments are wildly different.
“A lot of video games include situations where a female character is powerless and must wait rescue from a male character” → Show tons of examples of games with this happening.
“A lot of movies include scenes with characters wearing red clothes” → Show tons of examples of movies with this happening.
Seems legit to me.
jreilly89 wrote: Then by that same notion I am allowed to call her all manner of insults and disprove her theories without any actual evidence.
You are allowed to rant. But not on Dakka, we have a set of rules over here. Also not likely the best of idea.
jreilly89 wrote: If you're going to talk about tropes, how about main characters who are white?
Because:
a) that does not fit the definition of a trope, as far as I can tell, and most importantly
b) that is not what she told she was going to do when she asked for funds.
But do not misunderstand this as meaning it is not useful to raise awareness on that. Please, do some videos on it!
jreilly89 wrote: The second part? Guess what? Pong, Moonlanding, Pitfall, all the historical video games without the damsel trope!
Pong is the only one the mainstream audience might maybe recognize. Mario will be recognized every time. But there are tons of other games using that trope, including very good ones that I really like. For instance Earthworm Jim.
I said that something else than “every video game use the damsel in distress” is completely true. How do you get to twist my meaning into “every video game use the damsel in distress” is completely true ?
jreilly89 wrote: I feel by that right I could claim a million games as mysogynistic because I am killing women.
A trope can be misogynistic/problematic without all the games using that trope being misogynistic/problematic. See, the problem is not on any specific application of the trope. The problem is on it being so recurrent.
For instance, I am pretty sure no-one wants black characters to be always magically immune to death. But still, when the black guy dies first every. single. time. ever, there is a problem.
jreilly89 wrote: and is genuinely sexist. A lot of her comments do come off as misandric and offensive.
Uh, what?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SneakyMek wrote: "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
Voltaire
That was not actually Voltaire.
The most oft-cited Voltaire quotation is apocryphal. He is incorrectly credited with writing, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." These were not his words, but rather those of Evelyn Beatrice Hall, written under the pseudonym S. G. Tallentyre in her 1906 biographical book The Friends of Voltaire. Hall intended to summarize in her own words Voltaire's attitude towards Claude Adrien Helvétius and his controversial book De l'esprit, but her first-person expression was mistaken for an actual quotation from Voltaire. Her interpretation does capture the spirit of Voltaire's attitude towards Helvetius; it had been said Hall's summary was inspired by a quotation found in a 1770 Voltaire letter to an Abbot le Riche, in which he was reported to have said, "I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write." Nevertheless, scholars believe there must have again been misinterpretation, as the letter does not seem to contain any such quote.
Melissia wrote: In fact, a better summary is that third-wave feminism incorporates the needs of women of color and the anti-racism movement, along with the needs of lesbians and trans*women in the LGBTQ rights movement, and other minority groups such as women of non-Christian faiths and the like
Trying to reconcile faith, Christian or not, with feminism, when most religions have very, very deep misogynistic roots .
Well, I guess that could work for Hindus, they do have pretty cool goddess at least.
Anyhow, I never really understood that whole feminism wave system, or the need for it, and never really cared about it either. If I think it is a good thing, I do not need to know whether it is first wave, second wave, third wave, new wave, darkwave, batcave or deathrock. And neither do I if it is a bad thing.
SlaveToDorkness wrote: Some big man should really go in and rescue her. After a prolonged montage of gearing up with guns and knives and tactical gear.
And armor whiter than the sun. Just remember. You move in an L
Don't make him attractive though, that's sexist. Thinning hariline, overweight and late 40's should help sell our hero to the masses.
SlaveToDorkness wrote: Some big man should really go in and rescue her. After a prolonged montage of gearing up with guns and knives and tactical gear.
And armor whiter than the sun. Just remember. You move in an L
Don't make him attractive though, that's sexist. Thinning hariline, overweight and late 40's should help sell our hero to the masses.
I wouldn't go and save her, unless she first:
asked for help, signed in triplicate, sent in, sent back, queried, lost, found, subjected to public inquiry, lost again, and finally buried in soft peat for three months and recycled as firelighters.
SneakyMek wrote: "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
Voltaire
That was not actually Voltaire.
The most oft-cited Voltaire quotation is apocryphal. He is incorrectly credited with writing, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." These were not his words, but rather those of Evelyn Beatrice Hall, written under the pseudonym S. G. Tallentyre in her 1906 biographical book The Friends of Voltaire. Hall intended to summarize in her own words Voltaire's attitude towards Claude Adrien Helvétius and his controversial book De l'esprit, but her first-person expression was mistaken for an actual quotation from Voltaire. Her interpretation does capture the spirit of Voltaire's attitude towards Helvetius; it had been said Hall's summary was inspired by a quotation found in a 1770 Voltaire letter to an Abbot le Riche, in which he was reported to have said, "I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write." Nevertheless, scholars believe there must have again been misinterpretation, as the letter does not seem to contain any such quote.
SlaveToDorkness wrote: Some big man should really go in and rescue her. After a prolonged montage of gearing up with guns and knives and tactical gear.
"Its a preparation montage... MONTAGE!..."
Ironic though really, living out the trope she is "fighting against". If someone where to really threaten her, you think the best solution is to contact the authorities and then ignore it Thats the sensible thing to do and more importantly its what most people would do. But of course, that gets no attention and more importantly no fame/cash.
Makes me wonder why I work everyday, when instead I can reduce myself to this kind of filth and get paid for it. I could get a second home with the money she got for doing her half arsed videos, which discussed nothing new or informative. Im still kicking myself on the fact I missed the chance to get cash to make a potato salad on kickstarter! But at least he was honest about his intentions (that im aware of anyway), and it was actually intertaining.
I actually dont know whats worse, her, or her fans/supporters. Its giving fuel to an attention seeking child. I find it hard to have sympathy for the her, when its exactly what she wants. I dont think death threats are ok, but I dont think being a drama queen is ok either.
Just ignore the thing, and it will disappear. It doesnt want that. It wants to grow, grow off the attention its harvesting and it knows exactly how to do it...
Swastakowey wrote: If someone where to really threaten her, you think the best solution is to contact the authorities and then ignore it
The only sensible thing about this is "contact the authorities". The other part is stupid.
So you think its a great idea to proclaim to the masses.
"its ok, I have gone to my friends house"
Instead of not replying and giving them the pleasure?
I hope most people, would simply ignore, what are essentially trolls.
Better off alerting the authorities then ignoring them. Unless the authorities advise otherwise. Obviously, this is the not fame whoring way of doing things though.
Psienesis wrote: If a dude slept with a lady reviewer and got five stars on his game, no one would bat a freakin' eye.
Speak for yourself. I batted an eye.
Assuming that the ex boyfriend's story is true...The men involved in the "Quinnspiracy" are all ****holes, cheating on their own wives or partners, with a girl who was (apparently) still in a relationship with her boyfriend (all the while telling said boyfriend that she still loved him and wanted to save their relationship) therefore violating her own (apparently) self expressed principles and views on cheating ( "Having sex with your partner whilst you're cheating on him with others is sex under false pretences and therefore "Rape" ").
Add to that allegations of nepotism - sex for favours with journalists who apparently completely lack professional integrity (if true) - and a bitter ex boyfriend publicising sordid details of private relationships and allegations of professional misconduct.
NOBODY involved in this scandal came out with their reputation and integrity intact.
Psienesis wrote: If a dude slept with a lady reviewer and got five stars on his game, no one would bat a freakin' eye.
Speak for yourself. I batted an eye.
Assuming that the ex boyfriend's story is true...The men involved in the "Quinnspiracy" are all ****holes, cheating on their own wives or partners, with a girl who was (apparently) still in a relationship with her boyfriend (all the while telling said boyfriend that she still loved him and wanted to save their relationship) therefore violating her own (apparently) self expressed principles and views on cheating ( "Having sex with your partner whilst you're cheating on him with others is sex under false pretences and therefore "Rape" ").
Add to that allegations of nepotism - sex for favours with journalists who apparently completely lack professional integrity (if true) - and a bitter ex boyfriend publicising sordid details of private relationships and allegations of professional misconduct.
NOBODY involved in this scandal came out with their reputation and integrity intact.
Oh abso-fething-lutely, but that doesn't mean I have to say nice things about Quinn just because she is a girl does it?
I mean gak, I think she sounds like a really disgusting hypocrite, but I think I would almost rate the boyfriend worse!
To take the time, to make that huge blog, I mean, It sounded like he was genuinely hurt, but what a sad bastard. If my missus started banging all the neighbors I would be upset for a few days, and then find a better partner and move on with my fething life. All of that time and effort just to spite your ex.. It makes him look almost as big of a gakker as her, lets have it said. There is absolutely no need to air all that dirty laundry in public, no matter what she did.
So I would say even he looks awful, not to mention Quinn and the other fethers!
Melissia wrote: The splash page alone makes me assume that video is worthless trash.
It doesn't disappoint.
Why, doesn't suit your narrative?
You are exactly the sort of person that they are criticising.
Quick to resort to abuse and ad hominem. Anything that doesn't fit your preconceptions and narrative is "trash". You don't even bother to refute the arguments made in the video, you just dismiss it out of hand.
Clearly you're not interested in honest, civil debate.
Melissia wrote: The splash page alone makes me assume that video is worthless trash.
It doesn't disappoint.
Why, doesn't suit your narrative?
You are exactly the sort of person that they are criticising.
Quick to resort to abuse and ad hominem. Anything that doesn't fit your preconceptions and narrative is "trash". You don't even bother to refute the arguments made in the video, you just dismiss it out of hand.
Clearly you're not interested in honest, civil debate.
No no her pleasant demeanor is totally winning me over...
You're being hypocritical here, supporting a video that starts off with ad hominem attacks, and then turning around and accusing others of doing the same, all the while doing so yourself as well.
I don't understand why you feel the need to ask this question.
Crablezworth wrote: No no her pleasant demeanor is totally winning me over...
Right, because accusing people of being "feminazis" is totally pleasant, whereas saying "this video isn't respectable" is utterly unpleasant and despicable.
Melissia wrote: ... says the guy that links a video whose splash page depicts someone as a militant screaming nazi in the style of wartime propaganda posters.
I think it is supposed to be a reference to Sergent Hartman:
The backdrop evokes Japan, and the arms evokes the USSR to me, for some reason.
Melissia wrote: ... says the guy that links a video whose splash page depicts someone as a militant screaming nazi in the style of wartime propaganda posters.
I think it is supposed to be a reference to Sergent Hartman:
The backdrop evokes Japan, and the arms evokes the USSR to me, for some reason.
Right, because accusing people of being "feminazis" is totally pleasant, whereas saying "this video isn't respectable" is utterly unpleasant and despicable.
Your double standard is showing.
The splash page alone makes me assume that video is worthless trash.
You're being hypocritical here, supporting a video that starts off with ad hominem attacks, and then turning around and accusing others of doing the same, all the while doing so yourself as well.
I don't understand why you feel the need to ask this question.
Crablezworth wrote: No no her pleasant demeanor is totally winning me over...
Right, because accusing people of being "feminazis" is totally pleasant, whereas saying "this video isn't respectable" is utterly unpleasant and despicable.
Your double standard is showing.
I don't recall calling you anything of the sort. You called a lengthy video you didn't watch useless trash because of a splash page, you literally judged something by its cover. You seem like the perfect individual to educate others on tolerance... perhaps you can show me how to put out a fire with gas too.
Since I'm not interested in talking about me, which apparently this conversation is now shifting towards being about, I'm going to go play warframe instead.
As usual, these threads end with the known established fronts and people being one inch away of calling each other names.
The saddest thing, however, is that a lot of people don't even seem to realise when they - or others of "their side" - are deliberately escalating the debate by posting silly remarks or videos they think are "fun" but are in the end intended chiefly to offend and troll. I guess that's how it works nowadays in the internet - especially with this topic - but in the end, it just means that the cycle will continue.
jreilly89 wrote:Yeah, the comments she would receive are plenty vulgar, but outright blocking them seems a bit much.
Nonsense. We're talking about Youtupe. Fethin' Youtube. Do you honestly, really believe you can have a civilised discussion there? Because I've seen plenty of evidence that you won't.
Totalbiscuit is blocking comments on his own videos as well, for the very same reason. I suppose that means we should flame him now as well. Of course that won't happen, because he's not attacking somethings which an alarmingly large number of people seem to hold so dear that they have to resort to witch hunts and death threats.
This was pre death threats, back when she had just released her kickstarted videos. And it wasn't just Youtube, it was Twitter. She was refusing to take any criticism from anyone, even her own kickstarters. I have nothing against/know nothing about TB, so I refuse to say.
Melissia wrote: Since I'm not interested in talking about me, which apparently this conversation is now shifting towards being about, I'm going to go play warframe instead.
Don't want people to comment and criticise your demeanor and attitude? Then try not being so belligerent.
Lynata wrote: As usual, these threads end with the known established fronts and people being one inch away of calling each other names.
The saddest thing, however, is that a lot of people don't even seem to realise when they - or others of "their side" - are deliberately escalating the debate by posting silly remarks or videos they think are "fun" but are in the end intended chiefly to offend and troll. I guess that's how it works nowadays in the internet - especially with this topic - but in the end, it just means that the cycle will continue.
See y'all here again next week?
Did you watch the video? I didn't see any trolling in it myself, or hear any for that matter. It seems odd to lament balkanisation or people "taking sides" while seemingly taking a side. And specifically at 7:45 they're not talking about anita, they're talking about Dan Slott, an individual who was harrased and it ended up netting them a good payday.
I must be crazy but the chechire cat studio people don't seem too out there or hate filled. I'm really not seeing it.
jreilly89 wrote:This was pre death threats, back when she had just released her kickstarted videos.
Uh, I know. How does this change anything?
Here's a small sample from back when she posted her initial kickstarter:
Spoiler:
So excuse me for not seeing what purpose an open comment section could possibly have, except for being a platform for the delivery of unbridled hate and misogyny.
Though I suppose that in a way this serves as evidence in its own right, mhm?
Crablezworth wrote:Did you watch the video?
Nope, not with that preview image. Feel free to poke me again if you find a video that doesn't evoke the impression of a massive bias right away.
Lynata wrote: The saddest thing, however, is that a lot of people don't even seem to realise when they - or others of "their side" - are deliberately escalating the debate by posting silly remarks or videos they think are "fun" but are in the end intended chiefly to offend and troll.
I hope that is not my Sarge Hartman video you are talking about.
Lynata wrote: So excuse me for not seeing what purpose an open comment section could possibly have, except for being a platform for the delivery of unbridled hate and misogyny.
Though I suppose that in a way this serves as evidence in its own right, mhm?
Well, it's up to individual youtube users whether they wish to allow comments but silencing people because they might say something "bad" or simply something you don't like isn't great for fostering discussion. Did you perceive every commentor as hateful? Did you see a single case of valid criticism?
Crablezworth wrote: Well, it's up to individual youtube users whether they wish to allow comments but silencing people because they might say something "bad" or simply something you don't like isn't great for fostering discussion. Did you perceive every commentor as hateful? Did you see a single case of valid criticism?
Hey, I am going to bring some trash collectors in front of your house, and then discharge all of the trash in your garden. Do not worry though: in the trash, I will add one or two very beautiful pearl. Is that not going to be awesome, having those very beautiful pearls hidden under tons of trash in front of your house?
That is basically how your comment reads to me. But yeah, blocking people is a sure way to get some of them very angry .
Typical. I was waiting for the bit where she cashes in on the event.
Why anyone would give money to her instead of to the homeless or anyone else who genuinely needs it is baffling to me. Useless waste of resources and efforts. The only good thing that comes from this women is the entertaining troll comments. And its not worth 160,000 USD + donations to see that, especially when the I can find those on many other You Tube Videos.
Crablezworth wrote: Well, it's up to individual youtube users whether they wish to allow comments but silencing people because they might say something "bad" or simply something you don't like isn't great for fostering discussion. Did you perceive every commentor as hateful? Did you see a single case of valid criticism?
Hey, I am going to bring some trash collectors in front of your house, and then discharge all of the trash in your garden. Do not worry though: in the trash, I will add one or two very beautiful pearl. Is that not going to be awesome, having those very beautiful pearls hidden under tons of trash in front of your house?
That is basically how your comment reads to me. But yeah, blocking people is a sure way to get some of them very angry .
Is it not ironic that a good portion of those terrible commentors actually helped in the end to make her both a houseshold name in gaming and half a mortgage on a house?
What do you make of her trying to profit off of the recent threats?
Typical. I was waiting for the bit where she cashes in on the event.
Why anyone would give money to her instead of to the homeless or anyone else who genuinely needs it is baffling to me. Useless waste of resources and efforts. The only good thing that comes from this women is the entertaining troll comments. And its not worth 160,00 USD to see that, especially when the I can find those on many other You Tube Videos.
Read some of the comments. Im paraphrasing but the one was "you got $160,000 for 12 videos, how much more do you need??"
I honestly cannot see how a morally conscious person can defend her, selection bias, fraud and the living embodiment of victim complex.
Typical. I was waiting for the bit where she cashes in on the event.
Why anyone would give money to her instead of to the homeless or anyone else who genuinely needs it is baffling to me. Useless waste of resources and efforts. The only good thing that comes from this women is the entertaining troll comments. And its not worth 160,00 USD to see that, especially when the I can find those on many other You Tube Videos.
Read some of the comments. Im paraphrasing but the one was "you got $160,000 for 12 videos, how much more do you need??"
I honestly cannot see how a morally conscious person can defend her, selection bias, fraud and the living embodiment of victim complex.
Basically the case it seems.
Where does the money go?
What are they accomplishing?
Whats the goal?
How much overall has been raised?
So many questions with no answers.
Correct me if im wrong but I couldnt find any of the info on the above. The situation is all red flag waving to me.
Typical. I was waiting for the bit where she cashes in on the event.
Why anyone would give money to her instead of to the homeless or anyone else who genuinely needs it is baffling to me. Useless waste of resources and efforts. The only good thing that comes from this women is the entertaining troll comments. And its not worth 160,00 USD to see that, especially when the I can find those on many other You Tube Videos.
Read some of the comments. Im paraphrasing but the one was "you got $160,000 for 12 videos, how much more do you need??"
I honestly cannot see how a morally conscious person can defend her, selection bias, fraud and the living embodiment of victim complex.
Basically the case it seems.
Where does the money go?
What are they accomplishing?
Whats the goal?
How much overall has been raised?
So many questions with no answers.
Correct me if im wrong but I couldnt find any of the info on the above. The situation is all red flag waving to me.
Anyone else feel that the word misogyny gets thrown round rather too easily? If you abuse a woman you are not a misogynist. Misogyny means hatred of women. I'd say there are very few true misogynists about.
Typical. I was waiting for the bit where she cashes in on the event.
Why anyone would give money to her instead of to the homeless or anyone else who genuinely needs it is baffling to me. Useless waste of resources and efforts. The only good thing that comes from this women is the entertaining troll comments. And its not worth 160,00 USD to see that, especially when the I can find those on many other You Tube Videos.
Read some of the comments. Im paraphrasing but the one was "you got $160,000 for 12 videos, how much more do you need??"
I honestly cannot see how a morally conscious person can defend her, selection bias, fraud and the living embodiment of victim complex.
Basically the case it seems.
Where does the money go?
What are they accomplishing?
Whats the goal?
How much overall has been raised?
So many questions with no answers.
Correct me if im wrong but I couldnt find any of the info on the above. The situation is all red flag waving to me.
I always knew you were a misogynist (joke)
Now that im known for something... and its controversial, I think I can make myself some easy cash.
In all seriousness though, why are people defending her like she is doing some good or something? Just out of interest.
Im guessing they are focusing on the attacks on her and the attacks on modern (or third wave) feminism. If it doesn't fit their narrative you are ignored and immediately put into one of the scapegoats. Commonly the misuse of misogyny.
With Anita she can find anything sexist. Use her logic and ignore the stuff that counters the point and pick a random object around you. Its hilarious how it sounds exactly like her videos.
Correct me if im wrong but I couldnt find any of the info on the above. The situation is all red flag waving to me.
Generally her defenders just scream "Ad Hominem!" like that suddenly cleanses her of any past action.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bullockist wrote: Anyone else feel that the word misogyny gets thrown round rather too easily? If you abuse a woman you are not a misogynist. Misogyny means hatred of women. I'd say there are very few true misogynists about.
Exceptionally so, we aren't even offended when its used incorrectly most of the time. It means hatred or distrust of women, which I believe is a very very small part of the population. I'm 100% for equality but you must accept the differences, weaknesses and strengths of each gender, because we are all different and its those differences that make things interesting in life. Im attracted to intelligence and independence, and constantly encourage those things, and this entire week Ive been labled some of the worst gak a guy can be labeled just for asking questions or providing talking points or evidence.
The point is I want you guys to be offended when that term is thrown at you and rationally logic bomb the other person with thought out evidence. You generally cant change someones mind, but that doesn't mean you have to stand for abuse.
So now that we've discovered this was all an elaborate way to make a semi-internet-popular talking head even MORE popular, does anyone want to take bets on when this'll devolve into insults and a lock?
I mean seriously, how can anyone side with this woman? She's a troll in the purest form and uses that to get what she wants from life. I don't care that she's a woman, I really don't, if it was a guy I'd say the same thing.
Crablezworth wrote:Well, it's up to individual youtube users whether they wish to allow comments but silencing people because they might say something "bad" or simply something you don't like isn't great for fostering discussion. Did you perceive every commentor as hateful? Did you see a single case of valid criticism?
#1 I don't think those videos were posted to foster discussion on youtube (as mentioned before, youtube sucks for debating stuff)
#2 It's not a case of "might", but more like 99% of the comments being pointless vitriol and a depressing amount of hate. And it was a reaction to those comments, not a pre-emptive measure based on worst case. Worst case already happened.
Crablezworth wrote:That seems a bit prejudicial no? Isn't part of discussion and debate seeing what the other side has to say?
It is, but I don't see why someone should be listened to unless they present those arguments in a meaningful manner, rather than immediately trying to ridicule their opposition.
You know what that preview image of the video reminded me of? WW1 propaganda. That, and those photoshopped pictures of Obama as a soviet dictator.
I find that this sort of stuff generally says more about the people who create such messages, than what or who their message is directed at.
Maybe the video is intended as satire, which might justify the depiction in its own right. But since I am not agreeing with the depiction (and this thread right here reminds me of why I've come to think like this), there'd be no point in watching the rest of it.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:I hope that is not my Sarge Hartman video you are talking about.
Naah, that one has nothing to do with the debate. I just meant the one your post was a response to.
Who doesn't like FMJ?
Mechanical Crow wrote:selection bias, fraud and the living embodiment of victim complex
Contrary to the wise, totally unbiased and well-informed people of dakka, of course.
Mechanical Crow wrote:I'm 100% for equality but you must accept the differences, weaknesses and strengths of each gender, because we are all different and its those differences that make things interesting in life.
No. You must accept that every human being is different and should be judged based on their own, unique qualities, not some box you're forcing them into.
The "we are different" stuff is the same kind of crap renowned scientists and politicians used to say about black people some time ago in order to justify different treatment. We are all humans, and statistical averages, existing or not, do not warrant a label being applied to everyone. That kind of thinking hurts men and women alike, and humanity needs to shrug off this ridiculous desire to segregate itself into neatly arranged classes.
“A lot of video games include situations where a female character is powerless and must wait rescue from a male character” → Show tons of examples of games with this happening.
“A lot of movies include scenes with characters wearing red clothes” → Show tons of examples of movies with this happening.
Seems legit to me.
Yeah, except people wearing red clothes =/= mysogyny. Claiming all non-important characters wear red shirts is way less of a "critical analysis" than claiming all games with this trope are mysogynistic.
You are allowed to rant. But not on Dakka, we have a set of rules over here. Also not likely the best of idea.
My point was if she can make wild claims without backing them up, so can I.
jreilly89 wrote: If you're going to talk about tropes, how about main characters who are white?
Because:
a) that does not fit the definition of a trope, as far as I can tell, and most importantly
b) that is not what she told she was going to do when she asked for funds.
But do not misunderstand this as meaning it is not useful to raise awareness on that. Please, do some videos on it!
a) All white protagonists in video games could ABSOLUTELY be argued as a trope. It happens as much in the same vein as misogyny, and is racially motivated.
b) I'm using it as comparison. I know it isn't what she claimed to do, but I'm using it as a comparable argument.
Also, no, I'm no hack who needs to stir up gak where there is none.
Pong is the only one the mainstream audience might maybe recognize. Mario will be recognized every time. But there are tons of other games using that trope, including very good ones that I really like. For instance Earthworm Jim.
Tetris. Megaman. Bomberman. There are tons of classic games that refute this trope.
jreilly89 wrote: I feel by that right I could claim a million games as mysogynistic because I am killing women.
A trope can be misogynistic/problematic without all the games using that trope being misogynistic/problematic. See, the problem is not on any specific application of the trope. The problem is on it being so recurrent.
For instance, I am pretty sure no-one wants black characters to be always magically immune to death. But still, when the black guy dies first every. single. time. ever, there is a problem.
Absolutely. But again, that includes CONTEXT. How do you know he was the first to die without context?
Then again, what has she made up?
Refusing to identify games that don't fit in nicely with her theory?
jreilly89 wrote: and is genuinely sexist. A lot of her comments do come off as misandric and offensive.
Uh, what?
Guess what? Calling all men sexist makes you sexist. She claims developers are intentionally misogynystic when I bet half of them did not have that intent. Even if they used that "trope", I doubt it was with the intent to harm women.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, for anyone claiming she is no one, she recently was awarded Ambassador Award at the Game Developer's Choice Award. Just a small snippet.
"Anita lectures and presents at universities, conferences and game development studios internationally. She has been interviewed and featured in publications such as The New York Times, Wired, The Wall Street Journal, The Globe and Mail and The Boston Globe. Her videos are freely available via the Feminist Frequency YouTube channel and widely serve as educational tools in high school and university classrooms."
Pretty sure she's more than just some internet personality.
Main problem discussing anything like this at moment is the polarisation of the topic so much that is devolves into us vs them too much to even have a proper discussion
ive fallen into the same trap many times and the biggest thing ive taken away from it is Empathy is the most important tool we have
May be time to use it a bit more
It is in fact possible to criticize Anita Sarkeesians videos without being an “MRA”, misogynist or whatever label you might wish to apply. It is in fact possible to find some value from these videos even if you don't agree with everything presented. It is in fact possible to agree with what is being said without being labelled a “SJW”, feminazi or whatever label you might to apply. A shocker perhaps, but it's even possible to dislike a person for reasons valid or invalid and still be able to consume their work.
Did it really take this long for someone to say this?
Main problem discussing anything like this at moment is the polarisation of the topic so much that is devolves into us vs them too much to even have a proper discussion
ive fallen into the same trap many times and the biggest thing ive taken away from it is Empathy is the most important tool we have
May be time to use it a bit more
Well, damn if that wasn't inspiring. Thanks for sharing that. Starting a new thread with you quoted
Main problem discussing anything like this at moment is the polarisation of the topic so much that is devolves into us vs them too much to even have a proper discussion
ive fallen into the same trap many times and the biggest thing ive taken away from it is Empathy is the most important tool we have
May be time to use it a bit more
Well, damn if that wasn't inspiring. Thanks for sharing that. Starting a new thread with you quoted
Main problem discussing anything like this at moment is the polarisation of the topic so much that is devolves into us vs them too much to even have a proper discussion
ive fallen into the same trap many times and the biggest thing ive taken away from it is Empathy is the most important tool we have
May be time to use it a bit more
Well, damn if that wasn't inspiring. Thanks for sharing that. Starting a new thread with you quoted
Aww you are so sweet
Seriously. That was probably the smartest thing I have read today. After a really crappy day, involving a broken LRC, I needed that article. Cool beans
jreilly89 wrote:a) All white protagonists in video games could ABSOLUTELY be argued as a trope. It happens as much in the same vein as misogyny, and is racially motivated.
Here you actually have a point I must support you on. Games (and by extension movies/TV series) are prone to defaulting to "white heterosexual male", which is of course several tropes in combination, if one wanted to argue that way. Personally, I see it as a single cliché, though, as there can be only one default.
That being said, I suppose it's not as hotly debated because you don't have two firmly entrenched armies of opposed crusaders, for whom this is just one of several fronts. If racism were to be identified in a game, I'd expect the vast majority of posters to quickly agree and condemn it, thus concluding the thread. Sexism, on the other hand, divides the readers into two camps. Largely, I suspect, because most of those readers will already have formed an opinion that transcends gaming, if you've seen those topics in dakka OT.
It might also be that it's not just a matter of omission, but depiction in those few games that do have such characters. If video games were to portray Black people as criminals with the same regularity and exposure that they seem to portray women in skimpy outfits and/or as damsels-in-distress, we might indeed have a greater controversy here. If this is the case, I haven't perceived it that way, but that might just be because I know few games that have non-White characters in the first place.
We definitively need a greater variety in games in general, that is I hope without question.
One of the reasons for why I purchased and enjoyed Sleeping Dogs was that its protagonist, whilst male, was an Asian for a change.
Slarg232 wrote:
It is in fact possible to criticize Anita Sarkeesians videos without being an “MRA”, misogynist or whatever label you might wish to apply. It is in fact possible to find some value from these videos even if you don't agree with everything presented. It is in fact possible to agree with what is being said without being labelled a “SJW”, feminazi or whatever label you might to apply. A shocker perhaps, but it's even possible to dislike a person for reasons valid or invalid and still be able to consume their work.
Did it really take this long for someone to say this?
I like to believe that a lot of people think this way, but unfortunately threads like these quickly escalate into polarised mud-slinging, thanks to certain inflammatory comments. And at that point, with everyone being so involved and emotional, it gets easy to "loose one's cool" .
I'd wager that a good debate on such a controversial topic would require heavy-handed moderation - removing posters of any aggressive comments from the thread right away - and likely would have to be restarted several times over.
jreilly89 wrote:a) All white protagonists in video games could ABSOLUTELY be argued as a trope. It happens as much in the same vein as misogyny, and is racially motivated.
Here you actually have a point I must support you on. Games (and by extension movies/TV series) are prone to defaulting to "white heterosexual male", which is of course several tropes in combination, if one wanted to argue that way. Personally, I see it as a single cliché, though, as there can be only one default.
That being said, I suppose it's not as hotly debated because you don't have two firmly entrenched armies of opposed crusaders, for whom this is just one of several fronts. If racism were to be identified in a game, I'd expect the vast majority of posters to quickly agree and condemn it, thus concluding the thread. Sexism, on the other hand, divides the readers into two camps. Largely, I suspect, because most of those readers will already have formed an opinion that transcends gaming, if you've seen those topics in dakka OT.
It might also be that it's not just a matter of omission, but depiction in those few games that do have such characters. If video games were to portray Black people as criminals with the same regularity and exposure that they seem to portray women in skimpy outfits and/or as damsels-in-distress, we might indeed have a greater controversy here. If this is the case, I haven't perceived it that way, but that might just be because I know few games that have non-White characters in the first place.
We definitively need a greater variety in games in general, that is I hope without question.
One of the reasons for why I purchased and enjoyed Sleeping Dogs was that its protagonist, whilst male, was an Asian for a change.
Video games do have a thing with race. I have even seen it talked about a few times and funny enough it did involve a backlash component featuring racist comments. Much like what happened, is happening with the tropes Vs women videos. (I have even see a little talk about homosexuality in games.) I think the difference with these issues is that there isn't really a high profile video series dealing with it. (At least not as it relates to games.)
Oh fun fact about sleeping dogs. Early in development, it was called black widow and was going to have a female protagonist.
nomotog wrote:(I have even see a little talk about homosexuality in games.) I think the difference with these issues is that there isn't really a high profile video series dealing with it. (At least not as it relates to games.)
You mean a video series basically functioning like some sort of "wake-up call" for opponents and supporters of whatever theory is presented? Maybe. At this point I find it difficult to judge just how much Mrs. Sarkeesian's videos have actually influenced the industry. I've not watched a single one of them, but was made aware of the issue by various other sources, mostly developer interviews. It is, of course, possible that those were just a reaction, but I like to believe that both the videos as well as the latent shift in some segments of the gaming industry are part of a general evolution of society.
As for the homosexuality ... whewww, I definitively recall a time when this was indeed a hotly debated topic on the web. Especially when it came to BioWare's games, from the "public outrage" (I think even Fox News covered this ) at certain choices you were able to make when it comes to romances, right up to the "gay planet" in SWTOR (ironically called that way because here you'll find the only four homosexual NPCs of the entire galaxy, as far as the game is concerned).
Up to this day you have a thread on the SWTOR forums with several hundred pages asking for gay/lesbian companions, and another almost equally long thread condemning the whole idea because "eww homos". I think various organisations like Christian Mothers or whatever they're called wanted people to boykott that title, which sadly might be the reason for why Makeb was all that people got, in spite of the devs having promised more, and BioWare's general spearhead role in this regard.
nomotog wrote:Oh fun fact about sleeping dogs. Early in development, it was called black widow and was going to have a female protagonist.
Huh, I did not know this. I wonder what made them change their plans, given the trouble Remember Me went through.
Did it also have a different plot, or just a different name and character design?
nomotog wrote:(I have even see a little talk about homosexuality in games.) I think the difference with these issues is that there isn't really a high profile video series dealing with it. (At least not as it relates to games.)
You mean a video series basically functioning like some sort of "wake-up call" for opponents and supporters of whatever theory is presented? Maybe. At this point I find it difficult to judge just how much Mrs. Sarkeesian's videos have actually influenced the industry. I've not watched a single one of them, but was made aware of the issue by various other sources, mostly developer interviews. It is, of course, possible that those were just a reaction, but I like to believe that both the videos as well as the latent shift in some segments of the gaming industry are part of a general evolution of society.
As for the homosexuality ... whewww, I definitively recall a time when this was indeed a hotly debated topic on the web. Especially when it came to BioWare's games, from the "public outrage" (I think even Fox News covered this ) at certain choices you were able to make when it comes to romances, right up to the "gay planet" in SWTOR (ironically called that way because here you'll find the only four homosexual NPCs of the entire galaxy, as far as the game is concerned).
Up to this day you have a thread on the SWTOR forums with several hundred pages asking for gay/lesbian companions, and another almost equally long thread condemning the whole idea because "eww homos". I think various organisations like Christian Mothers or whatever they're called wanted people to boykott that title, which sadly might be the reason for why Makeb was all that people got, in spite of the devs having promised more, and BioWare's general spearhead role in this regard.
nomotog wrote:Oh fun fact about sleeping dogs. Early in development, it was called black widow and was going to have a female protagonist.
Huh, I did not know this. I wonder what made them change their plans, given the trouble Remember Me went through.
Did it also have a different plot, or just a different name and character design?
The videos have had an influence. It is a thing now. People talk about the treatment of women in games and are more aware of different things now then they were before. Something like assassin's creed unity would have gone by without anyone saying anything a few years ago. Now, people notice and they say something.
Oh ya biowere. They are kind of ahead of the curve on this. Lesbian ninjas, and gay space marines FTW. It just hasn't seemed to bleed out too much into other areas of games yet.
I don't recall if a reason was ever given. It was changed rather early before the game was a true crime game, so I imagine it was going to be a totally different story. I just recall being really bummed because I would have liked to play that game. Edit: Turns out it was called Black Lotus and avtivision did make them change it because they thought it would make them more money. A clear case of the bias companies have about female characters.
nomotog wrote: Oh ya biowere. They are kind of ahead of the curve on this. Lesbian ninjas, and gay space marines FTW. It just hasn't seemed to bleed out too much into other areas of games yet.
Probably because most people don't give a gak either way. Bioware's certainly leading that particular crusade, sure, but that's largely a result of them steadily losing the talent that got them to where they are today in favor of having some of their more obscure voices take things over. And it hasn't been for the better; their games - as games, anyway, in the sense of "engaging gameplay" - are getting progressively worse, from "awesome button" nonsense to "RPGs" you can beat on their hardest setting without ever spending a skill point. But they've found a niche, and while it may be a shallow one, it's broad enough to keep them mostly profitable.
Edit: Turns out it was called Black Lotus and avtivision did make them change it because they thought it would make them more money. A clear case of the bias companies have about female characters.
Perhaps in the sense that it is a truthiness that women don't buy or play games, but reality doesn't seem to hold up to that nonsense. Studios have realized that women watch and pay for movies, and it is also true they play games in large numbers..
Ahtman wrote: Considering that the discussion is ongoing and over multiple places it would seem that people actually do give a gak.
If you mean blogs? No, that doesn't mean anything. People on their periphery of the gaming world make a living talking about nonsense issues. Just like the real media.
Perhaps in the sense that it is a truthiness that women don't buy or play games, but reality doesn't seem to hold up to that nonsense. Studios have realized that women watch and pay for movies, and it is also true they play games in large numbers..
What does that include? Mobile games like Candy Crush Saga and Angry Birds? Or are we exclusively talking console/PC games that the AAA developers we're talking about market to?
Either way, I don't recall saying, "Women don't play videogames," so I'm not sure why you'd erect such a muscular strawman, especially given your shrieking protests whenever you believe anyone else does so. Women certainly play videogames. The argument was that in the specific instance being referenced, a publisher believed a male protagonist would sell better than a female one. Not something that's necessarily true across the many, many, many genres of videogames, but likely true in some. And really, these studies trumpeting the vast swaths of women who game are nothing new; either developers and publishers are ignoring them because they hate women, or they're ignoring them because their own internal market research says, "Yes, women do game, but they don't go in for the type of game we're making in big numbers."
And you ultimately can't have it both ways; large publishers (and developers, for that matter) cannot both be amoral, greedy entities that will squeeze every last penny out of gamers and deliberately leaving money on the table in the name of sexism.
Don't quote poor studies when we're talkin economics please. The ESA does a terrible job at properly researching their data. Games that tend to be favored by women have a vastly different profit model than traditional games, preferred by men, have. It all boils down to what you think a "gamer" is. To the ESA, that is everyone who plays any sort of game on his mobile device at least a few times each week. That's about the worst meaning you could use.
Actual studies filter gender preference by category and those shows a vast bias in favor of men. Thus it makes the most sense to cater to them, i.e. the three big B: Blood, Boobs, Boom.
nomotog wrote:(I have even see a little talk about homosexuality in games.) I think the difference with these issues is that there isn't really a high profile video series dealing with it. (At least not as it relates to games.)
You mean a video series basically functioning like some sort of "wake-up call" for opponents and supporters of whatever theory is presented? Maybe. At this point I find it difficult to judge just how much Mrs. Sarkeesian's videos have actually influenced the industry. I've not watched a single one of them, but was made aware of the issue by various other sources, mostly developer interviews. It is, of course, possible that those were just a reaction, but I like to believe that both the videos as well as the latent shift in some segments of the gaming industry are part of a general evolution of society.
Then do yourself and everybody else here a favour and go WATCH them. Second hand information does not make an informed opinion.
Melissia wrote: You, personally, are debating this in multiple places on this very forum.
Since I'm not interested in talking about me, which apparently this conversation is now shifting towards being about, I'm going to go play warframe instead.
People care. This is clearly an important issue for gaming culture to be discussing.
Because people are talking about it on forums? I debate all sorts of gak I don't genuinely care about on forums, including 40K. and videogames.
Melissia wrote: You, personally, are debating this in multiple places on this very forum.
Since I'm not interested in talking about me, which apparently this conversation is now shifting towards being about, I'm going to go play warframe instead.
I used your posts as an example to lead to the second point. You are not the focal point of my post.
People care. This is clearly an important issue for gaming culture to be discussing.
Because people are talking about it on forums? I debate all sorts of gak I don't genuinely care about on forums, including 40K. and videogames.
That's your problem. A lot of people clearly do care. And we should care, because it remains an important issue-- more than one issue, even. The issue of journalistic integrity in game reporting is important. The topic of sexism in gaming culture is, likewise, a valuable topic to discuss.
It's no doubt that we aren't doing a good job discussing these topics, but that the discussion is happening in the first place is a good thing. Ten years ago, neither one of these topics was really mentioned outside of a few, mostly ignored voices.
Then do yourself and everybody else here a favour and go WATCH them. Second hand information does not make an informed opinion.
Oh yeah, I've seen some of those videos. Honestly, I laughed my ass off at the crap coming from her mouth. She's being a gigantic hypocrite, especially about "Gender Signifiers".
The Grumpy Eldar wrote: She's being a gigantic hypocrite, especially about "Gender Signifiers".
No she isn't.
There's a very big difference between someone choosing to wear something of their own volition, and an author's choice on what a fictional character wears.
Then do yourself and everybody else here a favour and go WATCH them. Second hand information does not make an informed opinion.
Oh yeah, I've seen some of those videos. Honestly, I laughed my ass off at the crap coming from her mouth. She's being a gigantic hypocrite, especially about "Gender Signifiers".
yeah, that was hilarious. If she'd used the bare minimum of makeup and no jewellery, I would at least respect her for sticking to her principles.
It's a weird contradiction it seems... Feminists decry female sexualisation and objectification in media, yet simultaneously decry any criticism of their right to sexualise themselves (anti slut shaming protests etc).
On a side note... I don't find heavy use of makeup particularly attractive on woman attractive in general, for the same reason I found the classic "sex idol" Lara Croft depiction annoying , but much preferred the 2013 depiction - hyper sexualized characters tend to come across as fake and unrealistic. Similarly, I tend to dislike the cliched "male power fantasy" (as Melissia and Lynata put it) of hyper muscled steroid fuelled Incredible Hulk like male characters typical in MMOs like WOW.
You're pointing out something that simply isn't hypocrisy and claiming that it is.
A woman's sexuality should be owned by the woman in question. That's an entirely different subject from the sexual depiction of fictional women by mostly male authors/artists/advertisers/etc.
There's no contradiction in owning your own sexuality while criticizing video games for sexist depiction of women.
The issue of journalistic integrity in game reporting is important.
We have completely different definitions of "important" then. lol
Just because one thing is important doean't mean that other things aren't also important, or that it necessarily ranks as "the mots improtnat tihng evar, omg".
The very word "important" suggests a ranking of subjects.
The reporting of video games and the integrity of it is VERY low on that list for me personally. So much so that I laughed when I read the part I quoted.
I'm not sure what the video game equivalent is for "playing with our toy soldiers" but I'd put it here if I knew it. Sometimes people lend WAY too much weight to silly things like this.
The Grumpy Eldar wrote: She's being a gigantic hypocrite, especially about "Gender Signifiers".
No she isn't.
There's a very big difference between someone choosing to wear something of their own volition, and an author's choice on what a fictional character wears.
Then she shouldn't whine about this being used in games. That's a choise made by the developers of a game, not by some whiny feminist.
Seriously, from my perspective she doesn't understand gaming culture, at all.
There is nothing hypocritical or contradictory about owning one's own sexuality while also pointing out the problems with sexism in the video game industry. That you attempt to insult and silence her instead of speak about her actual points does not lend itself to a coherent argument.
Melissia wrote: That you attempt to insult and silence her instead of speak about her actual points does not lend itself to a coherent argument.
Didn't you previously establish that silencing dissenting opinions is perfectly acceptable? Or is that only when your side does it?
The latter.
tl;dr of the entire discussion: Anita doesn't deserve any sort of these threats (if they are true, that is), but she called upon them by her dishonesty and purposefully stiring up hatred to cash in.
That you attempt to insult and silence her instead of speak about her actual points does not lend itself to a coherent argument.
Yeah, that's it, it isn't just you repeating the same nonsense in every thread you have a chance to to turn the conversation back on yourself, It isn't that at all.
If you think Melissia's arguments are nonsense it would be better to show why by the use of facts.
Otherwise this sort of post just looks like a personal attack.
Melissia wrote: That you attempt to insult and silence her instead of speak about her actual points does not lend itself to a coherent argument.
Isn't that just the thing what you're trying to do right here?
I'm just stating that I think her logic is flawed on most areas and that she's overreacting on the smallest things. Her facts about the people playing these games are absolutely NOT right, to the point that it's just discriminating men.
You know, looking at the pages of carefully thought out discussions in this forum: what is the point we are trying to make?
Sarkeesian is a polarizing media person due to her methods and choice of subject matter.
I "give a gak" because the topics are valid BUT I can't help feeling she is manipulating my feelings on this matter to her own ends.
I tend to get a little unforgiving about that no matter what sex, race or sexual or religious leaning the person has.
I get a bit angry when I feel justified in my "dislike" for the person but still feel guilt because you never know if deep down I am some feminism hater and just trying to justify the hate.
Hehe, been a few jokes out there that the white male is to blame for all the injustice in the world so self-doubt and constant motivation analysis may be the only acceptable way to be.
She really is looking like a one trick pony to me, the point was made and hopefully she can find another entertaining way to leverage her agenda (whatever that truly may be).
Since we cannot get away from the "Zoe" topic though very different people, she does geek stuff, looking at historical works from her: seems like a cool person (she is borg! chipped!).
What freaky stuff people do in the bedroom and with whom really is not for me to judge.
She published software no matter how "bad" anyone may decide, it is a fine achievement.
The REAL topic is how the software release and review "systems" work and all the messy human interactions that happen for a huge variety of motivations.
Totalbiscuit I like as a reviewer and a rather outspoken member of the software / media industry and many of his viewpoints are helpful on this matter.
It is a funny thing trying to keep all things equal: if either of these people were men, would they even get 1/10th the attention to their achievements or what they have to say?
Sarkeesian needs to quit whining and start slapping the serious offenders with police investigation if what she saying/hinting is true or she can stuff her attention seeking posts.
That you believe they are unimportant doesn't mean everyone agrees.
The Grumpy Eldar wrote: Her facts about the people playing these games are absolutely NOT right
Citation needed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Talizvar wrote: I tend to get a little unforgiving about that no matter what sex, race or sexual or religious leaning the person has.
Unless it's a video which you agree with that's "manipulating [your] feelings", in which case you're okay with it.
Talizvar wrote: Sarkeesian needs to quit whining and start slapping the serious offenders with police investigation if what she saying/hinting is true or she can stuff her attention seeking posts.
... she posted two tweets about it. One saying she got a credible threat from a very creepy stalker posting about her, and the other saying she's safe now, and she reported it to the police. She hasn't really mentioned it since then.
So both your "she needs to stop whining" bit, and your "she needs to tell the police" bit have no basis in what actually happened, because she already did both of those.
There is nothing hypocritical or contradictory about owning one's own sexuality while also pointing out the problems with sexism in the video game industry. That you attempt to insult and silence her instead of speak about her actual points does not lend itself to a coherent argument.
This does not follow any form of logic either.
How the he'll do you equate talking about a public person in third person on the internet to attempting to silence her?
If he was actively trying to "silence" Anita, he wouldn't be talking about her here, he'd be sending her abusive messages, hate mail, trying to hack and bring down her websites etc.
NOBODY here is trying to silence Anita. Disagreeing with someone's views does not equal trying to silence them. If I truly wanted to silence Anita, I wouldn't waste time here talking about her where she's never going to see my comments. I'd go straight to the source.
in fact, there are NO views whatsoever that I want to silence, because everyone has the right to free speech in public. Whether Anita Sarkeesian, ultra Feminists, Islamic extremists, racists, sexists, Nazi holocaust deniers etc. It's always better to allow a person to speak, so that you may learn about their views and if necessary challenge them and rip them to shreds.
Bigotry should never be forced underground, it should be brought into the open.
Silencing someone's right to speak simply ensures that their views remain invisible and unchallenged .
There is nothing hypocritical or contradictory about owning one's own sexuality while also pointing out the problems with sexism in the video game industry. That you attempt to insult and silence her instead of speak about her actual points does not lend itself to a coherent argument.
This does not follow any form of logic either.
How the he'll do you equate talking about a public person in third person on the internet to attempting to silence her?
Claiming that a person should shut up because you don't like what they have to say is an attempt, however weak, to silence it. And that's what you said. And, in fact, that's what a great deal of the critics of Sarkesian have said, amongst other things far worse. That is why people try to make the "not a real gamer" argument-- to justify dismissing her argument and telling her to shut up without ever having to refute anything she said. They fail, but failure's inevitable.
Talizvar wrote: I tend to get a little unforgiving about that no matter what sex, race or sexual or religious leaning the person has.
Unless it's a video which you agree with that's "manipulating [your] feelings", in which case you're okay with it.
Nice assumption!
People who agree with me are not nearly as entertaining, so do not make it into the top viewed list for me.
You are bit off the mark in this case but the attempt at a personal attack is appreciated: it shows you care.... I find the true genius a person can present is how to solve the problem being pointed out, but a shopping list of symptoms will do in the interim.
Talizvar wrote: Sarkeesian needs to quit whining and start slapping the serious offenders with police investigation if what she saying/hinting is true or she can stuff her attention seeking posts.
... she posted two tweets about it. One saying she got a credible threat from a very creepy stalker posting about her, and the other saying she's safe now, and she reported it to the police. She hasn't really mentioned it since then.
So both your "she needs to stop whining" bit, and your "she needs to tell the police" bit have no basis in what actually happened, because she already did both of those.
Yes, the way it was presented on my part gave the impression of multiple posts by her: my bad.
The intent is why post this at all? This thought is what I have fixated on a bit.
I see no true benefit and only liability in doing so, unless actively hunting for sympathy.
Yep, I am pretty certain I just don't like her and my opinions are suspect on all counts.
The difference I would like to present to the other haters is to ignore her, it works much better.
That you attempt to insult and silence her instead of speak about her actual points does not lend itself to a coherent argument.
Yeah, that's it, it isn't just you repeating the same nonsense in every thread you have a chance to to turn the conversation back on yourself, It isn't that at all.
If you think Melissia's arguments are nonsense it would be better to show why by the use of facts.
Otherwise this sort of post just looks like a personal attack.
It simply cannot be addressed without becoming a "personal attack" because the implication that the person is simply not interesting and injecting the same tired garbage and the same people taking the bait into every thread that I see the person post in must be a personal attack, it couldn't possibly be that we've all heard it before over and over and over and when everything is an OUTRAGE it kinds of takes the edge off of outrages.
"hey maybe every thread doesn't have to be steered towards you" - HOW DARE YOU! I AM VERY INTERESTING! I'LL HAVE YOUR STUFF DELETED! is pretty much how this goes.
jreilly89 wrote: Yeah, except people wearing red clothes =/= mysogyny. Claiming all non-important characters wear red shirts is way less of a "critical analysis" than claiming all games with this trope are mysogynistic.
You seem to be missing the point again. It is not about saying “These games are misogynistic”. It is about using games to show tropes that exists and are actually widespread. And then showing the problem with those tropes.
It is not one game being misogynistic, it is the prevalence of certain tropes being so. Very, very few games, when taken into a vacuum, could be considered misogynistic.
jreilly89 wrote: My point was if she can make wild claims without backing them up, so can I.
Yeah, okay. Nice to know.
jreilly89 wrote: b) I'm using it as comparison. I know it isn't what she claimed to do, but I'm using it as a comparable argument.
A comparable argument for what?
jreilly89 wrote: Tetris. Megaman. Bomberman. There are tons of classic games that refute this trope.
And tons that fits it. Ask a random person on the street to give you the most basic plot of old-school video game: go save the princess. Yeah, he is not going to give you the plot of Tetris or Bomberman, because there is none, or the plot of Megaman, because he does not even know the game exist. He is likely not going to give you the plot of Sonic either, even if he knows the game.
Why? Because even if neither the plot of Sonic, nor the plot of Megaman, nor the (non)plot of Tetris and Bomberman all do not have any damsel in distress, they do not have anything in common. Hence why even if only, say, only two out of every ten games (random numbers) include a damsel, we could still have the damsel as the most common trope in video game . That guy did not brought up “Save animals imprisoned into robots and big containers” because that is the plot of Sonic, and basically only Sonic. He will rather bring up something that is the plot of Mario, Zelda, and dozens of other games!
The other scenario that could come forward if “Alien are invading, kick them back to space”, I guess. But this feels less specific to video games.
jreilly89 wrote: Absolutely. But again, that includes CONTEXT. How do you know he was the first to die without context?
Uh? Because the person is telling you. If you do not trust her, just check it out. There is certainly no need to tell the whole story though.
jreilly89 wrote: Refusing to identify games that don't fit in nicely with her theory?
Okay, I want to make sure I understand you right. Your problem is that Anita has not mentioned that Tetris, Demolition Derby and Theme Hospital do not use the Damsel in Distress trope?
jreilly89 wrote: Guess what? Calling all men sexist makes you sexist.
Guess what? She never said that.
jreilly89 wrote: She claims developers are intentionally misogynystic
Can I have some first-hand reference here? Link to video and time?
You know, I do not identify with other gamers any more than I do identify with other moviegoers or music listener. Why do no one ever writes “Movie goers are X” and then have all the movie goers going berserk on him or her? Why do no one ever write about how music listeners are all anything?
Grundz wrote: It simply cannot be addressed without becoming a "personal attack" because the implication that the person is simply not interesting and injecting the same tired garbage and the same people taking the bait into every thread that I see the person post in must be a personal attack, it couldn't possibly be that we've all heard it before over and over and over and when everything is an OUTRAGE it kinds of takes the edge off of outrages.
"hey maybe every thread doesn't have to be steered towards you" - HOW DARE YOU! I AM VERY INTERESTING! I'LL HAVE YOUR STUFF DELETED! is pretty much how this goes.
The difficulty is we are tribal by nature.
No matter how carefully we just want to say "I do not particularly like you (specifically) as a person.", the recipient needs to find exterior reasons for the dislike because it just cannot be based on their own behavior (that would be too much ownership). Stranger still, others sometimes feel a need to rise to their defense as well.
The mental checklist kicks in: You must not like me because I am a: guy/girl/transgender, gay/bi/hetero, gamer/jock/newbie, soldier/lawyer/politician, virgin/sex-addict...
"Celebrities" are all the more interesting because you are always asking yourself why this turkey's opinion matters any more than mine and then you eventually come up with the answer that it isn't.
Melissia wrote: You're pointing out something that simply isn't hypocrisy and claiming that it is.
A woman's sexuality should be owned by the woman in question. That's an entirely different subject from the sexual depiction of fictional women by mostly male authors/artists/advertisers/etc.
There's no contradiction in owning your own sexuality while criticizing video games for sexist depiction of women.
Those characters do not exist, and as such the sexuality of such fictional woman in question is indeed owned by the male author.
Grundz wrote: It simply cannot be addressed without becoming a "personal attack" because the implication that the person is simply not interesting and injecting the same tired garbage and the same people taking the bait into every thread that I see the person post in must be a personal attack, it couldn't possibly be that we've all heard it before over and over and over and when everything is an OUTRAGE it kinds of takes the edge off of outrages.
"hey maybe every thread doesn't have to be steered towards you" - HOW DARE YOU! I AM VERY INTERESTING! I'LL HAVE YOUR STUFF DELETED! is pretty much how this goes.
The difficulty is we are tribal by nature.
No matter how carefully we just want to say "I do not particularly like you (specifically) as a person.", the recipient needs to find exterior reasons for the dislike because it just cannot be based on their own behavior (that would be too much ownership). Stranger still, others sometimes feel a need to rise to their defense as well.
Hey look someone that gets it, you realize you are everything wrong with the world now, right?
Grundz wrote: the same people taking the bait into every thread
Like you?
If you don't want to read and/or respond to someone's posts then ... just don't. If you don't want to read and/or respond to posts discussing a certain aspect of a topic then ... just don't.
If you insist on reading and responding to stuff you don't want to read or respond to -- and I won't speculate on your motive for doing that -- and going on and on complaining about the people who post it, then (just as you yourself suspect) you are crossing the line into personal attack territory, which is clearly against our rules.
Kilkrazy wrote: this sort of post just looks like a personal attack.
If you think what you are posting might be a personal attack then DO NOT POST IT.
This applies to every poster.
If (any of) you have further questions on this issue, please PM me or any other moderator rather than continuing to derail the thread with personal attacks.
The Grumpy Eldar wrote: She's being a gigantic hypocrite, especially about "Gender Signifiers".
No she isn't.
There's a very big difference between someone choosing to wear something of their own volition, and an author's choice on what a fictional character wears.
Let me see if I understand your argument. It's okay for a woman to dress in a sexualized fashion if she chooses to do so, but it is sexist if a man forces a woman to dress in a sexualized fashion, because the choice was taken away from her. Is that it? Because that makes sense.
What doesn't make sense is where you seem to be taking this argument: that it is sexist for the creator of a fictional character to decide how the fictional character (who I should stress does not exist and connot therefore make any choice of any kind) should dress.
Should game developers only allow women to design female characters? Would that make the problem better? Would that be sexist in and of itself? What happens when a female designer is told she has to design the strippers in the part of the game that involves a shoot-out in a strip club? If she puts them in G-strings and pasties, is she sexist? No? How about the male designer given the same instructions. He didn't write the game's script; he was just handed a sheet of instructions that says "design strippers for the strip club shoot-out scene". If he designs the strippers to look exactly like the hypothetical female designer would, is he wrong for denying the fictional characters their right to own their own sexuality?
If I'm wrong about what you're trying to say, then okay. It just looks to me like you're making an argument based on logic that can be taken to some crazy places, is all.
squidhills wrote: What doesn't make sense is where you seem to be taking this argument: that it is sexist for the creator of a fictional character to decide how the fictional character (who I should stress does not exist and connot therefore make any choice of any kind) should dress.
You're attempting to make a strawman.
Pointing out that there is a trend of "make a male character and add a bow, instead of designing a female character", or a trend of "put every single female character in a chainmail bikini", and that this indicates an undercurrent of sexist thought, is not equivalent to what you just said.
squidhills wrote: What doesn't make sense is where you seem to be taking this argument: that it is sexist for the creator of a fictional character to decide how the fictional character (who I should stress does not exist and connot therefore make any choice of any kind) should dress.
You're attempting to make a strawman.
Pointing out that there is a trend of "make a male character and add a bow, instead of designing a female character", or a trend of "put every single female character in a chainmail bikini", and that this indicates an undercurrent of sexist thought, is not equivalent to what you just said.
That is not what you said though;
A woman's sexuality should be owned by the woman in question. That's an entirely different subject from the sexual depiction of fictional women by mostly male authors/artists/advertisers/etc.
This implies that a fictional character can own anything, sexuality included. The simple truth is they cannot. I can write a book and give the character an apple, but without my word/will, that character simply does not have that apple.
It makes me God, and I'm going mad with VERY REAL POWAH!
Is it a problem that a female character has a chainmail bikini? Not inherently. Duke Nukem is (er.... was) an awesome game series that treats women like crap, nothing inherently wrong with that either; don't like it, don't buy it. The problem that a lot of people do but yet don't seem to realize is that currently almost all female characters wear chainmail bikinis.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: If she'd used the bare minimum of makeup and no jewellery, I would at least respect her for sticking to her principles.
I think you did not understand her “principles” actually. Or rather, her argument.
Let us put it that way: a bird does not wear clothes, or use make-up. A human do. So, usually, most representation of human do include clothes, and most representations of birds do not. It is normal to have your representations of humans wearing clothes. Nobody is arguing against it. However, if your representation of birds usually do not include clothes except for the female ones, all of them, and those are always gender signifiers, well, that is saying something. Basically that if one of your representation of a bird does not have any gender signifier, they are male, by default, and if they have the very special and very specific characteristic of being a female, you then feel the need to add something to show they are not the default.
The Grumpy Eldar wrote: Seriously, from my perspective she doesn't understand gaming culture, at all.
Just to point it out, the game actually has two female classes, so basically half of the human faction is female. And they are really not that much sexualized:
Spoiler:
The vampires are all vampires.
Grundz wrote: It simply cannot be addressed without becoming a "personal attack" because the implication that the person is simply not interesting and injecting the same tired garbage and the same people taking the bait into every thread that I see the person post in must be a personal attack, it couldn't possibly be that we've all heard it before over and over and over and when everything is an OUTRAGE it kinds of takes the edge off of outrages.
Oh, so your problem is that Melissia would like to see more female character and mention it once in a while? I understand that might be unbearable, but as far as I can tell she has not done so here…
squidhills wrote: What happens when a female designer is told she has to design the strippers in the part of the game that involves a shoot-out in a strip club?
Depends on your setting, but really, just make half the performers chippendale and done, problem solved.
There is nothing hypocritical or contradictory about owning one's own sexuality while also pointing out the problems with sexism in the video game industry. That you attempt to insult and silence her instead of speak about her actual points does not lend itself to a coherent argument.
This does not follow any form of logic either.
How the he'll do you equate talking about a public person in third person on the internet to attempting to silence her?
Claiming that a person should shut up because you don't like what they have to say is an attempt, however weak, to silence it. And that's what you said. And, in fact, that's what a great deal of the critics of Sarkesian have said, amongst other things far worse. That is why people try to make the "not a real gamer" argument-- to justify dismissing her argument and telling her to shut up without ever having to refute anything she said. They fail, but failure's inevitable.
That's an ouright lie. I've never said that I want Anita to shut up. If anything, I want her to change her mind on the points and issues which I think she is wrong about, and I want her to be more honest in the way she goes about her work. There's already enough sexism in all media in general without Anita clouding and plagiarizing the issue by making gak up.
But for as long as she says and does things that I disagree with, I will continue to voice my disagreement no matter how times you try to paint me as a misogynistic troll trying to silence a Feminist. I don't believe in silencing view points I disagree with, I argue against them. I've been taken to task by moderators in the past for continuing to argue and debate instead of simply reporting offensive comments. I've never reported any of your comments as far as I can recall, despite finding several rude.
By your own logic, you are trying to silence me, by labelling almost everything I and others say as sexist. Clearly you'd like me to shut up.
Pointing out that there is a trend of "make a male character and add a bow, instead of designing a female character", or a trend of "put every single female character in a chainmail bikini", and that this indicates an undercurrent of sexist thought, is not equivalent to what you just said.
That's true, it's not equivalent to what I just said. But it's also not at all anything like what you said, either. You brought up women being able to "own" their sexuality through choice. That has nothing to do with the preponderance of digital women in chainmail bikinis. It is a statement about how when real-life women dress in scanty outfits, it's OK because they chose to do so. I was pointing out that you cannot apply that standard to video game characters, because fictional people cannot choose anything.
There is nothing hypocritical or contradictory about owning one's own sexuality while also pointing out the problems with sexism in the video game industry. That you attempt to insult and silence her instead of speak about her actual points does not lend itself to a coherent argument.
This does not follow any form of logic either.
How the he'll do you equate talking about a public person in third person on the internet to attempting to silence her?
Claiming that a person should shut up because you don't like what they have to say is an attempt, however weak, to silence it. And that's what you said. And, in fact, that's what a great deal of the critics of Sarkesian have said, amongst other things far worse. That is why people try to make the "not a real gamer" argument-- to justify dismissing her argument and telling her to shut up without ever having to refute anything she said. They fail, but failure's inevitable.
That's an ouright lie. I've never said that I want Anita to shut up
If you are unwilling to actually read the posts you're quoting-- all of it-- I don't really feel any obligation to respond to you. What I referred to when I made that statement is shown quite clearly in the top of the quote pyramid. Telling someone to "quit whining" is the same as telling them to shut up.
To be clear: derailing this thread into a referendum on Melissia or any other user(s) is certainly against Rule Number Two and most likely will lead to violating Rule Number One. Please just drop it and get back on topic. Thanks.
There is nothing hypocritical or contradictory about owning one's own sexuality while also pointing out the problems with sexism in the video game industry. That you attempt to insult and silence her instead of speak about her actual points does not lend itself to a coherent argument.
This does not follow any form of logic either.
How the he'll do you equate talking about a public person in third person on the internet to attempting to silence her?
Claiming that a person should shut up because you don't like what they have to say is an attempt, however weak, to silence it. And that's what you said. And, in fact, that's what a great deal of the critics of Sarkesian have said, amongst other things far worse. That is why people try to make the "not a real gamer" argument-- to justify dismissing her argument and telling her to shut up without ever having to refute anything she said. They fail, but failure's inevitable.
That's an ouright lie. I've never said that I want Anita to shut up. If anything, I want her to change her mind on the points and issues which I think she is wrong about, and I want her to be more honest in the way she goes about her work. There's already enough sexism in all media in general without Anita clouding and plagiarizing the issue by making gak up.
But for as long as she says and does things that I disagree with, I will continue to voice my disagreement no matter how times you try to paint me as a misogynistic troll trying to silence a Feminist. I don't believe in silencing view points I disagree with, I argue against them. I've been taken to task by moderators in the past for continuing to argue and debate instead of simply reporting offensive comments. I've never reported any of your comments as far as I can recall, despite finding several rude.
By your own logic, you are trying to silence me, by labelling almost everything I and others say as sexist. Clearly you'd like me to shut up.
so much this
To show what it looks like from the other side, and how poorly thought out Anita's opinions are, thunderfoot actually made a point for once. I am not a background object to be stabbed! I am not disposable!
squidhills wrote: [That's ture, it's not equivalent to what I just said. But it's also not at all anything like what you said, either
It most certainly is. We are discussing Anita Sarkesian's videos, and that was the argument that she made-- she spoke of trends, gave examples to prove her point,et cetera. Someone objected to her making that argument while she herself wore makeup...
... which you are now admitting was pointless to argue in the first place, because by your argument the two aren't linked anyway. It's not me that's being inconsistent, here.
By your own logic, you are trying to silence me, by labelling almost everything I and others say as sexist. Clearly you'd like me to shut up.
I'm curious about something.
How much do you care about sexism, not just in games but broadly as an idea and phenomenon? How much time and in how much depth have you spent reading about, studying or discussing what sexism is and how it affects people? How much time have spent thinking or discussing how best to define sexism in various contexts? How much have you talked with other people about how they feel sexism affects them, what they think it is, and why they think it effects them the way it does? If so, have those people primarily been men or women?
To simplify, I guess what I"m asking here is how important is sexism to you generally, and how much time have you spent thinking about what it is and how to categorize its various manifestations?
EDIT: Anyone feel free to answer this, however I'm particularly interested in the answers of those expressing criticism or skepticism of feminism, particularly as it relates to feminist critiques of trends in gaming.
Ashiraya wrote: What's with the trend of having borderline offensive splash images on the videos you use as arguments?
The one above implies 'feminists cry like babies' by combining that text and that image. How is that not rude?
Stop trying to silence his opinion!
I am serious. The splash image is a key part of the first impression, and the first impression is the most important. If said image is an implied insult, what do you expect the reaction to be?
Ashiraya wrote: The splash image is a key part of the first impression, and the first impression is the most important. If said image is an implied insult, what do you expect the reaction to be?
Any reasonable discussion requires its participants to look beyond first impressions.
Yeah, there's nothing respectable about that video from first perspective (and I cannot look at videos where I am currently, will have to watch later). At least Sarkesian is intelligent enough to NOT do that for her videos.
Melissia wrote: At least Sarkesian is intelligent enough to NOT do that for her videos.
It's not a matter of being intelligent; it's a matter of good will and sincerity. Sarkeesian does not make videos to attack someone; the vid in question is made to attack Sarkeesian.
Ashiraya wrote: The splash image is a key part of the first impression, and the first impression is the most important. If said image is an implied insult, what do you expect the reaction to be?
Any reasonable discussion requires its participants to look beyond first impressions.
Of course, but the first impression also says a lot about one's intentions.
It is uncommon (and would be rather illogical) to have a splash image that says X and a video that says Y.
But this is all just nonsense. My point is: Having implied insults on your splash image is not recommended.
Melissia wrote: At least Sarkesian is intelligent enough to NOT do that for her videos.
It's not a matter of being intelligent; it's a matter of good will and sincerity. Sarkeesian does not make videos to attack someone; the vid in question is made to attack Sarkeesian.
It doesn't attack her at all, if you want to comment on the video, you have to watch it first.
How about this one where she gives the impression all men should be in prison for playing mario.
Melissia wrote: At least Sarkesian is intelligent enough to NOT do that for her videos.
It's not a matter of being intelligent; it's a matter of good will and sincerity. Sarkeesian does not make videos to attack someone; the vid in question is made to attack Sarkeesian.
Not really; it's attacking her points and her methodology, the only part that actively seeks to attack her is the thumbnail.
If you really think about it, his point is correct; Tomb Raider, any female outcasts? No. Metroid, any female enemies? No. Wet, any female enemies? Only the bosses, all the dudes are there to be killed. Remember Me? Only people to give the main character any sort of pause are the other two ladies. Bayonetta? Only female is your rival, dudes are just kinda there. Whenever you see a chick in an action role, it's 100% dispossable dudes, with only the boss being female or male.
You actually COULD put a video together using her logic and his arguments and have it work the same way as her videos. It just wouldn't have the feminist backing that Sarks do.
sirlynchmob wrote: It doesn't attack her at all, if you want to comment on the video, you have to watch it first.
I did watch it. It is not a sincere argument. It is a parody -- a caricature of feminists generally and explicitly an attempt to discredit Sarkeesian by falsely equating her arguments to nonsense.
sirlynchmob wrote: How about this one where she gives the impression all men should be in prison for playing mario.
Melissia wrote: At least Sarkesian is intelligent enough to NOT do that for her videos.
It's not a matter of being intelligent; it's a matter of good will and sincerity. Sarkeesian does not make videos to attack someone; the vid in question is made to attack Sarkeesian.
Not even a very good attack. If it were me, I'd have a low cut top, some nice earrings, and my Hipster glasses on and I'd talk in a exaggerated faux-womanly voice
More seriously though; we already know about this trope and it doesn't even directly address anything she actually said. Heaven forbid both stereotypes bepresent at the same time XD Maybe men should talk about that instead of wasting away their time chasing Anita around. I don't like her either but come on guys. It's old news there are better things to do with our time
Given the alien physiology of basically all the enemies in Metroid I'm not sure we can really know. I've not seen much evidence for the gender of the non-boss enemies either way. Like what the heck is the sex of this thing?
or these things:
or these things:
I sure as heck don't know. If you've been sexing all the enemies in Metroid as male by default and only as female when they're expressly called out as such, that's on you.
Seaward wrote:Probably because most people don't give a gak either way.
Riiight. Like "most people" don't give a gak about the use of pronouns, yet end up in an endless argument about why they shouldn't be changed.
Or like "most people" don't give a gak about the portrayal of women in games, yet we have these threads here on dakka.
Also, lol @ calling Ahtman's argument a stawman after posting your opinion on BioWare games
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:Then do yourself and everybody else here a favour and go WATCH them. Second hand information does not make an informed opinion.
Why? I'm not judging Sarkeesian's videos, I am judging the reactions to them. Which as it looks like consists of about 40% namecalling, 35% slander, 20% baseless claims and maybe 5% actual criticism. And the last part of the discussion is obviously getting drowned out.
I find the public's response to the videos far more interesting and revealing than those videos could ever be. I already have my own opinion on the issues she's talking about anyways.
Grundz wrote:to be fair, its only important to most of the people in this thread when its a woman pretending to be victimized, otherwise it isn't.
Sigvatr wrote:The latter.
The Grumpy Eldar wrote:Then she shouldn't whine about this being used in games. That's a choise made by the developers of a game, not by some whiny feminist.
See, posts like these are why we can't have a proper debate on these issues on dakka. And those videos.
Too many people only interested in escalating the conflict and offending and/or ridiculing the other side with a patronising or outright insulting choice of words rather than posting arguments.
It's disturbing, to say the least.
I'm beginning to be of the opinion that any thread that deals with the topic of women, sexism or feminism on dakka should be locked on purpose, because this community does not seem capable of discussing it without resorting to the above.
It's not leading anywhere, and it's just getting everyone frustrated. Again and again.
sirlynchmob wrote: It doesn't attack her at all, if you want to comment on the video, you have to watch it first.
I did watch it. It is not a sincere argument. It is a parody -- a caricature of feminists generally and explicitly an attempt to discredit Sarkeesian by falsely equating her arguments to nonsense.
sirlynchmob wrote: How about this one where she gives the impression all men should be in prison for playing mario.
she has no research, and no studies to back up her opinions, her arguments are nonsense, that's the point. It is a very sincere argument or do you think men should be stabbed?
Why watch her video? the splash page was rude and insulting, so therefore her video must be rude and insulting.
If it was a video about drug abuse, we could see why mario is in jail for doing to many mushrooms.
in a video about feminism, why would mario be in jail? probably for pointing out that their methodology is flawed and more opinions than facts.
I couldn't watch it, the way she drones on and rambles gave me a headache.
Given the alien physiology of basically all the enemies in Metroid I'm not sure we can really know. I've not seen much evidence for the gender of the non-boss enemies either way. Like what the heck is the sex of this thing?
or these things:
or these things:
I sure as heck don't know. If you've been sexing all the enemies in Metroid as male as default and only as female when they're expressly called out as such, that's on you.
It's a fair assumption to make; there is a trope that men are the expendable gender, after all.
You could argue that Metroid is above that, but even it had to specifically call out it's protagonist as being a chick.
If you are unwilling to actually read the posts you're quoting-- all of it-- I don't really feel any obligation to respond to you. What I referred to when I made that statement is shown quite clearly in the top of the quote pyramid. Telling someone to "quit whining" is the same as telling them to shut up.
Excuse me?
Melissia wrote: Claiming that a person should shut up because you don't like what they have to say is an attempt, however weak, to silence it. And that's what you said..
You quite clearly singled me out as having said that I want Anita to be silenced.
Saying "You're [Anita] wrong about the/some of the, points you make" is not the same as "Quit whining and shutup".
Case in point...When Anita criticised Hitman, for supposedly creating a male power fantasy in which players are encouraged to get sexual gratification out of beating up and killing strippers in a club and stuff their bodies into a chest...[Parpahrased, badly - im in a hurry] ...
That was a LIE on her behalf. The game does not encourage that, it actively discourages it by punishing players. The aim is to pass through undetected, points are deducted for killing innocents. Very few Lets Players behave in the way she claimed the game encourages them to, and there were accusations that the footage showing a player abusing dead women was in fact made by Anita herself, and not plagiarised from another channel (as perher usual MO).
If any players actually DO behave that way, that reflects on the gamers themselves, not the game which actively penalises them for it.
Seaward wrote:Probably because most people don't give a gak either way.
Riiight. Like "most people" don't give a gak about the use of pronouns, yet end up in an endless argument about why they shouldn't be changed.
Or like "most people" don't give a gak about the portrayal of women in games, yet we have these threads here on dakka.
We have three threads on Dakka at the same time all talking about the same topic, in fact.
Seaward wrote:Probably because most people don't give a gak either way.
Riiight. Like "most people" don't give a gak about the use of pronouns, yet end up in an endless argument about why they shouldn't be changed.
Or like "most people" don't give a gak about the portrayal of women in games, yet we have these threads here on dakka.
We have three threads on Dakka at the same time all talking about the same topic, in fact.
And if that doesn't prove it's an issue that deserves more than a dismissive eyeroll, nothing does.
I didn't stutter. It was abundantly clear which post I was pointing at when I made that comment. My keeping it at the top of the quote pyramid was intentional, not accidental-- it was the crux of that particular branch of the conversation.
Since you still seem confused, I will quote it for you once again
Thus, my post saying "Telling someone "quit whining" is the same as telling someone 'shut up'." That is what I have been talking about ever since that part of the conversation branched off in the first place, since the entire reason I posted taht in the first place was to raise an objection to that post.
The rhetorical trick of first trying to defend statements like that and then asserting "but I/none of us/no one never said that" remains unconvincing.
Like she said: the dehumanization caused by objectification, inevitably leads us to disposability.
I was actually referring to your argument that either I think that parody is sincere or I must think that men should be stabbed. Do you think that is a sincere argument.
As to the idea that men are often portrayed as disposable in media and that men are considered disposable in everyday life, I think that is a real thing. I don't see how pointing it out disproves anything that Sarkeesian has ever argued.
Melissia wrote: We are discussing Anita Sarkesian's videos, and that was the argument that she made-- she spoke of trends, gave examples to prove her point,et cetera. Someone objected to her making that argument while she herself wore makeup...
Having gone back over the last few pages, I see where i overlooked this part of the argument. Now things make more sense.
LordofHats wrote: If the goal was to show her method is flawed... Well he failed miserably
As I mentioned, his goal was to attack Sarkeesian. And that is the most fundamental difference between his vid and ones like it on the one hand and Sarkeesian's on the other.
.
)
both foster no discussion, both are basically saying "I'm right, you're wrong", both refuse to take criticism.
