Support NeoGAF

[foobarry81]

Really? Why's that?

Her work has actually gotten objectively better than her earlier critiques. Funding can do that.

If she was to get into those big name academia circles, she might be able to do damage with her videos, but I don't think she's the type to play politics with a university.

At uni there is a bit more attention for actual numbers, for cold hard data. In her videos she basically shows a number of scenes from video games, which are at times taken out of context even. And she hardly ever explains the context. That's not a very scientific approach. Also a typical episode of Tropes vs Women consists of 90% examples where games are misogynistic and 10% of "games done right". There are a lot of games which are neither of both, but she doesn't give any attention at all (or at least very little) to those.

Not saying that there is no validity to what she's saying, but it's very easy to criticize and dismiss what she brings to the table. In science the aim is generally to leave as little room for discussion about your thesis as possible.

Anita is more of an activist rather than a scientist. Her aim is not really to research her thesis, but rather to showcase that she is right in her assessment of video games. And again: not saying that there is no validity to the examples she brings to the table.

 

[aeolist]

i'm honestly kind of impressed at how well people have managed to derail any meaningful conversation about the events of the last few weeks into an argument about how disadvantaged and persecuted "gamers" are

 

[JumpJeff84]

So now people are accusing her of lying about a totally 100% believable interaction with a police officer?

What the fuck people, c'mon!

 

[Foffy]

Maybe I'm too honest, but I can't say I disagree with them. I can easily imagine that police was like "kids today are so weird...why she doesn't get a real job". This way of thinking is very stupid, but that's how common people would react.
Also, her answer is even worse. It's important what? Videogames are just games. Who cares?

This is hilarious. There's a level of tragic humor that we've gotten to this point in our culture where people in ascribed positions of authority brush off the sincere concerns of someone who is reporting death threats. Led by the least among us, indeed.

I would argue what she was doing was unimportant, but only because I would say there are far more important things we ought to be doing in the name of equality beyond disposable entertainment like video games. Conversely, her work becomes important because people are giving her this much shit over video games. Like you said, they're just games, and the fact she's getting such a response just from games is a very striking, bewildering, and unfathomable situation. You would assume she's an undercover terrorist with this mess.

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

i'm honestly kind of impressed at how well people have managed to derail any meaningful conversation about the events of the last few weeks into an argument about how disadvantaged and persecuted "gamers" are

Do you feel that gamers are wrong to take issue with things like Leigh Alexander's editorial or the gamer in four words hashtag? Or do you just feel they should start separate threads to discuss those matters?

 

[Weltall Zero]

Also a typical episode of Tropes vs Women consists of 90% examples where games are misogynistic and 10% of "games done right". There are a lot of games which are neither of both, but she doesn't give any attention at all (or at least very little) to those.

What would that accomplish? Let's say that 70% of games are neither positive nor negative, 25% are negative and 5% are positive. What does accounting for the neutral 70% contribute to the discussion?

Honestly, if this logic is applied to anything else, I can't wait to see a paper on traffic-related deaths being dismissed because they didn't devote half of the pages to people that died of other causes, or that didn't die at all.

I just feel like it's yet another piece that isn't actually addressing anybody, whilst telling us all about how 'gamers' have been misbehaving like the petulant children we all know they are. I kinda feel like decomposing stereotypes are being dug up and paraded around the town as the 'real face' of gamers.

But it IS pretty specific as to whom he is addressing to:

if you really think feminism, or women, are destroying games, or that LGBT people and LGBT relationships have no place in games, or that games in any way belong to you or are “under attack” from political correctness or “social justice warriors”: please leave this website.

 

[Fudgepuppy]

Just a general question, but has feminism tremendously risen in the past couple of years?

I remember it being this somewhat "fringe opinion" not many people talked about, but now with social media, it's become a part of every discussion. My facebook-feed is almost nothing but articles, documentaries and debates about equality.

It's not bad, I think it's great, but what has re-ignited the fire?

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

Just a general question, but has feminism tremendously risen in the past couple of years?

I remember it being this somewhat "fringe opinion" not many people talked about, but now with social media, it's become a part of every discussion. My facebook-feed is almost nothing but articles, documentaries and debates about equalty?

It's not bad, I think it's great, but what has re-ignited the fire?

I think it's part and parcel of a broader societal trend to the left, especially among young people.

 

[chaosaeon]

So we will all be getting an update and a news story of the arrest of the individual who made these threats right ? Also, which police department was that last tweet referring to, I imagine the officer and the rest of the department would try to avoid her speaking about them. Why wouldn't she say who it was or which department so she can get proper attention called to it ? In fact, why is she not saying who's doing any of these things or what's actually becoming of any of this. No updates on the investigation after "authorities were notified" and no further information at all about this conversation with the police.

 

[udivision]

I don't see why people are jumping over the police officer. When we as gamers (whether as part of the media or not) are having trouble taking the industry seriously, how do you think it looks to an older person who problem doesn't know anything about games?

Just think of how it looks to a cop whose probably been called to a number of domestic violence instances, or robberies, or whatever they've seen in their work as a cop.

"What? You're getting death threats cuz you write about the latest Nintendo thingamajig? Why bother?"

Why would we expect someone who doesn't know or care much about the gaming industry to even be able to grasp the importance of Anita's work, much less understand the context?

But I don't know all the details. Maybe this cop knows as much about the situation as any random GAFfer for all I know, I just highly doubt it. It's waaaay too soon and there's waaay too little evidence to make a statement.

 

[Open Source]

Just a general question, but has feminism tremendously risen in the past couple of years?

I remember it being this somewhat "fringe opinion" not many people talked about, but now with social media, it's become a part of every discussion. My facebook-feed is almost nothing but articles, documentaries and debates about equality.

It's not bad, I think it's great, but what has re-ignited the fire?

Revving up the base for elections. Also a new excuse for smug moral superiority and spewing vitriol towards those who fail to toe the ever-moving line of Correct Thinking. Tribal warfare never goes out of style, but in the modern era, where we can't use religious beliefs as an accepted pretext, we have to do some Othering with political dogma instead.

 

[foobarry81]

What would that accomplish? Let's say that 70% of games are neither positive nor negative, 25% are negative and 5% are positive. What does accounting for the neutral 70% contribute to the discussion?

Well, if you had quoted the rest of what I said...

Anita's aim is to convince people. She's an activist. So to her the neutral 70% are irrelevant, since she wants to point at what she perceives as a big problem with video games.

But what I said was how I saw Anita as opposed to science. And to science the neutral 70% is extremely relevant, because (provided 70% would be an accurate number to begin with) it would show that tropes about women aren't all that widespread in games, but there is still about 1 out of 4 games that have them. A scientist could then research whether that number was higher in the past, and whether there is an evolution in the use of tropes in gaming. Something Anita to my knowledge doesn't do either. But something a scientist would typically find very relevant.

 

[Lionel Richie]

Just a general question, but has feminism tremendously risen in the past couple of years?

I remember it being this somewhat "fringe opinion" not many people talked about, but now with social media, it's become a part of every discussion. My facebook-feed is almost nothing but articles, documentaries and debates about equality.

It's not bad, I think it's great, but what has re-ignited the fire?

I wouldn't call what Sarkeesian does "feminism", she is a bit of a hypocrite who complain about a lot of non issues and is more akin to people who go to tumblr to state Kill la Kill glorifies rape.

She doesn't by any means deserve the hate she gets, but what she actually does is a disservice to women rights activism.

 

[staticneuron]

This is sad thinking to me. Voice and text chat is wretched in every game. It doesn't matter how innocuous it is. It doesn't matter if games didn't create the issues, because gamers themselves aren't doing anything about it. I want all of gaming to be a safe haven, not just something I have to create for myself with a curated friend list and game selection.

It may be sad but it is true. Those really are your only options as a gamer in most mo environments on consoles so when you turn around and say gamers aren't doing anything one must ask what do you expect gamers to do exactly other than what I mentioned? Even if you get obnoxious people banned, that doesn't stop them from creating another account to sign back in and be a pain in the society once again.

You're going too deep into assuming you know better based on your own context clues when the conversation is really just "gamers are generally pretty awful to her right now" which isn't an inaccurate thing to say.

Which again I pointed out was a really general statement. And one that includes a term used to describe millions of people when it is only a few who are doing this.

So gamer culture doesn't exist for you. Fine, I'll accept that.
Then why turn around care what Leigh Alexander says on the subject at all, if she's talking about something that isn't real? You're giving an awful lot of fucks for something you perceive as non-existent.

I was specifically referring to the quote in witch you mention the "negative aspects of the subculture" which I refute exist not that gaming culture as a whole exists. Which again you have responded without detailing a method of how to identify these bad elements and police them. Should I assume that you do not have a method? If so, that would make your complaints about the gaming culture pretty hollow.

 

[moondoggerr]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/02/w...n-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0


Not entirely unrelated article about police indifference to child abuse in an English city.
A 12 year old girls complaints about repeated rapes were dismissed because, according to the police,"it was her lifestyle choice."

I'm not saying its the same as Anita's situation. I'm saying, lets not act as if she made it up when things like this happen all the time.

 

[moondoggerr]

I don't see why people are jumping over the police officer. When we as gamers (whether as part of the media or not) are having trouble taking the industry seriously, how do you think it looks to an older person who problem doesn't know anything about games?

Just think of how it looks to a cop whose probably been called to a number of domestic violence instances, or robberies, or whatever they've seen in their work as a cop.

"What? You're getting death threats cuz you write about the latest Nintendo thingamajig? Why bother?"

Why would we expect someone who doesn't know or care much about the gaming industry to even be able to grasp the importance of Anita's work, much less understand the context?

But I don't know all the details. Maybe this cop knows as much about the situation as any random GAFfer for all I know, I just highly doubt it. It's waaaay too soon and there's waaay too little evidence to make a statement.

I guess my response is, why does the context matter if someone's life is being threatened?

 

[Moon_frogger]

Right or wrong, she's gonna have to get more than just threats on twitter before the police start taking her seriously.
Just so we're clear I think it's wrong!

 

[way more]

Her work is hardly at the level of a upper grad, Ivy league student who is arguing for his doctorate.

 

[Galactic Fork]

I wouldn't call what Sarkeesian does "feminism", she is a bit of a hypocrite who complain about a lot of non issues and is more akin to people who go to tumblr to state Kill la Kill glorifies rape.

She doesn't by any means deserve the hate she gets, but what she actually does is a disservice to women rights activism.

OK, I'll bite. How is she a hypocrite? And what specifically in your opinion are the "non-issues" she is complaining about?

 

[Demigod Mac]

If I were a cop I this would give me an idea for a honeypot / sting operation.
One way to clean up the internet...

 

[Xenon]

So now people are accusing her of lying about a totally 100% believable interaction with a police officer?

What the fuck people, c'mon!

It's been my experience that people filter things based on their perspective. Maybe this is a accurate account of what was said but there is a good chance she is exaggerating things a bit or leaving out things for the sake of making a dramatic point. People acting like this is truth fact are just as ignorant of the what really went happened as those who are saying she is lying. It all boils down to how much respect you have for her.

 

[neurosisxeno]

I find it interesting that when Sarkeesian is harassed on the Internet for criticizing certain games it's the Gaming Communtiy that gets blamed, but when someone gets harassed in other fields it's just the Internet being scumbags. I personally think it's the equivalent of extremists within the gaming community, not indicative of the opinions of the majority.

 

[mooksoup]

It's quite interesting how many times I've heard repeated:

"She doesn't deserve death threats, but..."
"Those threatening rape should be locked up, however..."
"No one should be harassed, though..."

before going on to excuse and contribute to the toxic atmosphere, and give vague, baseless reasons for the amount of harassment she receives.
You don't think she should get death threats? how NOBLE of you.

She doesn't by any means deserve the hate she gets, but what she actually does is a disservice to women rights activism.

How is what she is doing a disservice to women's right's activism? She is starting a conversation, about female representation in a popular medium.
These conversations are how real people work towards better things. This is how it works.
Are you able to elaborate on why this conversation is damaging to women's rights? Is feminist activism an area you have experience in and are able to help explain your opinion on her to me? Because as far as i can see, what she is doing is an important step in improving Gaming culture.

 

[Moon_frogger]

I find it interesting that when Sarkeesian is harassed on the Internet for criticizing certain games it's the Gaming Communtiy that gets blamed, but when someone gets harassed in other fields it's just the Internet being scumbags. I personally think it's the equivalent of extremists within the gaming community, not indicative of the opinions of the majority.

yup yup yup

 

[udivision]

I guess my response is, why does the context matter if someone's life is being threatened?

What does this have to do with police indifference? The officer just asked a question, that's all we know. It's not like the officer said "I'm not going to help next time," or something.

Context certainly matters if the threats can be stopped. Sadly, in this case it doesn't seem like so, but how would we expect someone who may not know or care much about games to go "Well, keep up the good fight?" if they don't really know or can't appreciate what you're fighting for?

 

[unbias]

How is what she is doing a disservice to women's right's activism? She is starting a conversation, about female representation in a popular medium.
These conversations are how real people work towards better things. This is how it works.
Are you able to elaborate on why this conversation is damaging to women's rights? Is feminist activism an area you have experience in and are able to help explain your opinion on her to me? Because as far as i can see, what she is doing is an important step in improving Gaming culture.

I think this is more of what I was talking about, when I said "baby in the bath water". I don't like L, L is talking about W, X, Y, and Z; I disagree with Y, Z, and X, and because of this, I don't care about W.

 

[Terrell]

I think this is more of what I was talking about, when I said "baby in the bath water". I don't like L, L is talking about W, X, Y, and Z; I disagree with Y, Z, and X, and because of this, I don't care about W.

Whoa man, lay off the alphabet, it's not making your point any clearer.

 

[unbias]

Whoa man, lay off the alphabet, it's not making your point any clearer.

If that is in any way confusing... Welp, no comment on what I think about that.

 

[Deleted member 126221]

If that is in any way confusing... Welp, no comment on what I think about that.

It's very confusing.

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

It's very confusing.

I don't like L.

L advocates W, X, Y, and Z.

Remember that I don't like L.

I also disagree with X, Y, and Z.

W might actually be a good point though.

But that doesn't matter, because I don't like L and I disagree with X, Y, and Z, so I'm just going to disagree with W too.

 

[Lionel Richie]

How is what she is doing a disservice to women's right's activism? She is starting a conversation, about female representation in a popular medium.
These conversations are how real people work towards better things. This is how it works.
Are you able to elaborate on why this conversation is damaging to women's rights? Is feminist activism an area you have experience in and are able to help explain your opinion on her to me? Because as far as i can see, what she is doing is an important step in improving Gaming culture.

She uses poor rhetoric about a notoriously male oriented medium that actually has strong female representation, which she ignores, and a lot of her points derive from "well, that happened to me" and empirical evidence is not the greatest argument per se.

Oh, and she doesn't start a conversation because she is extremely heavy handed and feeds on the hate she gets it seems. Also, this link sums up a lot on how I feel.

You guys can disagree with me. I actually think she's trying to pass a very much valid message, but not nearly as appropriately as she should. The fact that she got a big personality because of it is why I think is a disservice to women's right activism. It should never be about a person's issue, but about an issue. Along the way it got distorted.

EDIT: I forgot one thing: yes, this is a sensible matter for me because my girlfriend is very much the definition of a feminist and she actually got me interested in it.

 

[moondoggerr]

What does this have to do with police indifference? The officer just asked a question, that's all we know. It's not like the officer said "I'm not going to help next time," or something.

Context certainly matters if the threats can be stopped. Sadly, in this case it doesn't seem like so, but how would we expect someone who may not know or care much about games to go "Well, keep up the good fight?" if they don't really know or can't appreciate what you're fighting for?

I don't expect anyone to say, "keep up the good fight." I expect police to say, "here are practical steps for safety, here's what we can do to help you" regardless of whether the threat came as a result of a drunken brawl about lawn furniture, a spiteful disagreement about a poker game, or yeah, a video series about Mario and Luigi.

 

[ibyea]

She uses poor rhetoric about a notoriously male oriented medium that actually has strong female representation, which she ignores, and a lot of her points derive from "well, that happened to me" and empirical evidence is not the greatest argument per se.

Oh, and she doesn't start a conversation because she is extremely heavy handed and feeds on the hate she gets it seems. Also, this link sums up a lot on how I feel.

You guys can disagree with me. I actually think she's trying to pass a very much valid message, but not nearly as appropriately as she should. The fact that she got a big personality because of it is why I think is a disservice to women's right activism. It should never be about a person's issue, but about an issue. Along the way it got distorted.

EDIT: I forgot one thing: yes, this is a sensible matter for me because my girlfriend is very much the definition of a feminist and she actually got me interested in it.

Can you elaborate what are some of the poor arguments she uses? Has she ever said there no good female representations at all in videogames? And what was she arguing about when she used the phrase "this happened to me"? How is using empirical evidence bad argument?

Also, calling her heavy handed and saying she feeds on hate is just ad hominem that serves to do nothing but attack the person instead of her arguments. Not to mention you never connect the dot on how the fact she is famous due to the trolls making a big deal out of her kickstarter distort any arguments she made, or how that goes against the goal of feminism.

 

[ibyea]

People keep bringing up as if the only problem is those extreme minorities of gamers. But when a thread about Sarkeesian vacating her home due to threats is, half the time, met with comments doubting her motive or making a defensive aside, it is hard to not think that there is a problem with the community even among the non extremist people.

 

[B-Genius]

And what was she arguing about when she used the phrase "this happened to me"? How is using empirical evidence bad argument?

Sorry to butt in, but to be fair, whenever members of the "gaming culture defence force" use empirical evidence as justification, they always seem to get brutally shot down by the more passionate "there is a problem even if you can't see it" folk.

I'm talking about people who say things like:
"My girlfriend/wife/friends love [type of game] and they don't mind [topic]."

"I know strong, intelligent women that work in the industry who think [topic] is stupid and deviating from the wider issue."

 

[Morrigan Stark]

She uses poor rhetoric about a notoriously male oriented medium that actually has strong female representation

Um no. It really doesn't. A handful of examples does not invalidate the rest of the terrible representation.

which she ignores,

What do you mean? She won't talk about the Boss because that's not an example of the tropes she points out, but the existence of the Boss does not make the shitty representation go away. It wouldn't be a problem if it weren't so one-sided in gender representation.

and a lot of her points derive from "well, that happened to me"

Er, what? "Derive"?

and empirical evidence is not the greatest argument per se.

Now you've truly lost me. D

Oh, and she doesn't start a conversation because she is extremely heavy handed and feeds on the hate she gets it seems.

How does she "feed"? By exposing it? Should she just remain silent about that hate? Explain yourself.

You guys can disagree with me. I actually think she's trying to pass a very much valid message, but not nearly as appropriately as she should.

What would be an "appropriate way" to pass that message? (That kinda sounds like tone policing, but who knows what you really mean...)

The fact that she got a big personality because of it is why I think is a disservice to women's right activism. It should never be about a person's issue, but about an issue. Along the way it got distorted.

And this is her fault, how?

 

[foobarry81]

How is using empirical evidence bad argument?

Empirical evidence is only truly meaningful if you use it within its context. If you show a few scenes from 10 games where women are used as background decoration, that only really shows that .... there are (at least) 10 games that use women as background decoration. Which could point to a larger problem, but it would only be an indication of said problem at best. It doesn't really say anything about video games as a medium in general.

If you would want to draw conclusions about the medium as a whole, you'd have to either play every single game ever released and see how many times this occurs. Or draw a random sample of say 100 or 1000 games, and see how many of those are misogynistic. And you could take that further and see for example how many seconds on average the average gamer is exposed to misogyny when playing his or her games. You could then compare that to how much that person is exposed to misogyny when using other media or in society at large. Or you could interview gamers before and after they played games you deem misogynistic and see how their stance against women has changed after playing these games. That kind of data would actually allow you to draw scientific conclusions about video games as a medium, and whether it's actually as bad as what a hand picked selection of scenes from some of the more violent and/or controversial games showcases.

(Let me make it clear that with the above I'm not out to minimize (or blow up, depending on how you want to interpret it) the presence of misogyny in video games, just as much as I'm not trying to minimize its presence in society. I'm trying to explain how a scientist would/could tackle the issue as opposed to how Anita Sarkeesian does it.)

Empirical evidence as such is not a bad argument, but the way it's presented can turn it into a bad/not so valid argument.

But I don't think it's Anita's aim to actually open a discussion on the matter. I think her main aim is to convince people of her beliefs.

Apart from that, I have to say that I don't get why a good deal of 'gamers' seem to take this so personal. To my knowledge Anita doesn't say anything about people who play any of the games she tackles. Yet, they seem to feel offended by her videos.

 

[B-Genius]

If you would want to draw conclusions about the medium as a whole, you'd have to either play every single game ever released and see how many times this occurs. Or draw a random sample of say 100 or 1000 games, and see how many of those are misogynistic. And you could take that further and see for example how many seconds on average the average gamer is exposed to misogyny when playing his or her games. You could then compare that to how much that person is exposed to misogyny when using other media or in society at large. That kind of data would actually allow you to draw scientific conclusions about video games as a medium, and whether it's actually as bad as what a hand picked selection of scenes from some of the more violent and/or controversial games showcases.

Interesting, but it's so hard to quantify in games, where the player is in control most of the time.

By "exposed to misogyny" do you mean the amount of time/scope we have to conduct misogynistic acts, or literally shown a cutscene where they're occurring?

For example, in the latest video she shows (in several games) the protagonist lingering and doing nothing while a female NPC gets attacked.
This is great for driving in the point - female characters existing purely to fuel a gritty depiction of the gameworld - but in actuality these scenes will play out differently depending on the player's level of engagement. I would argue that it's difficult to scientifically analyse the "sample" when so many peoples' experiences have the potential to be different.

 

[foobarry81]

Interesting, but it's so hard to quantify in games, where the player is in control most of the time.

By "exposed to misogyny" do you mean the amount of time/scope we have to conduct misogynistic acts, or literally shown a cutscene where they're occurring?

For example, in the latest video she shows (in several games) the protagonist lingering and doing nothing while a female NPC gets attacked.
This is great for driving in the point - female characters existing purely to fuel a gritty depiction of the gameworld - but in actuality these scenes will play out differently depending on the player's level of engagement. I would argue that it's difficult to scientifically analyse the "sample" when so many peoples' experiences have the potential to be different.

Yeah, sorry, that's why I edited my post and added the part about the "before and after" interviews, which would be less of an approach-by-numbers.

"Exposed to misogyny"... well, I guess that is open for discussion. I'm assuming there are scientific tools to measure 'exposure to something' and depending on those you'd either have to withcount conducting acts and/or showing cutscenes.

There is social psychology theory about how people help or don't help other people when they see them in distress. Turns out a lot of people don't help out at all, and even ignore the problem. And this is in real life! So it would make sense that some/many gamers would have their game character do nothing and see what happens instead. So, that could even be considered an accurate presentation of real life. Not necessarily just a gratuitous way of getting the player emotionally involved. Before you draw such conclusions you could always go and interview the director of the video game, btw, and see why he or she effectively put the mechanic in the game.

That's another thing I'm missing in what I've seen from Sarkeesian's work, btw. She doesn't interview the creators. It would be meaningful to know why video game creators add some of these mechanics or events or cutscenes into their games. Rather than drawing a quick conclusion that they're only in there "purely to fuel a gritty depiction of the game world", as you said.

Edit: and I agree with you on that the player's level of engagement can greatly influence the experience. But that goes for anything. You can also watch a misogynistic movie while playing Flappy Bird in your comfy couch, so to speak. A scientist would try to filter out those circumstantial elements as much as possible when gathering data. Or change his approach. I'm not researching this topic, so I wouldn't know what would be the best approach.

 

[ibyea]

Empirical evidence is only truly meaningful if you use it within its context. If you show a few scenes from 10 games where women are used as background decoration, that only really shows that .... there are (at least) 10 games that use women as background decoration. Which could point to a larger problem, but it would only be an indication of said problem at best. It doesn't really say anything about video games as a medium in general.

If you would want to draw conclusions about the medium as a whole, you'd have to either play every single game ever released and see how many times this occurs. Or draw a random sample of say 100 or 1000 games, and see how many of those are misogynistic. And you could take that further and see for example how many seconds on average the average gamer is exposed to misogyny when playing his or her games. You could then compare that to how much that person is exposed to misogyny when using other media or in society at large. Or you could interview gamers before and after they played games you deem misogynistic and see how their stance against women has changed after playing these games. That kind of data would actually allow you to draw scientific conclusions about video games as a medium, and whether it's actually as bad as what a hand picked selection of scenes from some of the more violent and/or controversial games showcases.

(Let me make it clear that with the above I'm not out to minimize (or blow up, depending on how you want to interpret it) the presence of misogyny in video games, just as much as I'm not trying to minimize its presence in society. I'm trying to explain how a scientist would/could tackle the issue as opposed to how Anita Sarkeesian does it.)

Empirical evidence as such is not a bad argument, but the way it's presented can turn it into a bad/not so valid argument.

But I don't think it's Anita's aim to actually open a discussion on the matter. I think her main aim is to convince people of her beliefs.

Apart from that, I have to say that I don't get why a good deal of 'gamers' seem to take this so personal. To my knowledge Anita doesn't say anything about people who play any of the games she tackles. Yet, they seem to feel offended by her videos.

I get that. It's not a scientific analysis. But the aim of the video was never a rigorous scientific analysis. Her aim is more to show how prevalent those tropes are for a general audience kind of thing, and at the very least point out that those tropes exist. Let's put it this way. A lot of science shows summarize the facts instead of doing rigorous analysis because the aim is for an easily digestible and engaging kind of thing. In the same way, the way I see her videos is feminist critique 101 for general audiences. And she shows enough examples over the course of many videos that her claims are plausible, and are used too often in popular major AAA releases. And of course, things like princesses being kidnapped is not bad by itself. It's the prevalence and lack of other types of representation that is the problem.

 

[Calabi]

I find it interesting that when Sarkeesian is harassed on the Internet for criticizing certain games it's the Gaming Communtiy that gets blamed, but when someone gets harassed in other fields it's just the Internet being scumbags. I personally think it's the equivalent of extremists within the gaming community, not indicative of the opinions of the majority.

I dont know it seems like a lot of people are upvoting video's criticizing Sarkeesian. And when websites post something about feminism or mention Sarkeesian or quinn, then alot of negative comments get posted and upvoted.

Its really depressing it seems like a large proportion of the gaming community are I dont know what to call them without getting banned, "manchildren?". They feel so personally threatened by these women its crazy. It makes me want to get out of gaming, I certainly dont want to play any multiplayer games with these people.

 

[foobarry81]

I get that. It's not a scientific analysis. But the aim of the video was never a rigorous scientific analysis. Her aim is more to show how prevalent those tropes are for a general audience kind of thing, and at the very least point out that those tropes exist. Let's put it this way. A lot of science shows summarize the facts instead of doing rigorous analysis because the aim is for an easily digestible and engaging kind of thing. In the same way, the way I see her videos is feminist critique 101 for general audiences. And she shows enough examples over the course of many videos that her claims are plausible, and are used too often in popular major AAA releases. And of course, things like princesses being kidnapped is not bad by itself. It's the prevalence and lack of other types of representation that is the problem.

Exactly, and that is also, I think, why some people react so strongly. (Granted there also quite a few nutcases out there who don't even need an actual reason to go ballistic.) Sarkeesian has a tendency to generalise things, in order to make it 'easily digestible'. But a topic like this actually needs a lot of nuance, not generalisation, if you want a proper discussion. Sarkeesian's approach is more one of "shock people until they grow a conscience". And she uses her "empirical evidence" for that purpose only.

Anyway, I guess you could argue that there is room for people like her too, since they grow awareness and put the issue on the (political) agenda.

My initial reaction was mostly because some people in this thread claimed she should take her stuff to uni. And I wanted to point out that she's more of an activist than a scientist given her approach of the issue.

 

[ibyea]

Exactly, and that is also, I think, why some people react so strongly. (Granted there also quite a few nutcases out there who don't even need an actual reason to go ballistic.) Sarkeesian has a tendency to generalise things, in order to make it 'easily digestible'. But a topic like this actually needs a lot of nuance, not generalisation, if you want a proper discussion. Sarkeesian's approach is more one of "shock people until they grow a conscience".

Anyway, I guess you could argue that there is room for people like her too, since they grow awareness and put the issue on the (political) agenda.

My initial reaction was mostly because some people in this thread claimed she should take here stuff to uni. And I wanted to point out that she's more of an activist than a scientist given her approach of the issue.

Oh yeah, she is definitely an activist. But I think her way is one of many ways to approach an issue. There have been many rigorous scientific thing done on this issue, but I don't think science papers get as many traction.

 

[romulus91]

this whole situation just made the mainstream news in Australia

 

[B-Genius]

Yeah, sorry, that's why I edited my post and added the part about the "before and after" interviews, which would be less of an approach-by-numbers.

Read the edit. Makes sense!

There is social psychology theory about how people help or don't help other people when they see them in distress. Turns out a lot of people don't help out at all, and even ignore the problem. And this is in real life! So it would make sense that some/many gamers would have their game character do nothing and see what happens instead. So, that could even be considered an accurate presentation of real life. Not necessarily just a gratuitous way of getting the player emotionally involved. Before you draw such conclusions you could always go and interview the director of the video game, btw, and see why he or she effectively put the mechanic in the game.

I personally find this social psychology aspect fascinating, but Sarkeesian makes the point that we're willing to suspend our disbelief in so many other ways, therefore why do we need violence against women in the streets of [game] in order to feel immersed.

It always comes back to being lazy. The devs have all these tools and ideas for making a game world come to life, and they just lump in hooker (= seedy), ex-boyfriend scene (= damsel), slave trade mission (= seedy damsel), etc. If this is the kind of world you want to build in order to emotionally involve the player, that's fine, but let's try to get some equality in there at least. If that's the only way you can draw a response from the player, then let's have some gender-based stuff done to fellas, too.

This could make for some cool stats, like "% random dudes saved" vs. "% random gals saved", etc.

Edit: and I agree with you on that the player's level of engagement can greatly influence the experience. But that goes for anything. You can also watch a misogynistic movie while playing Flappy Bird in your comfy couch, so to speak. A scientist would try to filter out those circumstantial elements as much as possible when gathering data. Or change his approach. I'm not researching this topic, so I wouldn't know what would be the best approach.

This also makes sense. I guess when I say "engagement" I mean the involvement they feel with the characters/world on a personal level, not necessarily how much attention they're devoting to playing the game. A sensible study would definitely need to account for this though, as naturally not all players are going to be "switched on" 100% of the time.

I dont know it seems like a lot of people are upvoting video's criticizing Sarkeesian. And when websites post something about feminism or mention Sarkeesian or quinn, then alot of negative comments get posted and upvoted.

Its really depressing it seems like a large proportion of the gaming community are I dont know what to call them without getting banned, "manchildren?". They feel so personally threatened by these women its crazy. It makes me want to get out of gaming, I certainly dont want to play any multiplayer games with these people.

Without going back to the "manchildren" debate, I've had enough of a lot of that sort of internet "gaming community" anyway. The reason I stick around GAF is because you can actually have resonable, intelligent discourse with people without "votes" or noise controlling the airwaves. The people making (awful) noise are in the minority. They don't represent you, the hobby, or the community, and you shouldn't quit gaming on their behalf.

 

[d9b]

1. Censorship, oppression, agendas and any Art form do not mix well.
3. Death Threats (if real) definitely not cool.
3. PR agents / Publishers/ Devs pulling strings and manipulating gaming press and consumers also not cool.
4. Gaming press demonising gamers and game culture... just fucking stupid.

Everybody needs to calm down and both sides of the argument require serious looking into in the cold light of day.

 

[NumberThree]

Sorry to butt in, but to be fair, whenever members of the "gaming culture defence force" use empirical evidence as justification, they always seem to get brutally shot down by the more passionate "there is a problem even if you can't see it" folk.

I'm talking about people who say things like:
"My girlfriend/wife/friends love [type of game] and they don't mind [topic]."

"I know strong, intelligent women that work in the industry who think [topic] is stupid and deviating from the wider issue."

That's because experiencing a problem can prove its existence, but not experiencing it can't prove it not existing.

 

[jaosobno]

I've been reluctant to engage in this discussion since things get heated pretty easily, but I guess, remaining silent is even worse.

I don't like labeling. I don't like generalizing people. Saying things like "gamers are over" and labeling "gamers" as a group of people prone to sexism, racism and misogyny is nothing more than a form of fear mongering.

Things are getting out of hand. Lately, I've seen an escalation of negative press about gamers, specifically, male gamer.

It seems that (in certain articles) we've all been judged guilty (at least, that's the tone I personally perceive that those articles were written in - I'm not asking you to agree with me). Guilty by the very choice of our hobby and being of a male gender (guilt by the very act of being born into a certain group kinda reminds me of what Nazis were doing to the minorities like Jews, Black people, Romani, etc., and in turn what was done to Germans during and after WW2 (all Germans were considered Nazis, in spite of many opposing the regime and even those having the courage to shelter the ones being prosecuted).

This isn't feminism. Feminism isn't obsessed with demonizing men. I've always perceived feminism as a movement to bring women to equal rights as men have, and instead, this wave of articles and videos seems to have only one purpose, and that is to induce a form of "male (gamer) guilt".

I'm a gamer and I'm innocent in this matter. You will never hear a racial, sexual or misogynistic slur come out of my mouth. But you know how people uneducated in this matter will react when they hear that?


"Oh, so you are one of those spouting hateful shit over you mic when playing games"?

"Why are you so angry?"

"I read online that you guys say some nasty shit to women. Why do you have to be this way?"


And why will they say that? Because I've been labeled and people like generalizing (see how we've traveled full circle?).

There will always be assholes. One taxi driver, when I went to Thailand, tried to scam me. When I returned to my country, how do you think I reacted? Do you think I said "god, those Thai people are such fucking scammers"? Of course not, I said "god, I had this asshole taxi driver tried to scam me, but rest of the drivers were really nice and helpful". I isolated the guilt to an individual and made sure people knew that this was one guy and that it wasn't a Thai or taxi driver thing. And that's how you do things. You name names and you don't create groups.

Guilt is never a collective thing. It should always be on an individual level.

Sarkeesian wasn't attacked by the Evil League of Male Gamers. Those that attacked her have names. Those that insult, humiliate or threaten us always have names.

Name them.

 

[foobarry81]

I personally find this social psychology aspect fascinating, but Sarkeesian makes the point that we're willing to suspend our disbelief in so many other ways, therefore why do we need violence against women in the streets of [game] in order to feel immersed.

It always comes back to being lazy. The devs have all these tools and ideas for making a game world come to life, and they just lump in hooker (= seedy), ex-boyfriend scene (= damsel), slave trade mission (= seedy damsel), etc. If this is the kind of world you want to build in order to emotionally involve the player, that's fine, but let's try to get some equality in there at least. If that's the only way you can draw a response from the player, then let's have some gender-based stuff done to fellas, too.

By 'lazy' I assume you mean 'limited in options due to time/budget constraints'? ;-)

I think it really depends on what game world you would like to create. Like in Red Dead Redemption it does make some sense to put in some misogynistic stuff because that's how life was in that era. And the game is somewhat of a Wild West simulation after all.

Sarkeesian's counter-argument is that you don't have to add abuse vs women in those games because there are other non-realistic elements in there like backpacks that can store an unlimited amount of rifles. Only the ocean deep backpack is there for gameplay purposes. It wouldn't be fun to have to temporarily go and hide your weapons into a cave (because you don't own a house yet) then run to said cave every time you need another gun. I'm not saying that abuse against women should be the only element that defines the game world. As you said, clearly if you're creating a simulation, it should be a balanced view. I haven't played RDR long enough to know how balanced the game really is. But it seemed like Wild West tropes were widespread. Not just about women.

This could make for some cool stats, like "% random dudes saved" vs. "% random gals saved", etc.

As long as they don't make trophies for it... ;-)

 

[way more]

There will always be assholes. One taxi driver, when I went to Thailand, tried to scam me. When I returned to my country, how do you think I reacted? Do you think I said "god, those Thai people are such fucking scammers"? Of course not, I said "god, I had this asshole taxi driver tried to scam me, but rest of the drivers were really nice and helpful". I isolated the guilt to an individual and made sure people knew that this was one guy and that it wasn't a Thai or taxi driver thing. And that's how you do things. You name names and you don't create groups.


Sarkeesian wasn't attacked by the Evil League of Male Gamers. Those that attacked her have names. Those that insult, humiliate or threaten us always have names.

Name them.

Racism occurs in many forms, that you were to recognize it that one time the taxi driver scammed you and you were able to ignore it means you are truly an evolved person to have encountered the bad side of racism and returned unscathed. We are all victims.

I know Dookie24 said Anita should eat shit till she dies. If Dookie24 comes into your business you should turn him away.