I've got no dog in this race, I really don't know anything about her beyond her kickstarter. However, I'm not gonna give the time of day to some random dude who can't seem to figure out the difference between a physical real-life woman who chooses to be a sex worker and a pretend cartoon videogame character who doesn't get to decide what flavor of bondage gear she's dressed up in because she's a pretend cartoon videogame character. Saying that the latter is a problem, because it's endemic, and the former isn't, because it's a real human being making a choice, should not even be in question. Yet, it's pretty much this guy's whole point, masked under the phrase "sex positive", of which he doesn't really seem to understand the meaning. Real girl = cartoon girl, so whatever cartoon girls do that real girls do must be okay, ergo Sarkeesian is wrong. I ridiculed him with good reason, I think, considering his message was "undressing a Bayonetta ad made of post-it notes isn't creepy because when people have consensual sex they get undressed too!"
I mean, how do you respond to that.
Naming his first video "the college graduate" leaves a bad taste in my mouth, because it reeks of this 'eww, higher learning!' mentality, which always slinks its way into these discussions. This can be further seen in like the first minute of the video when he's like "SHE REFERENCES THINGS FOR HER PAPERS" which, um... is a substantial part of most college papers, to my knowledge.
So while I don't know anything about Sarkeesian, I do know quite a bit about this d-bag, because I've seen his archetype in every thread on any sort of marginalization since the internet was born.
I won't act like he wasn't an idiot and didn't need an editor, but I think he's a little bit above your average sexist d-bag. I will say that the problem with female characters in media at large (I don't think I've played enough video games to weigh in on them alone) isn't that those characters don't get choices, but rather that they aren't contrasted with other better characters enough. For example, in Daria, Britney, Stacey, Tiffany et al are astoundingly stupid (sometimes to the point of the Shakespearean fool), but the show isn't sexist because they star along side Daria, Jane, and Jodie. Similarly, I don't have a problem with exploitation if men present are equally exploited. The problem is with the double standard, not the low brow.
I didn't know anything about Sarkeesian prior to this thread. Having now seen two of her videos out of (slightly masochistic) curiosity, I can safely say that I don't like how she tries to fit all characters and media into boxes. It's the same reason I don't spend more than 10 minutes on TV Tropes. She approaches art analysis like math. Sure, often it is that simple (the works of Roland Emmerich spring to mind), but in most art worth discussing the characters will be more complex than that.
You chose to call out one point out of many presented, which is fine if you want to score points, but does little to advance the conversation. Did you ignore the part where in the next sentence she was in favor for gender-based segregation on subway cars? That's a far more unreasonable position in my opinion and something I'm surprised you easily ignored.
Besides, the far more salient point is specifically how Sarkeesian handled the whole internet hate army. It is a bit disingenuous to decry hate speech and the vileness of comments on your videos, when you leave them open and unmoderated (as opposed to previous standards of her videos) specifically to generate more revenue and media buzz. True, this shouldn't be a problem to begin with and definitely needs to be addressed, but I do think that she had the tools and ability to silence those hateful people but chose not to. And while I have no issue where people put their money, I just don't think she deserved as much as she did (her original Tropes vs. Woman videos weren't exactly convincing and I think there are probably far better feminist thinkers to donate to).
As for the references bit, there is a difference between citing a source and copying whole paragraphs into your paper.
Blindly dismissing everything just because it's critical of a semi-popular feminist is close minded and I don't think that we should take everything that they say as gospel just because it's "lol internet". Criticizing someone shouldn't automatically make them a sexist d-bag just because you disagree with them.
Notably, I wouldn't mind all the other stuff if there was quality content. I don't agree with everything Movie Bob or James Portnow says, but I watch a lot of the content they create.
Besides, the far more salient point is specifically how Sarkeesian handled the whole internet hate army. It is a bit disingenuous to decry hate speech and the vileness of comments on your videos, when you leave them open and unmoderated (as opposed to previous standards of her videos) specifically to generate more revenue and media buzz.
I said this elsewhere, but to copy and paste it here -
Holy shit. I just realized something - What if the project was never really about the games at all, but rather prevailing hateful attitudes and misogyny in the community, and this is all part of the research, and the part about the games themselves is just a honey-pot to draw in the worst of the community, to catch them behaving at their worst, and in a trivially recordable fashion?
Unlikely as it is - ie, extremely - if that turned out to be what's happening, it would be absolutely fucking amazing.
That would be interesting and clever even, but it has one problem. It wouldn't be the thing that people backed up in Kickstarter. I would assume that most people who back stuff up in Kickstarter except that the money is used for the promiced project instead of being used in different project.
That would be interesting and clever even, but it has one problem. It wouldn't be the thing that people backed up in Kickstarter. I would assume that most people who back stuff up in Kickstarter except that the money is used for the promised project instead of being used in different project.
Well, I'd say that a lot of people on the kickstarter would view it as an acceptable change of focus - don't forget, a lot of people backed it not because it was about video games, but either because it was about feminism, or because she was being harassed so badly, or both. But, like I said, it's extremely unlikely.
You chose to call out one point out of many presented, which is fine if you want to score points, but does little to advance the conversation. Did you ignore the part where in the next sentence she was in favor for gender-based segregation on subway cars? That's a far more unreasonable position in my opinion and something I'm surprised you easily ignored.
By my count I've responded to three or four of his points at least. How many is enough? Five? Ten? A billion?
What's the issue with gender segregated subway cars? That it might hurt dude's feelings? It's a cumbersome solution, sure. There could be a better one. In ideal situations we don't hurt anyone's feelings, but if the cost of protecting people's physical dignity is hurting some dude's feelings, I don't see that as a criminal offense.
So he says she was a bit liberal with her quotations on her college paper. Not that she plagiarized, but that she wrote a quote-heavy paper. Yeah, so did all of us in college, probably, but we're not being raked over the coals about it. He says she's hypocritical with her Youtube moderation. Which, at worst, means she's opportunistic. Yeah? So's everyone. She didn't manufacture the controversy. She didn't call up a guy in Sault Ste. Marie and ask him to make a flash game where you pummel her face until it's black-eyed and bloody. But OMG SHE DIDN'T MODERATE HER YOUTUBE COMMENTS THIS TIME, THROW HER IN JAIL.
"Also, this OTHER feminist I picked out says she sucks. I don't really provide a lot of context for this supposed sex-negativity on her part, I just say she has it." This is roughly equivalent to saying "my girlfriend isn't bothered by the costumes in Dead or Alive, so why is anyone?"
It's not just about one person. It's not even just about one person when that person is Anita Sarkeesian.
All this guy's points basically boil down to: "but she's not perfect!" "Well, yeah," responds the internet, "We know that. Who is?" to which he replies "But she's not PERFECT. Look at this stuff she did [none of it's really incriminating, I mean, but some of it's KIND, SORT OF lame]! It's not PERFECT." If this guy brought this same level of evidence, but he was making a 9/11 Truther video, which is basically the tone his video takes, we would laugh him off the internet.
And in your eyes that's "forwarding the conversation?"
What's the issue with gender segregated subway cars? That it might hurt dude's feelings? It's a cumbersome solution, sure. There could be a better one. In ideal situations we don't hurt anyone's feelings, but if the cost of protecting people's physical dignity is hurting some dude's feelings, I don't see that as a criminal offense.
Seriously? I'm pretty sure this is the exact same argument used to maintain race based segregation in the early 20th century. I mean, it's for the black's own good that they are put into a separate car. Otherwise they might have to deal with racists on a daily basis on their way to work and that's just unacceptable.
Oh yeah, I forgot the part where gender-segregated trains in Japan are mandatory in their use, enforced by the government (they are, in fact, not enforced by anyone, I Just found by googling), and held up by a centuries-long tradition of oppression. We should probably remove other sex-segregated things like changing rooms and bathrooms too, just in case someone else wanders by with another false analogy in their pocket.
Also, where's your "YOU ONLY REPLIED TO ONE POIINT OGMGGOGMGG," now?
To play devils advocate, hate crimes weren't being committed in copious amounts daily on said cars. Japanese women do need better protection from gropers, but segregation isn't it.
I should make a note here, for clarity's sake - my skepticism and doubt over the project are of a practical nature, rather than a philosophical difference with Ms Sarkeesian or the content of her work.
I refuse to judge the series at this time, because at this time, it doesn't exist to be judged as a series. Looking at her past work, I can see that I may have some problems with it on a factual level, but I feel it foolish to judge the yet-to-be-made project by that, in light of the facts that people learn and grow over time, and that she's only contributing one-third of the work, and the other two people are unknown to me at this time.
I don't entirely agree or disagree with Andrew or Dave. I merely stand elsewhere on the issue.
Yeah, I can agree with that. I'll reform my opinion when she actually releases her series. It just wasn't clear to me that she was the right person to approach the issue. Whether or not she's "perfect", it's gotten to the point where she has the clout to form public perception on the issues and I might not agree with some of her solutions.
Yeah, I can agree with that. I'll reform my opinion when she actually releases her series. It just wasn't clear to me that she was the right person to approach the issue. Whether or not she's "perfect", it's gotten to the point where she has the clout to form public perception on the issues and I might not agree with some of her solutions.
Entirely fair. I agree she might not be the right person for tackling this, but hey, I'm still interested to see what results when she has a crack at it.
And naturally, regardless of the project's content, you're right, it's getting to the point that she's got some serious clout, ironically, mostly because of the bullies and bastards that have been attacking her as hard as they can in an unjustifiable way - of course, I leave room for actual critique, since ideas should be challenged - and yeah, disagreeing with her on some points and proposed solutions is perfectly fine. I'm just clarifying my position, so that nobody is mistaken about where I stand.
A few people might be interested in a chrome extension I'm developing to keep track of all the kickstarter projects I've backed. Currently it's just grabbing your list of projects and generating some simple stats on it; Eventual goal is to help you figure out what has and hasn't shipped, and provide a pretty interface to see your outstanding pledges.
I'm not sure if this has been mentioned here or not, but Guilds of Cadwallon by CoolMiniOrNot is ending in 6 days. For $25, you get the base game, 4 extra guilds, and a bunch of other stuff. This looks like a great, fun, light multiplayer card game.
Comments
I didn't know anything about Sarkeesian prior to this thread. Having now seen two of her videos out of (slightly masochistic) curiosity, I can safely say that I don't like how she tries to fit all characters and media into boxes. It's the same reason I don't spend more than 10 minutes on TV Tropes. She approaches art analysis like math. Sure, often it is that simple (the works of Roland Emmerich spring to mind), but in most art worth discussing the characters will be more complex than that.
Besides, the far more salient point is specifically how Sarkeesian handled the whole internet hate army. It is a bit disingenuous to decry hate speech and the vileness of comments on your videos, when you leave them open and unmoderated (as opposed to previous standards of her videos) specifically to generate more revenue and media buzz. True, this shouldn't be a problem to begin with and definitely needs to be addressed, but I do think that she had the tools and ability to silence those hateful people but chose not to. And while I have no issue where people put their money, I just don't think she deserved as much as she did (her original Tropes vs. Woman videos weren't exactly convincing and I think there are probably far better feminist thinkers to donate to).
As for the references bit, there is a difference between citing a source and copying whole paragraphs into your paper.
Blindly dismissing everything just because it's critical of a semi-popular feminist is close minded and I don't think that we should take everything that they say as gospel just because it's "lol internet". Criticizing someone shouldn't automatically make them a sexist d-bag just because you disagree with them.
What's the issue with gender segregated subway cars? That it might hurt dude's feelings? It's a cumbersome solution, sure. There could be a better one. In ideal situations we don't hurt anyone's feelings, but if the cost of protecting people's physical dignity is hurting some dude's feelings, I don't see that as a criminal offense.
So he says she was a bit liberal with her quotations on her college paper. Not that she plagiarized, but that she wrote a quote-heavy paper. Yeah, so did all of us in college, probably, but we're not being raked over the coals about it. He says she's hypocritical with her Youtube moderation. Which, at worst, means she's opportunistic. Yeah? So's everyone. She didn't manufacture the controversy. She didn't call up a guy in Sault Ste. Marie and ask him to make a flash game where you pummel her face until it's black-eyed and bloody. But OMG SHE DIDN'T MODERATE HER YOUTUBE COMMENTS THIS TIME, THROW HER IN JAIL.
"Also, this OTHER feminist I picked out says she sucks. I don't really provide a lot of context for this supposed sex-negativity on her part, I just say she has it." This is roughly equivalent to saying "my girlfriend isn't bothered by the costumes in Dead or Alive, so why is anyone?"
It's not just about one person. It's not even just about one person when that person is Anita Sarkeesian.
All this guy's points basically boil down to: "but she's not perfect!" "Well, yeah," responds the internet, "We know that. Who is?" to which he replies "But she's not PERFECT. Look at this stuff she did [none of it's really incriminating, I mean, but some of it's KIND, SORT OF lame]! It's not PERFECT." If this guy brought this same level of evidence, but he was making a 9/11 Truther video, which is basically the tone his video takes, we would laugh him off the internet.
And in your eyes that's "forwarding the conversation?"
Also, where's your "YOU ONLY REPLIED TO ONE POIINT OGMGGOGMGG," now?
I refuse to judge the series at this time, because at this time, it doesn't exist to be judged as a series. Looking at her past work, I can see that I may have some problems with it on a factual level, but I feel it foolish to judge the yet-to-be-made project by that, in light of the facts that people learn and grow over time, and that she's only contributing one-third of the work, and the other two people are unknown to me at this time.
I don't entirely agree or disagree with Andrew or Dave. I merely stand elsewhere on the issue.
And naturally, regardless of the project's content, you're right, it's getting to the point that she's got some serious clout, ironically, mostly because of the bullies and bastards that have been attacking her as hard as they can in an unjustifiable way - of course, I leave room for actual critique, since ideas should be challenged - and yeah, disagreeing with her on some points and proposed solutions is perfectly fine. I'm just clarifying my position, so that nobody is mistaken about where I stand.
(please feel free to read my previous posts in monotone, if you prefer
Also visit this site.
Got in on the early bird special for $9. I need something to wrap my earbuds around. I want it now!
This looks cool. I think I'm gonna back this. Although non Seattle people probably won't be interested.
I'm in at the trillion dollar level...