|
Post by Koda, Master Crunchyroller on Jul 19, 2014 11:13:38 GMT -5
Anita's basic point is that both the developers and gamers themselves can hold some pretty sexist viewpoints. Said gamers respond to these claims by making all sorts of hideously sexist comments. How does that not make sense? Sexist comments don't prove anything about sexism in actual video games, which is what her videos are supposed to be about. Not to mention they are YOUTUBE comments. Thought we knew to discredit those by now.
|
|
|
Post by A Platypus Rave on Jul 19, 2014 11:18:46 GMT -5
For my own part, I can't help but wonder if Sarkeesian is making money by criticizing something she doesn't actually care about. Just a hunch. I've actually gotten that vibe from a few of her videos. Not that there aren't issues in the video game industry... Ubisoft's Women are too hard to render comes to mind.
|
|
Renslayer
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
every time i come around your city...
Posts: 16,628
|
Post by Renslayer on Jul 19, 2014 11:21:30 GMT -5
Sexist comments don't prove anything about sexism in actual video games, which is what her videos are supposed to be about. Not to mention they are YOUTUBE comments. Thought we knew to discredit those by now. Hmm. I wanna just say it's Youtube comments, but I think it's more than that. Yeah a good amount of Youtube commenters are silly trolls, but they're also people who buy games & have some bit of influence as to what is sold/produced. But more importantly, it's not just Youtbe comments that personally attack Anita. It's emails, Twitter, Facebook & practically every medium she posts in. I've never been on the receiving end of it (thank the heavens), but having the sheer volume of deeply personal attacks (and sometimes physical threats along with it) thrown your way all the time has to be draining.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew is Good on Jul 19, 2014 11:23:55 GMT -5
I will actually admit that I haven't watched these, and one of the issues is the length. I recently watched a sequelitis with Egorapter, and he has a very humorous style that keeps me interested for the whole 30 minutes, and I have heard that she can be a little dry, but I have time, so after the gym, I plan to watch some of these videos as I'm currently on days off. In regards to this general issue though, MatPat over at the Game Theorists channel discussed how games and gamers are actually pretty anti-LGBT as well, and well, the comments kind of helped prove that point as well. But, before anyone goes, oh, it's not all gamers, I'm not like that, I want to try and kill off that topic quickly as, this issue of anti-other that the video game community has is something that needs to be addressed and really viewed head on, because I feel sometimes people will ignore these issues because "they're not apart of the problem". The problem is this stuff needs to be killed off. I also listened to a recent Stuff Mom Never Told you podcast, and by recent I mean a few months ago, about women in the video game industry, women who play and of course, how they're portrayed. So it was a two parter. So yeah, before I head to the gym, three links: www.stuffmomnevertoldyou.com/podcasts/video-games-women-part-i/The podcast episode of women in the video game industry www.stuffmomnevertoldyou.com/podcasts/video-games-women-part-ii/The podcast episode of women who play video games, and no, there are no women pandering. When people would say that about AJ, I thought my head was going to explode The Game Theory on video games being anti-LGBT
|
|
|
Post by Koda, Master Crunchyroller on Jul 19, 2014 11:27:51 GMT -5
Anita can be very dry in her videos. She's rather monotone for most of the length and she doesn't express much emotion, either. So when I do watch her videos it is always in chunks because eventually I get bored. Not because of the subject matter, mind you, just because of Anita's style of delivery.
|
|
Welfare Willis
Crow T. Robot
Pornomancer 555-BONE FDIC Bonsured
Game Center CX Kacho on!
Posts: 44,259
|
Post by Welfare Willis on Jul 19, 2014 11:41:48 GMT -5
Oh shit someone brought up Anita! *abandons thread*
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2014 11:56:23 GMT -5
Sexist comments don't prove anything about sexism in actual video games, which is what her videos are supposed to be about. The utter refusal by some gamers to have anything even remotely resembling a civil dialogue is what allows those tropes to be so prevalent, though. A lot of developers refuse to take chances with their games because they're trying to appeal to the broadest number of people, and those developers aren't gonna' rock the boat by doing something as earth-shattering as trying to make their games more diverse if they're just going to be greeted with jeers of "why are you trying to kowtow to those feminist bitches." The tropes themselves are self-evident, but it's the views of many gamers that encourages their repeated use. I disagree that it's about gamers having a problem with civil dialogue. I really believe it's more about them feeling like she's misrepresenting games with her videos in order to pursue some agenda. Combined with the feeling many have that she isn't a gamer in the first place and there is bound to be a lot of anger. EDIT: Consider the video in the OP. I think people have a real problem with Anita painting the "dehumanization of objectification" as a problem only female NPCs face.
|
|
Sephiroth
Wade Wilson
Surviving
Posts: 28,961
|
Post by Sephiroth on Jul 19, 2014 11:59:11 GMT -5
I do share some of the concerns about the objectification of women in pop culture like video games. That said, its still just freaking video games and its really not meant to be taken that godawful serious. Besides which, it is not like you see a whole lot of short, balding, fat, or glasses wearing male hero characters in video games either.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2014 12:24:10 GMT -5
The utter refusal by some gamers to have anything even remotely resembling a civil dialogue is what allows those tropes to be so prevalent, though. A lot of developers refuse to take chances with their games because they're trying to appeal to the broadest number of people, and those developers aren't gonna' rock the boat by doing something as earth-shattering as trying to make their games more diverse if they're just going to be greeted with jeers of "why are you trying to kowtow to those feminist bitches." The tropes themselves are self-evident, but it's the views of many gamers that encourages their repeated use. I disagree that it's about gamers having a problem with civil dialogue. I really believe it's more about them feeling like she's misrepresenting games with her videos in order to pursue some agenda. Combined with the feeling many have that she isn't a gamer in the first place and there is bound to be a lot of anger. EDIT: Consider the video in the OP. I think people have a real problem with Anita painting the "dehumanization of objectification" as a problem only female NPCs face. Even if some gamers do feel like Anita is "misrepresenting" games (which I frankly think is false to begin with), surely there's better ways of responding to legitimate points than "this bitch needs to get back in the kitchen where she belongs." If someone gets so angry over someone daring to criticize their favorite medium that they resort to retrograde shit like that then it's obvious they don't get civilized debate. Both male and female NPCs are objectified are in highly different ways, and the female version of this objectification is much more, well, dehumanizing. Objectified male characters are often power fantasies who are designed to be cool, while objectified female characters are sexual fantasies who are often designed solely to be sex appeal for men. The male version isn't nearly as harmful.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Coello on Jul 19, 2014 12:39:08 GMT -5
I'm sure Anita Sarkeesian's videos and subsequent backlash have been brought up here before, but I just watched the most recent one from last month and was wondering what you lot think of it and the series. Well, since you asked..... At best, Anita is someone who uses her own previously stated hypothesis and just molds everything that supports it to her benefit and ignores anything that goes against that evidence. At worst, she's a con artist, and actually a much worse version of Jack Thompson when it comes to fear-mongering and blaming video games for the evils of the world with the same level of proof Jack had. Going even beyond the obvious troubles in her method, like the fact she doesn't play the games she is critiquing (I beleive she admitted in an interview, her boyfriend plays it, and gives her the rundown of the game), that she doesn't get her own footage for the videos ( using other people let's play videos without credit) and that whole shutting down discussion over videos (on something that is suppose to be a teaching tool, according to her, and kind of the point of college courses.), and of course what she planned for the money (which has yet to be detailed), her entire premise on itself is just full of logical and context-removed errors. She gets details about games all wrong (anything related to the point of some games "rewarding" the player for killing woman, like Hitman or Duke Nukem, when that is heavily penalized in the game, similar to the old "GTA is about killing hookers" quote from the Thompson era) or missing entire story or factual elements (Shiek and Zelda being the same character, Spelunky had different models for the hero and the rescuer, that Dinsaur Adventures was not starring Krystal before it got changed to Fox, Borderlands 2 "damsel" could be saved by female characters, getting the death of Kiya from Medievil 2 wrong, etc) and even the whole vendetta against princesses and just summing them up as damsels and ignoring their actual events. Zelda is the most egregious, since she was seen as the brains behind the resistance as far back as Link to the Past. Like how Link is the foot-solder who works his way from the groud up, Zelda is shown as the tactician who commands from above. And that's not even going into her constant complain of lack of female representation in games that really holds no meritShe's not even helping the community, just diving it up more than it was, this time by making everything an issue of gender politics. The recent stuff with Unity comes to mind, as well as the "controversial" stuff from the last few E3's, Mighty Number 9, Catwoman in Arkham City, and others that comes up since her debut that were nothing and lead to nothing. Not even when people take her advice does it help, with Naughty Dog saying they were influenced by her to create female characters, and were still called out as sexist by the gaming media who were also influenced by her. And gaming media's reaction to her as a whole is another issue for another time. Overall, she's more of a detriment to gaming as a whole, and is not at all helpful in either helping gaming be more diverse and populous and not at all helpful for women as she proceeds to toss them under the bus, like with sex worker in this video that she got a lot of flack for. She doesn't deserve a fraction of the praise or even acknowledgement she has gotten, instead better served to be left behind in order to move forward as a whole and actually evolve the craft, as it were. ... Thanks for asking, by the way.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2014 12:53:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Andrew is Good on Jul 19, 2014 12:57:31 GMT -5
Slightly on topic but off, I think people should do more shutting down of discussion, considering the general rule of thumb on the internet is never read the comments.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2014 13:48:40 GMT -5
I disagree that it's about gamers having a problem with civil dialogue. I really believe it's more about them feeling like she's misrepresenting games with her videos in order to pursue some agenda. Combined with the feeling many have that she isn't a gamer in the first place and there is bound to be a lot of anger. EDIT: Consider the video in the OP. I think people have a real problem with Anita painting the "dehumanization of objectification" as a problem only female NPCs face. Even if some gamers do feel like Anita is "misrepresenting" games (which I frankly think is false to begin with), surely there's better ways of responding to legitimate points than "this bitch needs to get back in the kitchen where she belongs." If someone gets so angry over someone daring to criticize their favorite medium that they resort to retrograde shit like that then it's obvious they don't get civilized debate. Both male and female NPCs are objectified are in highly different ways, and the female version of this objectification is much more, well, dehumanizing. Objectified male characters are often power fantasies who are designed to be cool, while objectified female characters are sexual fantasies who are often designed solely to be sex appeal for men. The male version isn't nearly as harmful. You've described two different forms of objectification, but you haven't explained why one is inherently worse than the other. Both examples are very shallow representations of masculinity and femininity. Are you saying that male gamers see sexy NPCs in a negative light?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2014 14:04:29 GMT -5
You've described two different forms of objectification, but you haven't explained why one is inherently worse than the other. Both examples are very shallow representations of masculinity and femininity. Are you saying that male gamers see sexy NPCs in a negative light? That representation of masculinity is still, more often than not, seen as something to be admired. Kratos, for instance, may be a hulking brute obsessed with death, but he's still depicted as a "badass" character and is designed to appeal to men as a figure they should admire, if only for his "cool" factor. Most female NPCs are side characters who are basically just walking pairs of breasts designed solely to titillate men. They're not characters, they're sex objects, and that sort of objectification is something women have to put up with in real life every day. That's why it's more harmful.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2014 14:17:11 GMT -5
All I'm going to say is that I can't stand her just going by tweets she's made in the past.
|
|
Glitch
King Koopa
Not Going To Die; Childs, we're goin' out to give Blair the test. If he tries to make it back here and we're not with him... burn him.
Watching you.
Posts: 12,717
|
Post by Glitch on Jul 19, 2014 14:27:14 GMT -5
I'm sure Anita Sarkeesian's videos and subsequent backlash have been brought up here before, but I just watched the most recent one from last month and was wondering what you lot think of it and the series. Well, since you asked..... At best, Anita is someone who uses her own previously stated hypothesis and just molds everything that supports it to her benefit and ignores anything that goes against that evidence. At worst, she's a con artist, and actually a much worse version of Jack Thompson when it comes to fear-mongering and blaming video games for the evils of the world with the same level of proof Jack had. Going even beyond the obvious troubles in her method, like the fact she doesn't play the games she is critiquing (I beleive she admitted in an interview, her boyfriend plays it, and gives her the rundown of the game), that she doesn't get her own footage for the videos ( using other people let's play videos without credit) and that whole shutting down discussion over videos (on something that is suppose to be a teaching tool, according to her, and kind of the point of college courses.), and of course what she planned for the money (which has yet to be detailed), her entire premise on itself is just full of logical and context-removed errors. She gets details about games all wrong (anything related to the point of some games "rewarding" the player for killing woman, like Hitman or Duke Nukem, when that is heavily penalized in the game, similar to the old "GTA is about killing hookers" quote from the Thompson era) or missing entire story or factual elements (Shiek and Zelda being the same character, Spelunky had different models for the hero and the rescuer, that Dinsaur Adventures was not starring Krystal before it got changed to Fox, Borderlands 2 "damsel" could be saved by female characters, getting the death of Kiya from Medievil 2 wrong, etc) and even the whole vendetta against princesses and just summing them up as damsels and ignoring their actual events. Zelda is the most egregious, since she was seen as the brains behind the resistance as far back as Link to the Past. Like how Link is the foot-solder who works his way from the groud up, Zelda is shown as the tactician who commands from above. And that's not even going into her constant complain of lack of female representation in games that really holds no meritShe's not even helping the community, just diving it up more than it was, this time by making everything an issue of gender politics. The recent stuff with Unity comes to mind, as well as the "controversial" stuff from the last few E3's, Mighty Number 9, Catwoman in Arkham City, and others that comes up since her debut that were nothing and lead to nothing. Not even when people take her advice does it help, with Naughty Dog saying they were influenced by her to create female characters, and were still called out as sexist by the gaming media who were also influenced by her. And gaming media's reaction to her as a whole is another issue for another time. Overall, she's more of a detriment to gaming as a whole, and is not at all helpful in either helping gaming be more diverse and populous and not at all helpful for women as she proceeds to toss them under the bus, like with sex worker in this video that she got a lot of flack for. She doesn't deserve a fraction of the praise or even acknowledgement she has gotten, instead better served to be left behind in order to move forward as a whole and actually evolve the craft, as it were. ... Thanks for asking, by the way. And I might add, she isn't liked by feminist. At least some I've run into.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Jul 19, 2014 14:29:36 GMT -5
Sexist comments don't prove anything about sexism in actual video games, which is what her videos are supposed to be about. Not to mention they are YOUTUBE comments. Thought we knew to discredit those by now. It's not like those types of comments are exclusive to youtube, though. Any online game with the general public is rife with them. Even if some gamers do feel like Anita is "misrepresenting" games (which I frankly think is false to begin with), surely there's better ways of responding to legitimate points than "this bitch needs to get back in the kitchen where she belongs." If someone gets so angry over someone daring to criticize their favorite medium that they resort to retrograde shit like that then it's obvious they don't get civilized debate. Both male and female NPCs are objectified are in highly different ways, and the female version of this objectification is much more, well, dehumanizing. Objectified male characters are often power fantasies who are designed to be cool, while objectified female characters are sexual fantasies who are often designed solely to be sex appeal for men. The male version isn't nearly as harmful. That's why I think the distinction between idealization and sexualization is relevant here. The men don't have it any better argument relies on the idea that the objectification is equal in both, but I don't see how anyone could logically argue that there's no difference between being seeing as the height of ass-kicking masculinity vs. being a trophy girl. And it's when you add the added pressures of society that the differences become much more egregious.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2014 14:34:51 GMT -5
I disagree that it's about gamers having a problem with civil dialogue. I really believe it's more about them feeling like she's misrepresenting games with her videos in order to pursue some agenda. Combined with the feeling many have that she isn't a gamer in the first place and there is bound to be a lot of anger. EDIT: Consider the video in the OP. I think people have a real problem with Anita painting the "dehumanization of objectification" as a problem only female NPCs face. Even if some gamers do feel like Anita is "misrepresenting" games (which I frankly think is false to begin with), surely there's better ways of responding to legitimate points than "this bitch needs to get back in the kitchen where she belongs." If someone gets so angry over someone daring to criticize their favorite medium that they resort to retrograde shit like that then it's obvious they don't get civilized debate. Both male and female NPCs are objectified are in highly different ways, and the female version of this objectification is much more, well, dehumanizing. Objectified male characters are often power fantasies who are designed to be cool, while objectified female characters are sexual fantasies who are often designed solely to be sex appeal for men. The male version isn't nearly as harmful. This shouldn't be any surprise and shouldn't really be seen as all too negative. "Power fantasy" is EXACTLY it. Most games are made for a predominantly young, male audience. So like, no surprise that it's going to have male characters who are supposed to be smart, handsome and tough, and females who are generally supposed to be sexy. It's escapism, simple as that. I'd have no problem with a game with a female lead where the roles are reversed (and that can easily be the case in some franchises like Mass Effect).
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Jul 19, 2014 14:41:59 GMT -5
I do share some of the concerns about the objectification of women in pop culture like video games. That said, its still just freaking video games and its really not meant to be taken that godawful serious. Besides which, it is not like you see a whole lot of short, balding, fat, or glasses wearing male hero characters in video games either. Back in the NES days, I think the argument of games not being taken seriously would hold more weight. But nowadays as game companies rally to be seen as a legitimate media, companies take risks to tell more indepth stories, and the media grows far more then that argument ceases to become valid. "Don't take our games seriously" doesn't mesh with "take us seriously as a business, medium and art form"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2014 14:43:31 GMT -5
This shouldn't be any surprise and shouldn't really be seen as all too negative. "Power fantasy" is EXACTLY it. Most games are made for a predominantly young, male audience. So like, no surprise that it's going to have male characters who are supposed to be smart, handsome and tough, and females who are generally supposed to be sexy. It's escapism, simple as that. I'd have no problem with a game with a female lead where the roles are reversed (and that can easily be the case in some franchises like Mass Effect). Yeah, but there are more women gamers these days than ever before, so appealing solely to men is really short-sighted and disappointing. Especially since most AAA developers can easily afford to take chances with this sort of thing. Would less people have really bought GTA5 if one of the three playable characters was a woman?
|
|