Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Sigvatr wrote:
About the "She only asked for 6000$!" argument: let's just for one second, assume that this was true. 6000$. That's 2000$ per video. 2000$. Now, tell me, where did this money go? High production quality? Where? Did she use proper studies (they cost a lot)? Nope. Did she have some interviews with people from the video games industry? Nope. Did she start an own study? Nope. Even if she only used those 6000$ (not counting ad revenue from YouTube btw), where did those go? Her video are, as of now, at a low quality level content-wise. She did the very same thing anyone on Youtube could do without any additional funding at all. She just cut some clips together and commented on an issue using only herself as a source. How is that even borderline professional?

Why are we "assuming" that it is true she only asked for $6,000? It's right on the project page to fund the project. It's not like, a matter of opinion which is debateable.

So far as the other stuff, there are tons of other kickstarters that have exceeded their goal right here on Dakka Dakka's News & Rumors page. Where are you there, Investigator Sigvatr of the Kickstarter police, asking Tre Manor why he needs so much money to cast metal figurines which aren't that expensive in raw materials? Why aren't you asking the Robotech people how much they paid for the license, and tooling? Why aren't you up in Mantic's face asking how much they paid their sculptors, and why did they charge a penny more than that?

 Sigvatr wrote:
The main thing that bothers me abut her perspective is that she is stuck in the early 80s research-wise. She argues from the very same point extreme violence-in-video-games critics argue by claiming that video games have a direct impact on how men actually realize real women outside of games. She proves being unable to provide any actual proof for this assumption and therefore, this, as a central point of hers, is completely void. You can't just go out and claim something because you "strongly think" it is...this just shows that you lack an idea of how things *actually* work and makes you look very unprofessional.

Furthermore, she still fails to realize really basic understandings of the very trope she speaks of - it doesn't work as well the other way around because...it doesn't work as well the other way around. Men are considerably different from women in that regard, they are highly more likely to be motivated by such a situation. Men are far easier to involve emotionally by much easier devices. Women need believable, complex characters to identify with them or their motivation (2000'ish studies on emotional involvement in literatur and TV) whereas men just...need one emotional strong point. Enter damsel in distress. And what is the, by a long shot, target audience for most of the games she presents? Men. Complaining about male-centered stories in a game market where the most promiment core branches are mainly consumed by men is...naive.

She continues to be unprofessional, pretentious, arrogant and righteous and in the end, I don't see anything good coming from a poorly researched, one-sided report on a matter.

You've never actually been in a debate, have you? The Speaker/reporter/what not will always show only their side of the story. It's up to the reader/listener/other speaker to provide the other side of the debate. Her only real flaw is that she refuses to have criticism of these videos, which can be looked at in several ways:

1) She wants people to wait until all the videos are done.

2) She doesn't want to talk to a bunch of people from the internets (Since we all know how that turns out).

3) She's an evil conniving wench that's out to steal men's souls.

It all depends on how you look at it.

Do I agree with her? On a basic level, yeah; more diversity in games would be awesome (Not just women, but Hispanics/Africans and everyone else).

Oh, and thanks for lumping all Men into the "We must white knight the pretty damsels!" category.

And at min 19:00 she just goes straight downhill. She presents extremely one-sided and even wrong data without a single piece of actual info to back them up and makes a direct relation between violence in video games and real life violence. Again: she pretends being on intellectual high grounds and a professional researcher but in fact is just pretentious as hell and is seemingly ok with spreading misinformation and poorly researched facts.

How do you know it's wrong? Do you have any studies to show that it's not? Or do you just disagree with it, and therefor it's wrong? Have you done any research, poor or otherwise, into the matter?

Because condescendingly saying someone's trying to take the intellectual high ground and using "useless/wrong facts" is just as bad as what she is supposedly doing.

 Ahtman wrote:
This isn't the only place anyone has ever discussed this, and this isn't even the only thread we have had on dakka about it. Also the 'no one used those exact words' argument is pretty thin. It isn't that hard to get to 'con artist' from constant complaints that someone took a bunch of money from people under false pretenses. If the best you have is a semantic argument, then perhaps accusing others of deflection is the least of your concerns.

I'm not arguing semantics. I'm arguing that you are erecting a strawman from my words to tilt at. I never suggested that there was anything improper about her motivations, I never implied in any way that she used "false pretenses" to generate revenue. What I said was that for someone trying to discuss a serious issue and make a name for herself showing that she cannot meet the deadlines that she set for herself, with finances well beyond what was budgeted then she is not generating a positive image for her, or her message. That is hugely different to what you are suggesting. Clearly there is no deflection on my part.

As far as your point that other places have discussed this perhaps you should take it up with these other places. I am responsible for my own words. Not theirs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:
So far as the other stuff, I'm not so sure. To say whether or not video games influence real world violence is one of those fool's errands, where each side of the argument can easily produce tons of studies supporting them. I'd have to rate it "indeterminate" and would neither agree with nor disagree with either camp.

Thank you.
My point about video games was not to prove or dis-prove that violent video games cause more violence. My point was that on the one hand she claims that they are a device that helps entrench attitudes about women and help to fuel violence against women, but she herself makes the point that there is no direct cause and effect relationship and that humans are not simply beholden to the messages that we receive from media. It is contradictions such as this which undermine her own arguments.

I'm sorry if my earlier post wasn't clear on that.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
As far as your point that other places have discussed this perhaps you should take it up with these other places. I am responsible for my own words. Not theirs.

Ignoring all the other facepalm worthy goofiness you just dropped, you do realize that you aren't the only one in this thread, and that every reply is not a love letter crafted just for you, right? Did you ever consider you weren't the person being replied to? Did it occur to you that maybe no specific individual was being replied to, but the general arguments being presented by one side?

 Ahtman wrote:
Ignoring all the other facepalm worthy goofiness you just dropped, you do realize that you aren't the only one in this thread, and that every reply is not a love letter crafted just for you, right? Did you ever consider you weren't the person being replied to? Did it occur to you that maybe no specific individual was being replied to, but the general arguments being presented by one side?

Well then, my most humble apologies!! I had always thought that when quoting someone it was a good indication that you are in fact replying to that person and not some non-specific internet entity, or some general point. You'll understand my obvious confusion why you quote me, twice use my own words to form your argument, and then say "you".


Now that we're resolved that shall we get back to the topic at hand?

So you are saying that if the language and content gets complicated, like discussing general trends and themes sparked from specific ideas in response to a statement in a multi-person conversation you will get petty and have trouble following. At least you are honest about it.

 DoctorZombie wrote:
Anita talks a lot, but really has nothing to say. If she wants to affect some kind of change, maybe she should become a game/television/film writer and then write the stories she sees as acceptable.

Yes, perhaps instead of discussing tropes, she could just talk about her interests, such as tabletop wargames, on a site devoted to them. Then, by the first response we'd be talking about her physical appearance, and after 2 pages largely of that, the thread could be locked - 3 hours later.

Maybe it's not just video games that have a problem.

 Ahtman wrote:
So you are saying that if the language and content gets complicated, like discussing general trends and themes sparked from specific ideas in response to a statement in a multi-person conversation you will get petty and have trouble following. At least you are honest about it.

If that's what you got out of what I said then more power to you.

Again, lets get back to the topic at hand.

 Slarg232 wrote:


You've never actually been in a debate, have you?

You confuse the term debate with "stating a personal view on an issue and selling it as facts". As you correctly stated, this is not a debate. She isn't interested in a debate (at least not in this form). This is understandable, given the massive negative outlash her videos caused among our fellow immature video viewers. I would be fine with her selling stuff as her opinion, but she frequently promotes it as a factual issue - which simply isn't the case as portrayed above.

Oh, and thanks for lumping all Men into the "We must white knight the pretty damsels!" category.

I did not. Stick with what I actually post. I merely said that men, on average, do react stronger to such a scenario than women do. If you feel that this applies to you as well or not, be it that way, that's your individual view / perception.

How do you know it's wrong? Do you have any studies to show that it's not? Or do you just disagree with it, and therefor it's wrong? Have you done any research, poor or otherwise, into the matter?

Yes, I have, iirc in the last thread on this issue. Unlike her, I have to deal with studies of all kinds on a daily basis. I translate, review and, to a lesser degree, host own studies.

 Ouze wrote:
So far as the other stuff, there are tons of other kickstarters that have exceeded their goal right here on Dakka Dakka's News & Rumors page. Where are you there, Investigator Sigvatr of the Kickstarter police, asking Tre Manor why he needs so much money to cast metal figurines which aren't that expensive in raw materials? Why aren't you asking the Robotech people how much they paid for the license, and tooling? Why aren't you up in Mantic's face asking how much they paid their sculptors, and why did they charge a penny more than that?

Do I care for other Kickstarters? Iirc, this is about this specific one, not about some random tabletop kickstarter. Keep it to this one then, but feel free to point me out if I should say the same about others kickstarters.

 Ouze wrote:

 DoctorZombie wrote:
Anita talks a lot, but really has nothing to say. If she wants to affect some kind of change, maybe she should become a game/television/film writer and then write the stories she sees as acceptable.

Yes, perhaps instead of discussing tropes, she could just talk about her interests, such as tabletop wargames, on a site devoted to them. Then, by the first response we'd be talking about her physical appearance, and after 2 pages largely of that, the thread could be locked - 3 hours later.

Maybe it's not just video games that have a problem.

I like this post a lot.

 cerbrus2 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 DoctorZombie wrote:
Anita talks a lot, but really has nothing to say. If she wants to affect some kind of change, maybe she should become a game/television/film writer and then write the stories she sees as acceptable.

Yes, perhaps instead of discussing tropes, she could just talk about her interests, such as tabletop wargames, on a site devoted to them. Then, by the first response we'd be talking about her physical appearance, and after 2 pages largely of that, the thread could be locked - 3 hours later.

Maybe it's not just video games that have a problem.

I like this post a lot.

Well, that thread was a train wreck.

Matty was on top form, MGS too!

RULE #1 - Alpharius.

 Medium of Death wrote:
Just had a look at her LEGO videos; what a load of gak. She sits there pointing out the "problem" with LEGO marketing to boys, yet provides zero evidence why LEGO should do the contrary. Could it not be the case that in the 80's demographics shifted, young girls wanted to play with the plethora of cartoon tie in toys and other exclusively girl toys MLP, Polly Pocket and other stuff that vaguely claws at the surface of my mind.

Her problem is that girls don't want to buy the "boys" stuff, but how is that LEGO's fault? It's not LEGO's job to take on gender stereotypes at the risk of it's business. Then when LEGO tries to include girls she gaks on them and says that they aren't trying hard enough. I don't think she knows what she wants... oh no wait I do, it's to blame companies for the decisions that parents and society as a whole make.

I watched that one. It is awfully silly- LEGO is simply selling where the majority of their profits come from.

 LordofHats wrote:
[That it could even be misinterpreted is enough

The only way it could not ever be misinterpreted is if it wasn't in English.

I've made perfectly clear arguments that have been misinterpreted by others. So have you. We are humans, a race of incredibly biased people, and we speak in English, a delightfully imprecise language, and NOTHING that you say cannot be somehow misinterpreted.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
I don't recall anyone saying that she was a "con artist".

I do.

Solid video. It's not particularly new ground, but it is quite elucidating and disappointing to see all these examples brought together. I look forward to her next episode, and I'd like to see episodes beyond the Damsel in Distress syndrome.

 Ouze wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
stuff[

Her delivery is poor, especially for someone who has done quite a lot of projects similar to this.

She's a woman. She's in a double bind between being seen as frivolous but fun to watch or serious, boring and immoralwrong, because a woman must at all times be appealing to men. Personally, I find her delivery easy to follow.

She's far from monotone and I suspect if you had a man there speaking in such measured but unvarying tones there wouldn't be a peep of criticism, especially since that criticism seems to usually be explicitly designed to avoid discussing the content.

 Ouze wrote:
So far as the other stuff, I'm not so sure. To say whether or not video games influence real world violence is one of those fool's errands, where each side of the argument can easily produce tons of studies supporting them. I'd have to rate it "indeterminate" and would neither agree with nor disagree with either camp.

I wanted to reply to this, because having just watched the video (being unable to do so until now thanks to our communist Internet rationing policies, for you Americans) I found she made an uneasy shift later in the video from talking about violence against helpless women in video games to real-world violence without laying down the foundation for a causal link. A bit later on, though, she really laid down what I was saying earlier in the thread - that, as pieces of art, culture, video games can shape our world view and values.

I invite you to consider what would have to be argued for this to not be the case. Essentially, one would be arguing that art cannot affect people's views and that culture is not shaped to an extent by art. Unless you can argue that - and I think doing so would paint an incredibly bizarre picture of the human mind as some impermeable fortress through which no idea may penetrate without prior approval - it's nonsensical to say that a piece of art - in this case, video games - can't influence a person. Sarkeesian herself never argues that watching violence makes you violent or watching misogyny makes you misogynist - she even says right in the video that people don't have that monkey see, monkey do approach to media. What these things can do is fortify - or, on the flip side of the coin, challenge - cultural beliefs, and in so doing change or fortify our current cultural values.

I think arguing otherwise is not only completely absurd, but utterly disrespects all art, interactive or otherwise.

Maybe she'd have met a better reception arguing the flipside of the case, that art can be used as a vehicle for cultural change by exposing people to new ideas, to present the unfamiliar in a manner that can be grasped.

Oh, and as a note I guess you could also argue that art can affect our values, but that our values don't affect our actions, which would be good for a laugh I guess. If art can affect our values or view of the world and our values inform our actions then of course art can cause violence. It's an indirect link, not a direct one.

 Fafnir wrote:
Solid video. It's not particularly new ground, but it is quite elucidating and disappointing to see all these examples brought together. I look forward to her next episode, and I'd like to see episodes beyond the Damsel in Distress syndrome.

She will be covering other tropes in her series

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/566429325/tropes-vs-women-in-video-games?ref=live

THE PROJECT

With your help, I’ll produce a 5-video series (now expanded to 12 videos) entitled Tropes vs Women in Video Games, exploring female character stereotypes throughout the history of the gaming industry. This ambitious project will primarily focus on these reoccurring tropes:

Damsel in Distress - Video #1
The Fighting F#@k Toy - Video #2
The Sexy Sidekick - Video #3
The Sexy Villainess - Video #4
Background Decoration - Video #5

1st Set of Stretch Goals Achieved!

Voodoo Priestess/Tribal Sorceress - Video #6
Women as Reward - Video #7
Mrs. Male Character - Video #8
Unattractive Equals Evil - Video #9
Man with Boobs - Video #10
Positive Female Characters! - Video #11

2nd Stretch Goal Achieved!

Let's Bump up the Production Quality!

3rd Set of Stretch Goals Achieved!

Tropes vs Women in Video Games Classroom Curriculum
Video #12 - Top 10 Most Common Defenses of Sexism in Games

I know she'll be. I'm just saying that I would like to see them.

 Fafnir wrote:
I know she'll be. I'm just saying that I would like to see them.

My mistake, posting in a hurry from work (and trying to figure out how to use an Apple ) meant that I misread what you post.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
She's a woman. She's in a double bind between being seen as frivolous but fun to watch or serious, boring and immoralwrong, because a woman must at all times be appealing to men. Personally, I find her delivery easy to follow.

As do I. It was not at all hard to follow what she had to say, although I know of many people who went in to her videos trying to find something to be offended by, like they often do with anything feminism-related.

 Melissia wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
She's a woman. She's in a double bind between being seen as frivolous but fun to watch or serious, boring and immoralwrong, because a woman must at all times be appealing to men. Personally, I find her delivery easy to follow.

As do I. It was not at all hard to follow what she had to say, although I know of many people who went in to her videos trying to find something to be offended by, like they often do with anything feminism-related.

Speaking of, I was pleasantly surprised when she said "It paints women as helpless and men as braindead beatsticks" or something like that. It was in the last five or so minutes.

I'm not impressed. All she does it just rattle of examples and asserts they are part of some misogynistic scheme. I've learned nothing of value.

It gets better towards the end when she actually gets to the more analytic part, but other than that, nope.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
I'm not impressed. All she does it just rattle of examples and asserts they are part of some misogynistic scheme. I've learned nothing of value.

Fact: Remember Me's developers had to find a publisher that LET them go with a new female lead IP.

Fact: Women still make, on average less money than men (What the exact cause is has not been determined yet)

Fact: No woman President yet.

Fact: Until recently, women couldn't vote, own property, or similar.

Fact: Look at the thread posted earlier in this thread, how by the first post and two pages were immediately about how she looked, instead of what her topic was.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
She's a woman. She's in a double bind between being seen as frivolous but fun to watch or serious, boring and immoralwrong, because a woman must at all times be appealing to men. Personally, I find her delivery easy to follow.

Speaking of which, looks like we have another one that does exactly this:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
I'm not impressed. All she does it just rattle of examples and asserts they are part of some misogynistic scheme. I've learned nothing of value.

It gets better towards the end when she actual gets the more analytic part, but other than that, nope.

You learned nothing of value because you went in not wanting to learn, instead wanting to be entertained. Apparently that's all women are good for, to you.

Recognizing recurring patterns does not require a scheme in place to exist, in fact, I imagine that it is often the opposite i.e. they occur because people don't pay that much attention.

 Slarg232 wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
I'm not impressed. All she does it just rattle of examples and asserts they are part of some misogynistic scheme. I've learned nothing of value.

Fact: Remember Me's developers had to find a publisher that LET them go with a new female lead IP.

Fact: Women still make, on average less money than men (What the exact cause is has not been determined yet)

Fact: No woman President yet.

Fact: Until recently, women couldn't vote, own property, or similar.

Fact: Look at the thread posted earlier in this thread, how by the first post and two pages were immediately about how she looked, instead of what her topic was.

What does this have to do with video games? The implication I got from her was that the developers intentionally added darker stuff in their games in order to try to lessen the social status of women.

Did I misinterpret that? I tend to do that when the word "insidious" is used. As well as other terms I can't be bothered to retype.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
She's a woman. She's in a double bind between being seen as frivolous but fun to watch or serious, boring and immoralwrong, because a woman must at all times be appealing to men. Personally, I find her delivery easy to follow.

Speaking of which, looks like we have another one that does exactly this:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
I'm not impressed. All she does it just rattle of examples and asserts they are part of some misogynistic scheme. I've learned nothing of value.

It gets better towards the end when she actual gets the more analytic part, but other than that, nope.

You learned nothing of value because you went in not wanting to learn, instead wanting to be entertained. Apparently that's all women are good for, to you.

No, I learned nothing because she said nothing new. I already have all the information she supplied. I was expecting more.

Are you implying I'm a misogynist? I'm really not.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
No, I learned nothing because she said nothing new.

No, she didn't. Why does this piss you off?

Nothing she can say is new. We've been saying it for fething DECADES now.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
What does this have to do with video games?

Wait, seriously? You were given a specific example of misogyny within the video game industry, yet you wonder what it has to do with video games?

Are you TRYING to miss the point?

Mel, I agree with a lot things you say but can you be more careful with your tone as it comes across rather angry to me and I think there's a lot of people who would agree with you, be more accepting of your ideas or have better understanding if you were less harsh.

 Melissia wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
No, I learned nothing because she said nothing new.

No, she didn't. Why does this piss you off?

Nothing she can say is new. We've been saying it for fething DECADES now.

I'm not pissed off. I was expecting something a little more analytical, something that reached back into literature or film. Why are they like this? Why is the stuffed in a fridge trope so popular? Is there a precedence? It could not have just spawned from that one green lantern comic, there had to be something cultural that spawned that.

The what does this have to do with games response was to do with Slarg's list. And my issue is not the assertion that there is misogyny in the game industry, but more to do with the implication that the game industry is trying to spread it.