-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Tropes vs Women author Sarkeesian vacates home following online threats
- Thread starter maxcriden
- Start date
- Status
foobarry81
Member
Do you really believe academics never get death threats?
This has nothing to do with a community being childish. There are just a good deal of nutcases out there who will explode at the least occurrence they perceive as utterly wrong and provocative.
Edit: also you can't really compare the nature of an academic feminist critique with the more provocative approach of Sarkeesian. The academic's intention is usually to start an intellectual debate, whereas Sarkeesian is rather out to raise awareness and to shock people until they grow a conscience.
Um. Quite a lot. Because it really changes the landscape of the discussion. If you ignore the neutral games, then you're presenting a world where the vast majority of games are negative. If you don't ignore them, then you're presenting a world where a minority of games are negative. Don't you think that's a substantial difference right there? And don't you think that one of these presentations is more honest than the other?
What you said last is absolutely true. Your first point, which I bolded, I have an issue with if that's an actual reference to Sarkeesian etc.
Art can absolutely handle 'agendas' because good art is provoking, or at least thought-provoking and not in any sense 'neutral'. Censorship and oppression I'm not seeing. Sarkeesian is doing critique, even if some would argue it's not a very deep critique. Books, movies, comic books, high art, they all can handle being critiqued very harshly, and the same needs to be applied to games.
How about if one is experiencing a problem (and acknowledges its existence), but chooses not to act? Or chooses to root out individual weeds of said problem, rather than burning the whole garden (like the poster near the end of the previous page was getting at)?
In a lot of cases, yes, those are probably very real reasons.
To be more specific, I think a lot of modern devs are plagued with lazy imagination, or are simply following trends because that's how you "do" gritty in a game world.
I agree about differenciating between mechanics and aesthetics. You do need to make it clear whether you're analysing a "fairly accurate portrayal" or a "straight up simulator". In the case of RDR, it's unfortunate because playing cowboy has always been a male fantasy, and the period it's set in is characteristic of what we'd consider extremely problematic in (western) society today.
Here, it comes down to how tastefully the subject matter is handled, which I suppose could become a question of... taste. It becomes harder and harder to draw the line.
Edit: Although yes, not making a show of it with trophies is a good start
Interesting perspective on the inherent capitalistic and industrial consumption of the gamer identity and the problematic aspects of defining one's identity on which products you buy and consume.
levyjl1988
Banned
Her arguments with games and women are pretty strong. She's just wanting women to have equality with men. What's so hard about that?
Women are your mom, your girlfriend, your cousins, your family, your friends and should get equal treatment.
The world is quite messed up unfortunately. We're simply people. Perhaps the secluded warped peoples mind and they live in a tiny bubble failing to realize the outside world.
Women are your mom, your girlfriend, your cousins, your family, your friends and should get equal treatment.
The world is quite messed up unfortunately. We're simply people. Perhaps the secluded warped peoples mind and they live in a tiny bubble failing to realize the outside world.
Unfathomability
Neo Member
Is this now a thread for general discussion of the value of feminist critique of video games?
Anyway, my feelings on the whole situation:
It seems many people are more interested in arguing about Sarkeesian than about her message. In my mind, agenda, background or previous actions is irrelevant as long as the points made are solid. "Seperate the artist from the art" etc. To my mind Sarkeesian's points are solid.
To the point of "cherry-picking" or "only bad examples": If I have understood this correctly, her mission is not to present the general state of female representation in games. She is not a journalist with a responsibility to give every side equal time. She is participating in a debate on unfortunate (potentially harmful) representations of women in media, and trying to connect these to feminist theory.
To the point of misrepresentation of some games: the Hitman example is often mentioned. I would like to point out that her point does not emerge in the "badness" of a single example, but in the repeated perpetration of the same stereotype, form, representation. That is what a trope is, after all. There exist a "shorthand" for female representation in games, and often it is of a harmful nature. This point does ofcourse become legitimate if the majority of the examples are misrepresented.
To the point of equally bad representation of men: this might be true, but is not within the scope of the "Tropes vs. Women in video games"-series. It also does not disprove or invalidate Sarkeesian's points. If anything, it points out another thing that the industry might consider improving.
I hope that was understandable, english is not my first language.
Anyway, my feelings on the whole situation:
It seems many people are more interested in arguing about Sarkeesian than about her message. In my mind, agenda, background or previous actions is irrelevant as long as the points made are solid. "Seperate the artist from the art" etc. To my mind Sarkeesian's points are solid.
To the point of "cherry-picking" or "only bad examples": If I have understood this correctly, her mission is not to present the general state of female representation in games. She is not a journalist with a responsibility to give every side equal time. She is participating in a debate on unfortunate (potentially harmful) representations of women in media, and trying to connect these to feminist theory.
To the point of misrepresentation of some games: the Hitman example is often mentioned. I would like to point out that her point does not emerge in the "badness" of a single example, but in the repeated perpetration of the same stereotype, form, representation. That is what a trope is, after all. There exist a "shorthand" for female representation in games, and often it is of a harmful nature. This point does ofcourse become legitimate if the majority of the examples are misrepresented.
To the point of equally bad representation of men: this might be true, but is not within the scope of the "Tropes vs. Women in video games"-series. It also does not disprove or invalidate Sarkeesian's points. If anything, it points out another thing that the industry might consider improving.
I hope that was understandable, english is not my first language.
Calling Sarkesian out on her opinions is perfectly fine. People are allowed to debate and disagree.
When it rises to the level of threats of harm, it's obviously gone way too far.
The police are pretty terrible here. She should go to the FBI, which does handle cybercrimes and things of this nature.
When it rises to the level of threats of harm, it's obviously gone way too far.
The police are pretty terrible here. She should go to the FBI, which does handle cybercrimes and things of this nature.
From another of his articles on how a lot of this is intentionally manipulative regarding consumption politics:
Not talking about hypocricy, but these are some of the problems people have with Anita's work:
http://cowkitty.net/post/78808973663/you-stole-my-artwork-an-open-letter-to-anita
http://victorsopinion.blogspot.be/2013/07/anitas-sources.html
http://readwrite.com/2013/03/19/anita-sarkeesian-i-love-you-but-please-show-me-the-money (written by a woman btw)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropes_vs._Women_in_Video_Games#Crowdfunding_via_Kickstarter
She takes way too long to make these episodes, and they don't seem to justify the money that was given to her in any way, shape or form and she steals other people's work.
She also doesn't focus at all (correct me if i'm wrong) about positive examples of the women developers themselves, she never mentioned Amy Hennig, Corrine Yu or Roberta Williams, and completely ignores the recent TFYC, who do give these women attention:
https://www.youtube.com/user/FineYoungCapitalists
Not to mention, that a lot of people think that she isn't even a gamer, and people have a problem with people who don't care about their hobby, coming in and trying to change things for the sake of their ideology.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FW-69xXD734
A longer video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcPIu3sDkEw
Basically, a lot of people have no problem with her point of view, with her points and so on, people are just upset (and some take it to the extreme) that she seems like she doesn't care about video games at all, doesn't do her job properly, and she only talking about video games to either further her own agenda, or simply to make money.
plagiarize
Banned
I'll take these one at a time.
The criticism of her not properly crediting someone else for using their captured gameplay was valid. I believe she has apologized for it, and I believe she has not done it again.
The criticism that the videos don't justify the money she was given is completely irrelevant. She laid out what the videos would be and gave examples of her work. People paid her to do what she said she would. That lots of people were willing to chip in money to get that content doesn't mean she has to change the content, or to work to someone elses timeline. It just means that lots of people wanted to pay her to for the sort of content she was promising to make.
And she is delivering what she promised. This shouldn't be a point of contention.
Get used to reading this part. Anita laid out very clearly what videos she was going to make. The money she raised was all towards that goal. She isn't obligated to do anything other than what she promised, which was a series of videos focusing on the harmful portrayals of women found in many video games. She isn't obligated to talk about the small fraction of female programmers and designers in lead roles.
And those people are illogical. The criticisms are for the most part valid. Whether the person who raises them is a gamer or not is only relevant if you want an easy way to try to ignore the valid criticism. And you shouldn't want or need an easy way to ignore things which are genuinely wrong with gaming.
Can't she have a goal based on multiple aims? Can't she want to see games better represent women and make a living championing that cause? How does one invalidate the other?
Why are you talking about it as if she can only be for one or the other?
If you didn't kickstart her videos, you don't have any kind of a say in what sort of content she should be producing. You can critique her content. You can agree or disagree with it...
But no... she shouldn't be making something different. She owes the people who paid her all that money to make videos just like she is making. Because that's what they paid her to do.
That lots of people paid her to do it is MORE reason not to change her product, not less. And that she makes money on her videos? Good for her. Why shouldn't she be able to earn money from her work?
The criticism of her not properly crediting someone else for using their captured gameplay was valid. I believe she has apologized for it, and I believe she has not done it again.
The criticism that the videos don't justify the money she was given is completely irrelevant. She laid out what the videos would be and gave examples of her work. People paid her to do what she said she would. That lots of people were willing to chip in money to get that content doesn't mean she has to change the content, or to work to someone elses timeline. It just means that lots of people wanted to pay her to for the sort of content she was promising to make.
And she is delivering what she promised. This shouldn't be a point of contention.
Get used to reading this part. Anita laid out very clearly what videos she was going to make. The money she raised was all towards that goal. She isn't obligated to do anything other than what she promised, which was a series of videos focusing on the harmful portrayals of women found in many video games. She isn't obligated to talk about the small fraction of female programmers and designers in lead roles.
And those people are illogical. The criticisms are for the most part valid. Whether the person who raises them is a gamer or not is only relevant if you want an easy way to try to ignore the valid criticism. And you shouldn't want or need an easy way to ignore things which are genuinely wrong with gaming.
Can't she have a goal based on multiple aims? Can't she want to see games better represent women and make a living championing that cause? How does one invalidate the other?
Why are you talking about it as if she can only be for one or the other?
If you didn't kickstart her videos, you don't have any kind of a say in what sort of content she should be producing. You can critique her content. You can agree or disagree with it...
But no... she shouldn't be making something different. She owes the people who paid her all that money to make videos just like she is making. Because that's what they paid her to do.
That lots of people paid her to do it is MORE reason not to change her product, not less. And that she makes money on her videos? Good for her. Why shouldn't she be able to earn money from her work?
GeordieMark
Member
I don't have a problem if she doesn't at all care about games. Sometimes, an external perspective can be valuable. It doesn't make her points any less valid.
I can't comment on the time, or money arguments, other than to say her videos are pretty long and I'm sure a lot of work goes in to making each one.
Wait..
What does talking about female developers have to do with the scope of her project? That is a ridiculous criticism. It is saying she should talk about this totally different thing instead because......... because!
What she did with the money is none of your business either. She is producing what she said she would in the Kickstarter. Are you a backer? Just because some blog was written by a woman doesn't mean it is somehow more valid. So she is getting paid for her work. So what? This isn't a non-profit charity.
"She's not even a gamer!"
... Ugh... seriously that is what we're going to do?
These videos are having an effect. It is changing minds and having people look at themselves and ask questions. People like Joss Whedon back it. In gaming, Tim Shaefer, Neil Druckmann, Saints Row and Bioshock 2 people (sorry I forgot their names... I'm a bad person) and others are backing it or thinking about their previous works and what they may have done wrong.
So what would the detractors have happen? What do they want of this series? For it to stop? For her to change her scope and message to better suit your beliefs? For her to argue against herself?
What does talking about female developers have to do with the scope of her project? That is a ridiculous criticism. It is saying she should talk about this totally different thing instead because......... because!
What she did with the money is none of your business either. She is producing what she said she would in the Kickstarter. Are you a backer? Just because some blog was written by a woman doesn't mean it is somehow more valid. So she is getting paid for her work. So what? This isn't a non-profit charity.
"She's not even a gamer!"
... Ugh... seriously that is what we're going to do?
These videos are having an effect. It is changing minds and having people look at themselves and ask questions. People like Joss Whedon back it. In gaming, Tim Shaefer, Neil Druckmann, Saints Row and Bioshock 2 people (sorry I forgot their names... I'm a bad person) and others are backing it or thinking about their previous works and what they may have done wrong.
So what would the detractors have happen? What do they want of this series? For it to stop? For her to change her scope and message to better suit your beliefs? For her to argue against herself?
I only stated why a lot of people have a problem with Anita.
plagiarize
Banned
People's unreasonable demands on Anita do not reflect on Anita.
And I only stated why their reasons for it are ridiculous and they seem to just be looking for a way to undermine a good message for change in the industry because of their own ulterior motives. Perhaps that is not the case for everyone but throughout these threads I find it increasingly hard to believe people are arguing in good faith.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked