[Flipside]

It's hit the BBC now :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-29028236

I don't actually agree with her second statement as she words it, that not giving the benefit of the doubt to a woman claiming harassment is 'victim blaming'. Having been the victim of sexual harassment in the opposite direction, spending 3 years working for a manager who told me that my gender made me a 'born liar who couldn't be trusted', and knowing the effect it had on my life and my self-confidence, I believe that ANY accusation of harassment, regardless of gender, that isn't taken seriously is 'victim blaming', it shouldn't be gender specific.

[Luis Dias]

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.

So you're saying that the flaws in her reasoning, methods, argumentation and example cherry picking (if not outright fabricated) are just features, not bugs? Even worse, that all of this is correct because it antagonized the "right kind of people" while making the right kind of friends?

I guess I'm not that fond of machiavellian strategies that end up polarizing the entire internet into a big cluster**** of shouting matches between assholes of all kinds, I'd even say that this kind of method might be good at creating a good chunk of attention, but exactly the wrong kind of attention for all the wrong reasons. Youtube is now filled with angry mobs calling names to each other instead of having a reasoned and calm conversation like the one MP and a few others are trying to achieve here.

[deathfun]

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.

I didn't have my mind made up from the get go, and I challenge you to prove that statement false
Sarcastic remark that isn't based on fact. I've seen a few of her videos, I just haven't watched *all* of her videos. That is how I know I don't care to sit through *all* of them

Yeah it's not interesting to you, but you're arguing about it for hours on end on the internet.

I was arguing the fact that a players actions in a game don't dictate anything more than just them playing a game. It isn't indicative of behaviours of their real life actions (unless otherwise stated blah blah I'm done repeating myself with that). At the end of the discussion, both sides were more fleshed out and we both gained a better understanding.

In the end, the topic of conversation isn't about any of her other videos. If you really want to discuss her other videos, make the branch and post some examples and I'm sure we'll watch it so we can comment about it. However, that's not what we were talking about

You're like the guy who came into a circle of people who were talking about the game last night and started to rag on them about how they're judging the performance of the quarterback for that one football game. Yes, we're all aware he managed to win the past two, but this conversation isn't about his overall performance. If you want to talk about all the games, then introduce that in a way that you're not insulting our intelligence so that we will be open to have a conversation with you about it. I'm sure as hell not open to engaging you further now.

[Akalabeth Angel]

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.

What aspect of her drab and monotone videos is intended to stir up a ****storm?
What degree of change or involvement is required before her impact becomes relevant?

The fact that people are even talking about her or hiring her as a consultant proves that the gaming industry is taking notice.


Booth babes are becoming more scarce and people seem to generally reject the likes of Hitman Absolution's trailer, I would suggest a shift is already taking place and would say that she is a part of it but not necessarily the catalyst. Having watched her latest videos I don't consider the points she picks on trivial, but rather pervasive.

[MP-Ryan]

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".

That looks at "reason for purchase" - which also included options like price point in the available responses - not reason for play.  Given that the price point was 21%, meaning 31% had some other reason, purchasing was most often due to the factors I named of all the available responses, which are mutually exclusive for the poll but not as actual decisions.

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?

Of course, you'll also note that all four of those land in a category which is only 24% of the type of games played most often online.

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.

The first is an extrapolation based on social justice issues and politics.

The second is supported by the demographic data from the ESA, and the broad-based appeal of feminist theory among the middle class segment of the general population, which closely relates to the demographics of people who play video games generally.  Feminists are a small proportion of the middle class generally (there are few good statistics on this, though at least one study in 2012 pegged feminist political identification, including all from 'soft' to 'strong' feminists among voting women in the neighbourhood of 50% ; they are similarly a small proportion among people who 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.

Then you aren't reading or comprehending my posts, since I've been very clear on the precise problems I see in Sarkeesian's work.

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.

She assumes a great deal about her audience, namely that they will find relatively trivial matters as problematically sexist as she does.  She assumes a like-minded stance among her audience members, which is also an assumption that her like-minded audience members are unlikely to pick up on if they have the same views.  She does not prepare her argument to face critique or present her strongest arguments with strong supporting evidence.  She relies on guilt by association - her method is to fling as many examples she thinks she can point out at the audience in an attempt to avoid critical deconstruction of her arguments.  It's a poor method, and baffling choice in an area where she has many legitimately egregious examples to choose from.

I frankly don't like theorists who operate using methods like Sarkeesian's.  I find their work lazy, short on real substance, readily critiqued in their own right, and therefore ineffectual as a catalyst for change.  It saddens me because it's an important topic that deserves a much more effective and tighter treatment, and the backlash that she has generated has made it much less likely that a better critical analyst will come along and do the work properly.

[Akalabeth Angel]

I didn't have my mind made up from the get go, and I challenge you to prove that statement false

That seems like a challenge for me to watch all her videos
That's also a lot of effort for absolutely no reward or point

"Absolutely no reward or point" = Judging an experience before having experienced it.
If you know the outcome of an act before you've acted it, then your mind is made up.

A more objective response would be for example "I've seen some of her videos but didn't find them interesting so I'm unwilling to check out her latest. Thus I don't have an opinion on them either way."

And by "all the videos" I meant all the tropes vs women videos, if you took that to mean all the videos she's ever made you misunderstood.

She assumes a great deal about her audience, namely that they will find relatively trivial matters as problematically sexist as she does.  She assumes a like-minded stance among her audience members, which is also an assumption that her like-minded audience members are unlikely to pick up on if they have the same views.  She does not prepare her argument to face critique or present her strongest arguments with strong supporting evidence.  She relies on guilt by association - her method is to fling as many examples she thinks she can point out at the audience in an attempt to avoid critical deconstruction of her arguments.  It's a poor method, and baffling choice in an area where she has many legitimately egregious examples to choose from.

I frankly don't like theorists who operate using methods like Sarkeesian's.  I find their work lazy, short on real substance, readily critiqued in their own right, and therefore ineffectual as a catalyst for change.  It saddens me because it's an important topic that deserves a much more effective and tighter treatment, and the backlash that she has generated has made it much less likely that a better critical analyst will come along and do the work properly.

If you feel the argument needs to be made better then do it better.
People call her work lazy, but the fact is her work is out there. That's more than can be said of anyone else, unless someone has another commentator which is arguing for the same things in a more effective manner.

Doing something is less lazy then talking about doing something.

[MP-Ryan]

What aspect of her drab and monotone videos is intended to stir up a ****storm?

Feel free to ask swashmebuckle, he implied it was a feature.  I just said she was successful at it (reference: The Internet Response to Anita Sarkeesian).

What degree of change or involvement is required before her impact becomes relevant?

Legitimate question.  I'd measure it in tangible impacts: has her work led to a diminished incidence of blatant and egregious sexism (no, I'm not defining the terms, I've talked at length before about what sorts of things I call egregious)  in titles released since her series began and stated studio design changes in in-progress titles?

The fact that people are even talking about her or hiring her as a consultant proves that the gaming industry is taking notice.

Notice != change.  I was trained as a scientist.  Show me tangible, causative change in result.

Booth babes are becoming more scarce and people seem to generally reject the likes of Hitman Absolution's trailer, I would suggest a shift is already taking place and would say that she is a part of it but not necessarily the catalyst. Having watched her latest videos I don't consider the points she picks on trivial, but rather pervasive.

Oh, I have no doubt her work is part of changes we will likely see going forward (the movement for which pre-dates her work).  I just don't think she's being a particularly effective part of that force for change compared to her actual potential.  As for consideration of her points being trivial or not, you (or I) are really not good people to be asking - rather, it would be better to ask her critics, the rational people (not the mob) she should be attempting to convince, what they think of those arguments.  That's the point of critical analysis, which is why I don't think she's doing a great job.  Most of the discussion around her work is noise, not productive output.

[Luis Dias]

Ironically, and despite all the technical flaws, I actually thought this amateur video was quite good at going a bit deeper than Anita in some of the analysis. I say ironically because the dude is clearly trying to make a parody of her, and you can smell his dismissal of the gal throughout:

(the whole script gets better from the first minutes...)

This should be the goal of Anita: to get this kind of conversation flowing. But this is an exception, and not that effective, not the rule.

Regarding all the "counselling" jobs she has been given by the industry, I regard those as typical greenwashing, wait, not greenwashing, feministwashing. I don't take it too seriously. If however I am wrong, and games start to at least be more inclusive, then I will be much happier.

A much better speech than anything Anita has ever done was Manveer Heir's, but this one was absolutely ignored by the wider community at large, because it didn't have the characteristic of being scandalous or controversial. Here's a link to his lecture, you should all watch it:

http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1020420/Misogyny-Racism-and-Homophobia-Where

[MP-Ryan]

If you feel the argument needs to be made better then do it better.
People call her work lazy, but the fact is her work is out there. That's more than can be said of anyone else, unless someone has another commentator which is arguing for the same things in a more effective manner.

Doing something is less lazy then talking about doing something.

Aha!  I was waiting for a variation on the "if you want something done right..." or "Put up or shut up"!  I'm amazed it took this long.

I would, except:
1.  I'm not paid to critically-analyze video games.
2.  I'm not paid to be a games journalist.
3.  I'm not paid to be an advocate for social issues.
4.  I have much more important things to do with my time - raising a family, playing with my kids, spending time outside of some of my absurd hours at work with my wife, etc - than spend it volunteering to fight a social cause which I think comes second to some much more important social causes that I do volunteer my time to deal with.

I play games for fun.  I write for fun.  I argue on the Internet for fun (and apparently I'm also a masochist, who knew).  I don't think writing a critical analysis of gender portrayal in video games would be terribly fun to do uncompensated.  If someone would like to pay me my current salary for six months while I take unpaid leave to do it, then I'd be happy to.  Alas, I haven't had any offers, so I'll confine my involvement to taking apart poor critical analysis when its raised and waving the "many men who play games should stop being douchebags to women just because they're women" flag on social media.

Sarkeesian, by contrast, is paid to do this.  I don't think it's unreasonable to expect her work to be of a high quality, which it is not.

[Akalabeth Angel]

Oh, I have no doubt her work is part of changes we will likely see going forward (the movement for which pre-dates her work).  I just don't think she's being a particularly effective part of that force for change compared to her actual potential.  As for consideration of her points being trivial or not, you (or I) are really not good people to be asking - rather, it would be better to ask her critics, the rational people (not the mob) she should be attempting to convince, what they think of those arguments.  That's the point of critical analysis, which is why I don't think she's doing a great job.  Most of the discussion around her work is noise, not productive output.

Yes but what is the cause of that noise? Is it caused by the videos themselves or by the attack/critique of those videos?
Is it telling that some people who cite examples of her failings don't reference her videos but videos critiquing her videos? Do such references represent the majority or the minority of criticism?

What's apparent is that Anita's videos are bland and monotone.
What is also apparent is that videos critical of her tend to be sensationalist and aggressive.

Of the two, which is the more likely to incite unreasonable discussion?

From my perspective, the widespread knowledge of Sarkeesian was the result not of her own work but of the aggressive reactions against her work. Ironically the same is true of Zoe Quinn, a developer whose game or name I'd never heard of until a week ago. Ironically I think the real impact or recognition that these individuals are receiving is not really the result of their own work, but of their critics. And in some cases, critics is a very generous word to describe them indeed.

If you feel the argument needs to be made better then do it better.
People call her work lazy, but the fact is her work is out there. That's more than can be said of anyone else, unless someone has another commentator which is arguing for the same things in a more effective manner.

Doing something is less lazy then talking about doing something.

Aha!  I was waiting for a variation on the "if you want something done right..." or "Put up or shut up"!  I'm amazed it took this long.

I would, except:
1.  I'm not paid to critically-analyze video games.
2.  I'm not paid to be a games journalist.
3.  I'm not paid to be an advocate for social issues.
4.  I have much more important things to do with my time - raising a family, playing with my kids, spending time outside of some of my absurd hours at work with my wife, etc - than spend it volunteering to fight a social cause which I think comes second to some much more important social causes that I do volunteer my time to deal with.

I play games for fun.  I write for fun.  I argue on the Internet for fun (and apparently I'm also a masochist, who knew).  I don't think writing a critical analysis of gender portrayal in video games would be terribly fun to do uncompensated.  If someone would like to pay me my current salary for six months while I take unpaid leave to do it, then I'd be happy to.  Alas, I haven't had any offers, so I'll confine my involvement to taking apart poor critical analysis when its raised and waving the "many men who play games should stop being douchebags to women just because they're women" flag on social media.

Don't really care what you're paid or not paid to do.
My point is offer alternatives. If you think her work is lazy, offer an alternative, either your own work or the work of someone else. Or suggest topics to her via twitter that she could pursue. Request discussions on aspects of sexism that she's failing to address.

It's easy to point out a problem. Pointing out both a problem while at the same time offering a solution is a much more effective way to argue for something.

[Luis Dias]

Aha!  I was waiting for a variation on the "if you want something done right..." or "Put up or shut up"!  I'm amazed it took this long.

It's even an eggregious and hypocritical line of argument, and I have always thought this, especially when it was widely used against Anita herself.

Yes, those who are "generously called" critics also used this argument against her, if you think all these games are sexist and mysoginistic, why won't you do better games instead? Ah of course you can't. And the argument is as fatuous and ridiculous now as it was then.

Wait, am I critiquing Thunderf00t? How dare I? Perhaps I should shut up and instead go on and make a video myself... for ****s sake.

[Ulala]

It's easy to point out a problem. Pointing out both a problem while at the same time offering a solution is a much more effective way to argue for something.

Then perhaps she should make a game that has no sign of sexism or misogyny instead of just "pointing out the problem"?

[edit] Beaten to it. [/edit]

[swashmebuckle]

Yeah, I think that drawing attention and airing it out is an actual step in and of itself in this case. I've only read things that have been linked here or come in through my twitter feed, but it seems like most of the critics and developers that have weighed in have basically come down on Sarkeesian's side. The reactions I've read do include the sort of quibbles raised here, and I think that being able to raise those points makes people feel like they are contributing more than just a vote of support, which probably makes them more likely to write about the subject.

It's not like we're talking about some civic issue where we need to prevent infighting and form a coalition so that we can reach our goal of a 60% supermajority town hall vote to ban exploitative video games. All that needs to happen is for one person on a AAA dev team to realize and point out that having Kratos crush the naked big titty babe in the gate is going to make a portion of their audience feel ****ty. These are things that are easy to omit, and not being perceived as actively hostile towards female players could be huge for AAA sales. A kerfuffle's what we need, and she's given us one.

[MP-Ryan]

From my perspective, the widespread knowledge of Sarkeesian was the result not of her own work but of the aggressive reactions against her work. Ironically the same is true of Zoe Quinn, a developer whose game or name I'd never heard of until a week ago. Ironically I think the real impact or recognition that these individuals are receiving is not really the result of their own work, but of their critics. And in some cases, critics is a very generous word to describe them indeed.

If the only reason your work in critical analysis is publicly known is because it generates a distasteful and loud reaction, rather than being particularly compelling or well-composed in its own right, you are doing it wrong.  It speaks to the fact that Sarkeesian, at least, is basically writing for a niche audience.  The fact that the discussion around her work is predominantly noise is a fact that she has at least an extent of ownership of:  it is much harder to make immense amounts of noise about an argument that is near-unassailable.  If I write a critical analysis on a contentious that someone can take apart with relative ease, that failure is on me as a writer (not to say I'd deserve personal attacks and all the other bull****, but I deserve to be reasonably critiqued, even forcefully, on my own work).  The fact that she can't compose an argument that is near-unassailable with the absolute mountain of source work she has to draw from is telling when it comes to her abilities in critique.  This leads to two possibilies:

1.  She does it on purpose - which I think is misguided, if true, or
2.  She does it unintentionally - in which case she is merely not competent to fulfill her stated aims.

It's easy to point out a problem. Pointing out both a problem while at the same time offering a solution is a much more effective way to argue for something.

I was Ninja'd before I even saw your post.

[AdmiralRalwood]

Many of Sarkeesian's own examples are sufficiently weak that they can be used to the detriment of her overall argument.

You keep saying things like this, and yet the only example anyone has pointed to is Hitman: Absolution, which is obviously under contention.

[Luis Dias]

That Kratos' "feat" was mind-boggingly atrocious. I'd refuse to go on playing that game from that point on... and that perhaps is why I never played them from the first place.

[Akalabeth Angel]

If the only reason your work in critical analysis is publicly known is because it generates a distasteful and loud reaction, rather than being particularly compelling or well-composed in its own right, you are doing it wrong. 

Victim blaming in action.

Creating work and publicizing work are different. You're saying that it should publicly known for its content rather than the reaction to its content, yet the content itself does not publicize it.  Therefore the content is not to blame. And saying that bad publicity is a failure of content when other factors are very obviously at work, such as thunderfoots very blatant anti-feminist stance, then you are misrepresenting the situation.


What you're saying is in effect, Anita is doing it wrong, therefore the distasteful and loud reaction is justified. Because of course logic and reason always out-rule sensationalist media. Right?
If her argument was better then people wouldn't be threatening to ram a steel pipe up her vagina and kill her family.

[Akalabeth Angel]

It's easy to point out a problem. Pointing out both a problem while at the same time offering a solution is a much more effective way to argue for something.

Then perhaps she should make a game that has no sign of sexism or misogyny instead of just "pointing out the problem"?

Would you have asked Ebert to make a movie if he disagreed with something and gave it a thumbs down?
The point is if someone has problems her argument, but supports the premise, then provide an alternative either created by you or someone else. The detractors, such as yourself, of course only focus on the "created by you" part of what I said. I don't care about you doing it. I care about something better.

If something better exists point it out.

If it doesn't, create it.

If you're unwilling, advocate ways she or others can improve what they're doing.

If you don't know of anything better, don't want to do it yourself and don't want to tell Anita ways she can improve then . .  what's the point?

And yes Anita disabled comments on her Youtube videos. As have other YT personalities. There are other ways to contact her as made clear by this thread.

[MP-Ryan]

Victim blaming in action.

Creating work and publicizing work are different. You're saying that it should publicly known for its content rather than the reaction to its content, yet the content itself does not publicize it.  Therefore the content is not to blame. And saying that bad publicity is a failure of content when other factors are very obviously at work, such as thunderfoots very blatant anti-feminist stance, then you are misrepresenting the situation.

What you're saying is in effect, Anita is doing it wrong, therefore the distasteful and loud reaction is justified. Because of course logic and reason always out-rule sensationalist media. Right?
If her argument was better then people wouldn't be threatening to ram a steel pipe up her vagina and kill her family.

I knew that was coming.  Let's try the full quote, shall we?

If the only reason your work in critical analysis is publicly known is because it generates a distasteful and loud reaction, rather than being particularly compelling or well-composed in its own right, you are doing it wrong.  It speaks to the fact that Sarkeesian, at least, is basically writing for a niche audience.  The fact that the discussion around her work is predominantly noise is a fact that she has at least an extent of ownership of:  it is much harder to make immense amounts of noise about an argument that is near-unassailable.  If I write a critical analysis on a contentious that someone can take apart with relative ease, that failure is on me as a writer (not to say I'd deserve personal attacks and all the other bull****, but I deserve to be reasonably critiqued, even forcefully, on my own work).[/u]  The fact that she can't compose an argument that is near-unassailable with the absolute mountain of source work she has to draw from is telling when it comes to her abilities in critique.

Care to retract your bull**** accusation now?  Not only was it patently and personally offensive, it's factually wrong.

[MP-Ryan]

Many of Sarkeesian's own examples are sufficiently weak that they can be used to the detriment of her overall argument.

You keep saying things like this, and yet the only example anyone has pointed to is Hitman: Absolution, which is obviously under contention.

http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=88246.msg1761211#msg1761211

Three glaring examples in one video.

Once again, the point is not that she doesn't have one; the point is that she actively undermines hers by presenting examples that can be argued against when there are plenty that cannot.