[666maslo666]

Hasnt it been explained a thousand times already? A game that allows you to kill strippers is not sexist or misogynistic at all, assuming it is not the focus of the game and is merely allowed due to all NPCs in the game being killable. Claiming otherwise is a total misrepresentation of the tone of the Hitman game, and forcibly searching for misogyny where there is none.

At all points, there was someone on the design team who argued for the presence of these women. Women explicitly designed to titillate and arouse.

Which is not problematic at all because strip clubs exist in reality and fit the narrative of the game, so it is OK to include one. Now if the game was full of strip clubs and half-naked women, then that would point to a certain tendencies to sexual objectification from the design team. Not one part of one level, tough.

If you want to argue that games should never feature strip clubs to appease women rights, then I strongly disagree.

[The E]

Which is not problematic at all because strip clubs exist in reality and fit the narrative of the game, so it is OK to include one. Now if the game was full of strip clubs and half-naked women, then that would point to a certain tendencies to sexual objectification from the design team. Not one part of one level, tough.

If you want to argue that games should never feature strip clubs to appease women rights, then I strongly disagree.

They fit the narrative, but they are not required by it. A game tracing the steps of E Company, 506th Parachute Infantry, 101st Airborne is somewhat required to cover the Normandy landings or the Battle of the Bulge, but a game about a fictional character killing other fictional characters is not required to feature a killing in a strip club. Anything can be made to fit that narrative, and so the inclusion of that strip club is completely intentional, and we kinda have to ask what that intention was.

[666maslo666]

They fit the narrative, but they are not required by it. A game tracing the steps of E Company, 506th Parachute Infantry, 101st Airborne is somewhat required to cover the Normandy landings or the Battle of the Bulge, but a game about a fictional character killing other fictional characters is not required to feature a killing in a strip club. Anything can be made to fit that narrative, and so the inclusion of that strip club is completely intentional, and we kinda have to ask what that intention was.

Lots of settings are not required, that doesnt mean there was some deeper intention behind including them. You are really grasping at straws here and searching for misogyny where there is none.

It is only problematic if there is too much of scantily clad women or the depiction is somehow over the top, but the mere presence of one strip club is indicative of nothing at all.

Let me repeat: if you want to argue that games should never feature strip clubs to appease women rights, then I strongly disagree. That is borderline censorship and such toxic attitude would lead to pointless restrictions and limitations on what is "allowed" or not to depict in art. That is not what women rights are about at all.

[666maslo666]

Anything can be made to fit that narrative, and so the inclusion of that strip club is completely intentional, and we kinda have to ask what that intention was.

In fact it doesnt matter at all what the intention was, its not like we can read the minds of the design team and get infected by misogyny from there. This is about the game itself, not the thought process of the design teams. And no matter what was the reason behind it, there is nothing wrong with having a single strip club level in a game for mature audience, thats far from over the top. What matters is that in the end, the game seems to be designed well.

[zookeeper]

They fit the narrative, but they are not required by it. A game tracing the steps of E Company, 506th Parachute Infantry, 101st Airborne is somewhat required to cover the Normandy landings or the Battle of the Bulge, but a game about a fictional character killing other fictional characters is not required to feature a killing in a strip club. Anything can be made to fit that narrative, and so the inclusion of that strip club is completely intentional, and we kinda have to ask what that intention was.

You've repeatedly (well, at least twice) brought up "it wasn't absolutely necessary to include it" in response to the idea that the inclusion of the strip club is not a problem, whereas you're surely aware that most creative decisions are "unnecessary" and that there's rarely some kind of a specific intention behind those kind of decisions (aside from providing variety, perhaps). I can't figure out what you could possibly be arguing for with that line of thought.

[The E]

Lots of settings are not required, that doesnt mean there was some deeper intention behind including them. You are really grasping at straws here and searching for misogyny where there is none.

Really. Of course there was a deeper intention there. Nothing in a game is there unintentionally, and the intention here was "We haven't done a strip club yet, so let's do it". And when it came to populate that club, there was an opportunity there to include some sexy females, so that happened. And unfortunately, the rules of the game world mean that each and every one of them has to be killable, because apparently that's what Hitman players expect.
So, point 1: There is nothing intrinsically necessary about including a strip club.
Point 2: There is nothing intrinsically necessary about the presence of scantily clad women.
Point 3: Therefore, they are background decoration. They are there to make a point about the character the player is sent to assassinate. That point apparently being that said character likes to surround himself with pretty ladies in varying states of undress.
Point 4: Using female bodies as sexy background decoration is unnecessarily common.

It is only problematic if there is too much of scantily clad women or the depiction is somehow over the top, but the mere presence of one strip club is indicative of nothing at all.

If that Hitman game was the only one that did this, we wouldn't be having this discussion. But it isn't, so we do.

Let me repeat: if you want to argue that games should never feature strip clubs to appease women rights, then I strongly disagree. That is borderline censorship and such toxic attitude would lead to pointless restrictions and limitations on what is "allowed" or not to depict in art. That is not what women rights are about at all.

No, I am not arguing that certain areas should be off-limits to games. Neither, it may surprise you to learn, is Sarkeesian. Her point, which I agree with, is that by using these locations, game developers take a lazy route to characterization and to offer a bunch of cheap sexual thrills, and that if game devs do decide to include these locations, they should do better than that.

You've repeatedly (well, at least twice) brought up "it wasn't absolutely necessary to include it" in response to the idea that the inclusion of the strip club is not a problem, whereas you're surely aware that most creative decisions are "unnecessary" and that there's rarely some kind of a specific intention behind those kind of decisions (aside from providing variety, perhaps). I can't figure out what you could possibly be arguing for with that line of thought.

Yes, and the fact that there's rarely some kind of specific intention behind it is the problem here. If you want to include a strip club in your game, go ahead. But please don't just do it because it's a fun location. Or because it allows you to insert nudity into your game. After all, you are making a conscious decision to include a location that is known for degrading women into sex objects, and unless this is somehow necessary for your narrative (and I have trouble imagining a situation where it really is), it is something you should think twice about.

As I said back in the first Tropes vs Women thread here, tropes themselves are not intrinsically bad. Thoughtless use of them is.

[666maslo666]

If that Hitman game was the only one that did this, we wouldn't be having this discussion. But it isn't, so we do.

If Sarkeesian wanted to say that there is too much sexual stuff in that particular Hitman game (the only valid criticism), and that is indicative of something, then she should have said that and do the video that shows more than one strip club level to actually support her point. But I maintain that criticism of a single strip club level alone is completely unfounded and smacks of "omg strip club in a game, muh mysoginy!!?!" simplistic thinking.

If you want to include a strip club in your game, go ahead. But please don't just do it because it's a fun location.

As I said back in the first Tropes vs Women thread here, tropes themselves are not intrinsically bad. Thoughtless use of them is.

No, thoughtless use is totaly fine! There is nothing wrong with including a strip club just because. Games have no obligation to try to offer a comprehensive criticism of gender issues surrounding sex workers anytime they want to include one!

What may not be fine is their use that goes over the top so that it is no longer thoughtless and transits into "obvious objectification thoughts" territory. Overly sized boobs, nude females and strip clubs all over the game, that kind of things. Did Hitman do that?

[deathfun]

Really. Of course there was a deeper intention there. Nothing in a game is there unintentionally, and the intention here was "We haven't done a strip club yet, so let's do it"...

Except your assassination target which runs a prostitution setup (tying in what makes sense in terms of him helping a couple guys looking for a girl - Victoria, the one Agent 47 saves). With that person being friends with a mercenary from a drug cartel and someone who runs their own company (the two guys he also helps find Victoria), he isn't just some lowly pimp who works the streets. This gives him a certain amount of status in terms of what he does, so running a club would make sense (when I think criminals who run businesses [I also think Bad Boys], cash businesses for laundering money comes to mind. When you think the owner of this club is someone who runs prostitutes, what mixes legitimate front and cash business best? A strip club). Add into the fact this guy threatens violence to his prostitutes, and will actively rape and kill them joking that "he's sending them to Hawaii" because the room they do that in has tropic wallpaper. That sounds like a guy who doesn't give a damn about women. Another point to how it makes sense being, what's the easiest way to sell your goods? By putting them on display. His goods are the prostitutes, so let them strip for the patrons, who afterwards pay him for that service.

Now it wouldn't make sense to assassinate someone when a club isn't at full force, too many things could point to murder. Witnesses however, seeing a disco ball "accidentally" fall on your head creates that accident as well as many patrons seeing it happen. No murder, no followup investigation about foul play.

Bam, there's your intention (and much like yours The_E, it's based off of guesswork and not fact. Neither of us know what went through the devs minds)

So that covers Point one, two and three. Four is a broad statement not pertaining to the game, but to the fact "sex sells" which isn't exclusive to women

If that Hitman game was the only one that did this, we wouldn't be having this discussion. But it isn't, so we do.

Hitman did it in a way that made sense, at least from how I see it

[Luis Dias]

You know it's interesting.
I got into this very same discussion on a completely unrelated site of the internet. And you know what that person talked about? The things you're quoting AND hitman absolution.

Like, you critics. Are you actually crticizing her videos? Or are you watching videos which criticize her and repeating what they said? It honestly seems like the latter. And if your only criticism is repeating what another guy said then don't you think you should watch these videos for yourself and make up your own mind about it? Like Hitman absolution is one example out of twenty or so from a video yet it's the only one that people talk about? Why is that? Is it that the rest of her video is flawless? Is this one example the only one that you can criticize?

I'm just lazy like that. Sorry, I can't be bothered to deeply investigate all her claims, and the Hitman example was the one she spent most time with, so I guess it was an important case study. Don't you find interesting that the best case study she has is an absolute misrepresentation? I do. I wasn't the one who brought it up too, therefore I was merely following the discussion.

Regarding any insinuation that I don't watch her videos and am just redirecting thunderf00t's criticisms or whatever, be disillusioned about that. I am subscribed to her channel for 3 years now and have seen her videos about the subject matter. I have also seen her latest, which seems to be her best overall. I have also seen claims that she keeps being dishonest in this one too, but the simple fact that she is not making too many assumptions, assertions or factual claims in it is a big plus for me. I will wait for the criticism of it too. Does this sound lazy? Well, sorry I have no time to do more than this.

Just sounds like the party line. honest.

Every message has the potential of sounding like "the party line", there is a "party line" for everything nowadays. You also sound like another "party line" advocate, and so does The_E and so on. It's not a crime nor a criticism. It's a kind of rethoric that is not serious.

[The E]

Except your assassination target which runs a prostitution setup (tying in what makes sense in terms of him helping a couple guys looking for a girl - Victoria, the one Agent 47 saves). With that person being friends with a mercenary from a drug cartel and someone who runs their own company (the two guys he also helps find Victoria), he isn't just some lowly pimp who works the streets. This gives him a certain amount of status in terms of what he does, so running a club would make sense (when I think criminals who run businesses [I also think Bad Boys], cash businesses for laundering money comes to mind. When you think the owner of this club is someone who runs prostitutes, what mixes legitimate front and cash business best? A strip club). Add into the fact this guy threatens violence to his prostitutes, and will actively rape and kill them joking that "he's sending them to Hawaii" because the room they do that in has tropic wallpaper. That sounds like a guy who doesn't give a damn about women. Another point to how it makes sense being, what's the easiest way to sell your goods? By putting them on display. His goods are the prostitutes, so let them strip for the patrons, who afterwards pay him for that service.

Those are in-story justifications for that setpiece. But what came first? The story, or the setpiece? Unless there is a developer commentary addressing this, we can't know this.
If it is the first, why does it have to be an assassination in the club? Why not kill him at home? Or somewhere on the road? Why do it in a club full of people who can witness you coming and going? Nothing in that story makes a strong argument for doing it in the club, it just sets up the background for that particular character, and so it could just as well be only part of the mission briefing. In fact, we can take that story and do something with it that doesn't involve the potential to murder a couple strippers; we can do something with it that retains the thin veneer of "this is an assholeish rapist, therefore it's OK to kill him" without all that.
If the justification was the "We never did a strip club before" thing, then why does it have to be a strip club in the middle of its business hours? Why not before opening or after closing? Accidents can happen (and consequently be made to happen) at all times of day, after all. Why does it have to be a strip club with female strippers?

Now it wouldn't make sense to assassinate someone when a club isn't at full force, too many things could point to murder. Witnesses however, seeing a disco ball "accidentally" fall on your head creates that accident as well as many patrons seeing it happen. No murder, no followup investigation about foul play.

So a known underworld figure suddenly dies of acute discoball poisoning, and the police will not take a close look at what happened? The insurance companies involved will not investigate?

So that covers Point one, two and three. Four is a broad statement not pertaining to the game, but to the fact "sex sells" which isn't exclusive to women

Last I checked, sex-based adverts are still overwhelmingly aimed at men.

[Luis Dias]

Well that has probably an evolutionary explanation. Women are less interested in male bodies than men are in women's.

Emphasis on "less". It's a relative thing, not absolute. Don't strawman me please.

[deathfun]

Those are in-story justifications for that setpiece. But what came first? The story, or the setpiece? Unless there is a developer commentary addressing this, we can't know this.

Hence why calling outs devs for picking it becomes a matter of figuring out "why" of which *no one knows* (haven't seen any dev commentaries on it) and thus any sort of attacks against their thoughts is just pointless to mention since the conversation about it *goes nowhere without facts*

Why not kill him at home? Or somewhere on the road? Why do it in a club full of people who can witness you coming and going? Nothing in that story makes a strong argument for doing it in the club

Here's a story element that makes sense: You need to protect a girl from certain people. Certain people are looking for this girl. Certain people have information about this girl. Time is not on your side. Furthermore, the stripclub is part of a *seven piece mission* (as in, it's just one of many parts of the entire mission itself) set in the seedy area of Chicago (you know, where you find criminals and clubs run by them. Also, this mission takes place during the night, why would the owner of a club that runs all hours of the night by anywhere *but* the club?). Not only that, be the subsequent mission timeline all take place in Chicago in the *same night* adding to the whole "time is of the essence" thing

So I'll also point out that doing it at his house, while he's driving or some other thing just isn't something Agent 47 is at liberty to make happen. There's a reason why the mission itself is called Hunter and Hunted, the previous one is called Run For Your Life, and the one before that has tells you about Blake looking for Victoria in Chicago and Osmond being the informant.

If the justification was the "We never did a strip club before" thing, then why does it have to be a strip club in the middle of its business hours? Why not before opening or after closing? Accidents can happen (and consequently be made to happen) at all times of day, after all. Why does it have to be a strip club with female strippers?

See above explanation: Time is not on Agent 47's side. Not only that, but everyone knows where Osmond is going to be - His club

Have you played the game? I haven't, so I'm reading the wiki for the game to get a better understanding how the story plays out. Not perfect, but it works better than watching LPs

EDIT: If you take issue with it having to be a seedy area... again, which came first, setting or character.

So a known underworld figure suddenly dies of acute discoball poisoning, and the police will not take a close look at what happened? The insurance companies involved will not investigate?

"A disco ball falls to Dom's head which was loosened by 47, killing him instantly."

That and it was noted in the story that Agent 47 has been more reckless this night. Note, that *it all takes place in a single night*

Last I checked, sex-based adverts are still overwhelmingly aimed at men.

Quite true considering how effective they are against men. Photoshopping is where I have problems with it as that's just fake. That's more demeaning to a woman more than anything because you're taking the body of a woman who willingly modeled for you and then made it into something else.


EDIT: It's lazy, it's stereotypical and fits the trope, but it makes sense story wise and serves to drive the gameplay to different locations in Chicago. Not really much else to say

[Akalabeth Angel]

Hitman absolution is one example out of twenty or so from a video yet it's the only one that people talk about? Why is that? Is it that the rest of her video is flawless? Is this one example the only one that you can criticize?

because it's the easiest target, it's the most obvious staging of a situation that is intended to misrepresent the game and it's tone.

No. I suspect the real reason is because it's the one that's chosen by videos critical of hers. Specifically thunderfoot and whatever else.
Instead of actually watching her videos, videos striving to make games better, they watch a video critical of her which is nothing but insults and nitpicking and they form their "opinion" from that. And by form their opinion I mean they repeat the opinion of someone else and don't actually watch the videos and think critically for themselves.

Like if one 30 second example in a half hour video is the best criticism that people can come up with then it's a pretty weak ass counter argument.

That's hardly an improvement

But I'll bite anyways and say that simply because I find them not really captivating to watch and the fact there is a lot to watch does not mean I don't have an open mind. I don't know where the whole speaking from experience comes from though

You've made up your mind from the get go. You said they're not worth your time, despite not actually viewing them.
And "speaking from experience" is a sarcastic remark to reflect on the fact you haven't actually experienced the videos at all.

To me, it'd be a waste of my time to watch something that isn't really interesting to me. Gender roles and characters in some games don't portray women as empowering, while others sexualize them and then others make damn good characters with them. In the end, I'm not interested in the politics of my games; I'm only interested if my game is entertaining to play. Only when the discussion starts associating irrelevant behaviours in game do I step in and make note that a player's actions in game do not necessarily equate to gender issues in real life

Yeah it's not interesting to you, but you're arguing about it for hours on end on the internet.
And if not arguing then reading a discussion about anita sarkeesian until some element of the conversation is worth your involvement. Either way, same result.
Time invested in a topic in which you are unwiling to invest time.

[Luis Dias]

So instead of reading me and learning that I have indeed watched her videos, you go ahead and assert your holy truth that I and others have done no such thing, instead resorted to the heretical practices of watching non-kosher people's videos.

This lacking of reading skills from someone who is bashing others for not watching other people's videos. Perhaps you know my love of irony, but I could live without your kind of it right now.

[Akalabeth Angel]

So instead of reading me and learning that I have indeed watched her videos, you go ahead and assert your holy truth that I and others have done no such thing, instead resorted to the heretical practices of watching non-kosher people's videos.

This lacking of reading skills from someone who is bashing others for not watching other people's videos. Perhaps you know my love of irony, but I could live without your kind of it right now.

No the irony is that you expect I'm reading half of your posts when you're on my ignore list. Odds are I'm not, I read this one because I guessed rightly that it was a response to me.
Either way, generalized statements like the one I gave are not refuted by one exception, if you're an exception remove yourself from the categorization and move on. They're generalized because they're speaking, in general. In general everyone is making the same criticisms, in general everyone is saying the same things. But fact is when a person knows Anita's videos are more varied than the criticisms then one must question how these critics all came to same conclusion.

If they came to the same conclusion on their own it means the rest of Anita's video is pretty water-tight in its criticism.
If they didn't, then it just means they're repeating someone else.

Neither outcome reflects favourably on the critics.

[MP-Ryan]

You and Ralwood both miss my point [and possibly the definition of setpieces].  A setpiece exists purely to provide background, setting, or a plot point.  They are not a primary character in a game, and exist much like a signpost or a set item in film, theatre, etc.  It's rather silly to criticize the inclusion of any gendered setpiece if that setpiece exists in a way that is relevant to its function and conveys its meaning in a manner consistent with the game setting.  In the context of something like the stripclub in Hitman (which I am definitely never going to play after this discussion), the strippers at setpieces to convey atmosphere - i.e "I am in a stripclub."  Now, had the developers been interested in turning that trope n its head, they could have set it in a male stripclub, but they played it safe... one reason among many not to bother with the game in the first place.  But criticizing the inclusion of a strip club in a game about criminal activity and the potential to treat the strippers in it in terrible ways strikes me as a completely trivial argument.

That is not what you said before; the statement I took issue with was your presentation of something related to video games' portrayal of men as though it was in any way relevant to a series of videos solely about sexist tropes related to women, despite that being completely outside the scope of the video series in question. Your "clarification" here bears no resemblance to the original statement, so I'm still not sure why you made it in the first place.

But even here: "exist[ing] in a way that is relevant to its function and conveys its meaning in a manner consistent with the game setting" does not preclude it being sexist, so why is criticizing it silly?

Let's take a look at the original statement, your response, and the clarification above:

Yes, but she also argues directly against including women as setpieces in gendered roles... except we also see many games where men are included as setpieces in gendered roles, too.

Which is relevant... how?

And then of course the clarification is above.  Which is exactly what I alluded to previously.

In other words: gendered setpieces are not, in and of themselves, inherently sexist or offensive on their own if they portray believable and realistic phenomena in order to enhance plot, setting, and background.  The fact that women act as strippers at a level much greater than men may indeed an aspect of sexism in society concerning the objectification of women; the fact that such an element is included in a videogame to convey a setting is not.  If a game designer included a scene because "hey, we can include -semi-naked women!" and there was no other justification then sure, that's sexist.  But there are other conceivable reasons why the setting itself can be chosen that don't make it an inherently sexist inclusion.

Sarkeesian conflates the inclusion of gendered setpieces in video games with sexism, which isn't accurate; both genders are often portrayed in gendered roles because it reflects reality, which indicates sexism in society, and it would be to do the medium a disservice to gloss over that fact.  If such scenarios are used uncritically then certainly the developers deserve critique for their creative choices, but there is nothing inherently wrong with their inclusion.

At this point, MP-Ryan, it sounds like all you're arguing is that "her arguments could be made better", which... is self-evident, and not very profound, since nothing is perfect.

What I have been arguing all along is that theorists like Sarkeesian undermine their own valid arguments by including examples and cases that are trivial to the core issue which make buy-in from their target audience less likely, not more so.  Sarkeesian has some very valid points; she also has a lot of what is fondly termed by liberal arts professors who are good at critical analysis as "attempts to baffle with bull****."

[MP-Ryan]

So pure supposition then.

No, actual statistics.  http://www.theesa.com/facts/pdfs/ESA_EF_2014.pdf as an example, extrapolated for middle class demographics (who have the most purchasing power and who have the greatest expenditures on entertainment items).

"Gamers," as have been framed throughout this thread, are a tiny proportion of people who play video games.  Similarly, the type of feminist critiques that Sarkeesian relies on and her methods appeal to a narrow set of the population as a whole, a set that doesn't overlap significantly with the broad base of people who happen to play video games.

I'm not suggesting she does not make some valid critiques.  I do believe her methods and analyses are generally sloppy and in need of  refinement to make her point forcefully and convincingly, unless all she wants is to be a contentious sideshow.  Critical analysis in general is a methodology where less is more.  She doesn't get that, and falls into the trap of relying on weak and trivial examples when she has plenty of ammunition on more egregious issues.  It's unnecessary, and it's part of the reason her work is so often criticized and disregarded.  Sarkeesian may be a lovely person, but her critical analysis is unrefined and loose.  She relies too much on the idea that her audience shares her worldview, which is the deathknell for anyone who wants to be taken seriously doing critical analyses.

[swashmebuckle]

What I have been arguing all along is that theorists like Sarkeesian undermine their own valid arguments by including examples and cases that are trivial to the core issue which make buy-in from their target audience less likely, not more so.  Sarkeesian has some very valid points; she also has a lot of what is fondly termed by liberal arts professors who are good at critical analysis as "attempts to baffle with bull****."

No one would have given a **** if she had meticulously constructed her arguments in an airtight research paper because no one would have read it. She has effectively baited a bunch of people to go in hot and heavy on all sides, investing a healthy chunk of time talking about an issue that was previously fairly low profile. She has made a big splash, making allies of all the right people (game developers) and enemies of all the right people (entitled internet ****lords).

I think the technique issues that you're quibbling about are part of what makes her videos so effective. The ****ty examples that people can argue over are just as useful for her as the more obviously pandering/exploitative ones, and more important still is the sheer volume of misogynous garbage from AAA studios that she crams into the videos. She isn't acting as an academic; she wants to stir up ****. She's engaged people, and drawing that kind of widespread attention is good for her and good for her side of the argument.

[Akalabeth Angel]

So pure supposition then.

No, actual statistics.  http://www.theesa.com/facts/pdfs/ESA_EF_2014.pdf as an example, extrapolated for middle class demographics (who have the most purchasing power and who have the greatest expenditures on entertainment items).

Now who's defeating their own argument?

The vast majority of gamers are neither the 'hardcore stereotype'  . . . The vast majority are people who enjoy playing well-crafted games that provide entertaining gameplay, engaging plots (if present), and realistic characters who look and act like real people.

The document you provided above lists that opinion as having 48% support. Last I checked, 48% wasn't a majority nor was it "vast".

Four out of the top five selling video games are rated "mature" and would be classified as "hardcore". What is the hardcore stereotype? Apparently it's not someone who plays "hardcore" games?



Meanwhile these statements are unsupported and complete guesswork, at least so far as your evidence is concerned:

. . .nor the vocal minority that launch themselves at any gender issues, no matter how trivial.   These people are unlikely to care if a Hitman mission occurs in a strip club and someone decides the rambo the place and kill the strippers.  On the other hand, they're likely to find FFF sized breasts and clothing that was purchased from the scrap bin of a lingerie or adult store on the female characters more than a little irritating.

"Gamers," as have been framed throughout this thread, are a tiny proportion of people who play video games.  Similarly, the type of feminist critiques that Sarkeesian relies on and her methods appeal to a narrow set of the population as a whole, a set that doesn't overlap significantly with the broad base of people who happen to play video games.

Incidentally just finished watching the women as background decoration videos, parts 1 and 2.
Pretty sickening overall. Not sure why anyone would have issue with what she's saying in either content or relevance.

I'm not suggesting she does not make some valid critiques.  I do believe her methods and analyses are generally sloppy and in need of  refinement to make her point forcefully and convincingly, unless all she wants is to be a contentious sideshow.  Critical analysis in general is a methodology where less is more.  She doesn't get that, and falls into the trap of relying on weak and trivial examples when she has plenty of ammunition on more egregious issues.  It's unnecessary, and it's part of the reason her work is so often criticized and disregarded.  Sarkeesian may be a lovely person, but her critical analysis is unrefined and loose.  She relies too much on the idea that her audience shares her worldview, which is the deathknell for anyone who wants to be taken seriously doing critical analyses.

I don't agree at all that her videos are designed for people with similar mindsets. Rather they're made for people who are unfamiliar with the concepts she's presenting. That's why she's explaining the academic premise behind everything she's saying. Essentially babying her audience.

If she were making these evideos for people who agreed with her she' d assume some things about the audience. She doesn't. The fact that she doesn't is the reason that many people complain that her videos are dry.  Though I suspect what people really want is sensationalist as many youtube videos or media these tend to be these days.

[MP-Ryan]

What I have been arguing all along is that theorists like Sarkeesian undermine their own valid arguments by including examples and cases that are trivial to the core issue which make buy-in from their target audience less likely, not more so.  Sarkeesian has some very valid points; she also has a lot of what is fondly termed by liberal arts professors who are good at critical analysis as "attempts to baffle with bull****."

No one would have given a **** if she had meticulously constructed her arguments in an airtight research paper because no one would have read it. She has effectively baited a bunch of people to go in hot and heavy on all sides, investing a healthy chunk of time talking about an issue that was previously fairly low profile. She has made a big splash, making allies of all the right people (game developers) and enemies of all the right people (entitled internet ****lords).

But has she really? Aside from an award and consulting on two projects, has she heralded a fundamental shift in sexism in games?  Or are developers still allowing their art departments to draw their adult females characters in less square-footage of clothing than my 7-month old daughter wears?

I think the investment you refer to has been fairly small.  There is a core group that recognizes that Sarkeesian makes so valid points, another core group that rain **** upon her, and a big collective majority that go "meh."  People act on social justice issues where there is a compelling case to do so, whether in politics or media, and that case is so ironclad that it makes the opposition look absurd.  Many of Sarkeesian's own examples are sufficiently weak that they can be used to the detriment of her overall argument.  This diminishes her effectiveness as a force for change.  If her purpose is to stir up a ****storm, she gets an A+.  If her purpose is to act as a catalyst for change, she gets a C.

I think the technique issues that you're quibbling about are part of what makes her videos so effective. The ****ty examples that people can argue over are just as useful for her as the more obviously pandering/exploitative ones, and more important still is the sheer volume of misogynous garbage from AAA studios that she crams into the videos. She isn't acting as an academic; she wants to stir up ****. She's engaged people, and drawing that kind of widespread attention is good for her and good for her side of the argument.

But it's not, for the reasons I outlined above.  Simply calling attention to a contentious issue, using the example of politics, is more likely to cause people to switch off than pick a side and run with it.  She has fallen into that trap.  Keep in mind that even someone like me who takes an interest in social justice issues pointedly avoided most of Sarkeesian's work and the ****storm it spawned precisely because of the ****storm until this very thread.

Getting people talking is a pointless waste of time; getting them to do something about it is a laudable goal.  I think Sarkeesian, to date, is very good at the former, and very poor at the latter.