Support NeoGAF

[Mononoke]

All I'll say is, if you have criticisms of Anita's work (like you don't agree with what she's saying). Then discuss it. Don't go after her personal credibility. Don't go after the money she's made. How she's spent it. Whether the work she's output is WORTHY of the amount of money she got. Even if Anita was a terrible person behind the scenes (we don't know this, but just using it as a lol example)...who cares. What matters is the arguments she's making.

Focus on that. Seems pretty simple to me. IF you are going to focus on HER credibility, and the money she's made, I'm not going to take you seriously, and I'm going to question your motivations and where you are coming at from this. Because again, she made her money on KS. It is what it is. Get over it.

 

[Deleted member 126221]

Many of them are reaching. If not flat out misrepresenting.
She favours a very suppressive angle of feminism.
IMO her own views on how media should portray men and women are incredibly sexist.

Okay. So the problem is not that she's not providing proof, it's that you don't agree with them for some reason. It's pretty different.

Well if you think that, then IMO you have to also agree with the stance that is "playing violent games can make you a violent person".

You'll have to explain that one because I really don't get how you came to that conclusion.

 

[The Technomancer]

Well if you think that, then IMO you have to also agree with the stance that is "playing violent games can make you a violent person".
.

Violent media isn't likely to propel people to violence, but it certainly (and this has been studied) can effect how people perceive violence, even in the real world. The same is true for sexism or anything else. For example media might not be able to convince you to go out and vote, but can certainly influence if you think voting is a "good thing" or not. Its not about people becoming rapists, its about attitudes towards women.

 

[jschreier]

That's fair enough, I'm sure you guys are probably looking for a needle in a shit stack to find people who aren't just obviously assholes.

It's even harder these days thanks to a certain hashtag campaign that has poisoned the well for discussion and made it even more difficult for reasonable people to voice multiple views about the conversations Sarkeesian starts. Not to mention the atmosphere created by people like this.

I would love to post, say, a video that poses specific counter-arguments to critiques that Sarkeesian has made, but every single video like that is also full of nasty language, personal attacks, and all sorts of other douchebaggery. I recently took a pitch that was meant to be a response to Sarkeesian's specific critiques, but instead it just went on and on comparing her work to various media backlashes in history (like the whole "D&D causes Satanism" thing), which is not something I want to publish. She is a critic, not a censor or boycotter.

For whatever reason, people seem unable to critique Anita Sarkeesian's ideas without attacking her as a person or comparing her to the likes of Jack Thompson, which I find seriously awful and depressing. So when Stephen has said he'd like to publish opposing views, he's not lying -- it's just very difficult if not impossible to find ones that aren't cruel and gross.

 

[laser]

That the common depiction of women in video games favours a patriarchical, mysoginistic society.

That claim is well-supported in the videos.

Well if you think that, then IMO you have to also agree with the stance that is "playing violent games can make you a violent person".

Let me get this straight, if I agree that "That the common depiction of women in video games favours a patriarchical, mysoginistic society.", then I have to agree that "playing violent games can make you a violent person".

How did you ever come to that conclusion?

 

[NoblesseOblige]

• Begin a new video series examining the representations of men and masculinity in
video games

• Begin a miniseries presenting examples of positive female characters in video
games[

I'm super interested in these along with the topics she currently focuses on.

 

[Mononoke]

It's even harder these days thanks to a certain hashtag campaign that has poisoned the well for discussion and made it even more difficult for reasonable people to voice multiple views about the conversations Sarkeesian starts. Not to mention the atmosphere created by people like this.

I would love to post, say, a video that poses specific counter-arguments to critiques that Sarkeesian has made, but every single video like that is also full of nasty language, personal attacks, and all sorts of other douchebaggery. I recently took a pitch that was meant to be a response to Sarkeesian's specific critiques, but instead it just went on and on comparing her work to various media backlashes in history (like the whole "D&D causes Satanism" thing), which is not something I want to publish. She is a critic, not a censor or boycotter.

For whatever reason, people seem unable to critique Anita Sarkeesian's ideas without attacking her as a person or comparing her to the likes of Jack Thompson, which I find seriously awful and depressing. So when Stephen has said he'd like to publish opposing views, he's not lying -- it's just very difficult if not impossible to find ones that aren't cruel and gross.

Don't you think the other side has played a role in creating this environment as well, by coming at this from an "you are either with or against us" tone? Coming at these topics with a closed forum kind of view, that these are 100% right and there is no room for debate.

I think the issue is that, the games industry is steeped in misogyny and ignorance. And some of that is because of all the years of these things being the norm. Problem is, you can't approach educating people in the industry on these issues with the view point that, THESE THINGS are this, and if you don't agree you are wrong. Or if you don't agree you are a misogynist.

I feel like both sides could have done a better job. I've always felt that, the best way to educate and bring someone over to your side, is explain why things bother you. Why you think it's wrong, and why you wish other people can understand why it bothers others. And then allowing people to have that discussion. Beating people over the head and saying it's this, pretty much just alienates people, and makes them go on the defensive.

I mean, I don't see why Anita couldn't have had a discussion with you guys. Allowing you guys to write counter-argument pieces, and then her respond. That seems reasonable to me. Although maybe she just didn't have the time. *shrugs*

EDIT: To be clear. I know there are people that aren't willing to listen to reason. People that are paranoid and believe people are taking away their hobby. People that were never going to be reasonable, and were always going to burn everything to the ground. But there is a large portion of the industry that isn't like that. The majority, if you will. And that's who you want to reach. So I'm looking at the future moving forward. And I think we can do a better job pushing these issues and educating people, then what we have been doing. I fear that, we've pushed some folks away and alienated them.

Of course, a large part of that, is crazy assholes baiting and blowing shit up (the unreasonable people that don't want to discuss). They have played a major role in creating the current environment we are in. But I still think we can do a better job. I dunno. Maybe I'm wrong.

 

[HarryHengst]

Many of them are reaching. If not flat out misrepresenting.
She favours a very suppressive angle of feminism.

Hmm yes, thats why a lot of big players in the games industry are saying 'gosh, that Anita sure is making some valid points'. Because she is misrepresenting video games.

 

[ElBoxyBrown]

It's even harder these days thanks to a certain hashtag campaign that has poisoned the well for discussion and made it even more difficult for reasonable people to voice multiple views about the conversations Sarkeesian starts. Not to mention the atmosphere created by people like this.

I would love to post, say, a video that poses specific counter-arguments to critiques that Sarkeesian has made, but every single video like that is also full of nasty language, personal attacks, and all sorts of other douchebaggery. I recently took a pitch that was meant to be a response to Sarkeesian's specific critiques, but instead it just went on and on comparing her work to various media backlashes in history (like the whole "D&D causes Satanism" thing), which is not something I want to publish. She is a critic, not a censor or boycotter.

For whatever reason, people seem unable to critique Anita Sarkeesian's ideas without attacking her as a person or comparing her to the likes of Jack Thompson, which I find seriously awful and depressing. So when Stephen has said he'd like to publish opposing views, he's not lying -- it's just very difficult if not impossible to find ones that aren't cruel and gross.

I would hope that there is a healthy counter-argument out their that can be presented so discussions can be had. It gets boring posting an Anita video up and having a comment section just be everyone saying exactly what she said but in their own words.

 

[Alex_Mexico]

All those complaining about how she spends the money people donated to her, unless you yourself have her money, need to stop. She didn't rip you off and of course she's grabbing a salary out of this. Big deal! It wasn't from your own money after all.

Also, the fact that FF is a non profit organization under U.S. law should count for something.

I do agree that it's taking forever for her to release her videos. But considering what happened around last time she released one in August (fucking Gamergate was abortion'd into this world) I think I understand why she might have thought that laying low for a bit would be wise. But I know they're coming.

 

[Trey]

I'd like to see a single study showing that people playing video games are more likely to be sexist that people who aren't. Since that's the claim, and most video games are sexist according to her, that shouldn't be very hard to demonstrate.

If you think that's what this project is about, you are attacking a strawman. "If you play video games, you are sexist" is not her mission statement.

 

[Bleepey]

Jack Thompson and Anita Sarkessian should not be mentioned in the same breath together and it pains me to see journalists do the same.

Jack Thompson sought out cases where he could shove video game sex/violence into the narrative. Anita is offering to observe & critique common tropes in video games with a video series. How do people find ways to equate one with the other?

Didn't she attribute a school shooting to "toxic masculinity" like hours after it happened.

 

[Winterfang]

I was watching her videos today. Does she only has 3 videos? (ms.Male character, women as background decoration and the Damsel in distress). Every other one seemed to be either reactions or other girls in the channel

 

[Raist]

Let me get this straight, if I agree that "That the common depiction of women in video games favours a patriarchical, mysoginistic society.", then I have to agree that "playing violent games can make you a violent person".

How did you ever come to that conclusion?

If you think that playing games where in many cases your goal is to "save the princess" can contribute to making you a sexist person, then surely you'd think that playing violent games can make you a violent person.

The whole issue with her argument is that she spent three videos criticizing the "women are weak and need to be saved" trope, but then you realize that she also criticizes strong women in video games, because they're essentially depicted as men.
And so her view basically boils down to a few non-overlapping positive and negative traits men and women are supposed to have, which isn't any better that what she criticizes in the first place.

Hmm yes, thats why a lot of big players in the games industry are saying 'gosh, that Anita sure is making some valid points'. Because she is misrepresenting video games.

She for instance argues that in Hitman you're encouraged to mistreat/objectify women because of one scene in the game. Which not only doesn't encourage you to do that at all, but even penalizes you for it. How is this not misrepresenting?

 

[Vice]

Didn't she attribute a school shooting to "toxic masculinity" like hours after it happened.

Toxic masculinity is just a way to say men don't seek out help due to how likely they are to be singled out as weak, and less manly, for it. It's a real factor for males who needs counseling but don't get it. One of biggest example being PTSD in military vets.

 

[Interficium]

I think what is becoming abundantly clear is that there is a LOT of money to be had on BOTH sides of the whole gamergate debacle, at least for the figureheads.

That makes me question the motivations of everyone involved.

 

[Alex_Mexico]

Didn't she attribute a school shooting to "toxic masculinity" like hours after it happened.

What does that have anything to do with being mentioned alongside Jack Thompson?

And as far as I can recall she only mentioned a fact: that the sheer vast majority of school shootings were perpetrated by men. And that an undeniable fact.

 

[The Technomancer]

If you think that playing games where in many cases your goal is to "save the princess" can contribute to making you a sexist person, then surely you'd think that playing violent games can make you a violent person.

The whole issue with her argument is that she spent three videos criticizing the "women are weak and need to be saved" trope, but then you realize that she also criticizes strong women in video games, because they're essentially depicted as men.
And so her view basically boils down to a few non-overlapping positive and negative traits men and women are supposed to have, which isn't any better that what she criticizes in the first place.?

No. Sexist attitudes are not comparable to violent behavior. Sexist attitudes are comparable to violent attitudes. Violent media isn't more likely to make you violent, but it might be more likely to make you accepting of violent solutions on a conceptual level. And the problem is that sexism largely functions on that conceptual level

See, part of the problem is also that we have a pretty good understanding of what violence is, and so drawing a clean line is relatively easy. No-one looks at a dude who got stabbed and says "nah I think he's lying, he didn't really get stabbed". But we have an awful understanding of what sexism is and so its harder to consume sexist media and be conscious of the line.

 

[TurnipFritters]

Didn't she attribute a school shooting to "toxic masculinity" like hours after it happened.

"Toxic Masculinity" refers to the stigma against men talking about their emotions/asking for help/etc because it isn't "manly". So yes, it is very much a contributing factors to these mass shootings.

"Toxic Masculinity" is not her saying "Masculinity is toxic, end of story."

 

[Trey]

I think what is becoming abundantly clear is that there is a LOT of money to be had on BOTH sides of the whole gamergate debacle, at least for the figureheads.

That makes me question the motivations of everyone involved.

A lot of money is generally involved in any social topic of considerable size and conversation. And Anita raised her TvW money and established her platform before gamergate became a buzzword.

 

[Alex_Mexico]

If you think that playing games where in many cases your goal is to "save the princess" can contribute to making you a sexist person, then surely you'd think that playing violent games can make you a violent person.

The whole issue with her argument is that she spent three videos criticizing the "women are weak and need to be saved" trope, but then you realize that she also criticizes strong women in video games, because they're essentially depicted as men.
And so her view basically boils down to a few non-overlapping positive and negative traits men and women are supposed to have, which isn't any better that what she criticizes in the first place.




She for instance argues that in Hitman you're encouraged to mistreat/objectify women because of one scene in the game. Which not only doesn't encourage you to do that at all, but even penalizes you for it. How is this not misrepresenting?

Bull-fucking-shit.

Back that argument with evidence or take it back. I assume you're not talking about the Mrs. Male Character trope because that's an entirely different thing that doesn't get critizices because "women are basically depicted as men".

 

[FlyinJ]

I think what is becoming abundantly clear is that there is a LOT of money to be had on BOTH sides of the whole gamergate debacle, at least for the figureheads.

That makes me question the motivations of everyone involved.

Yeah, I mean look at Anita! She's raking in 27,000 a year that she splits between several people.

Now she only has to work at McDonalds 5 days a week instead of 6!

 

[Alex_Mexico]

I think what is becoming abundantly clear is that there is a LOT of money to be had on BOTH sides of the whole gamergate debacle, at least for the figureheads.

That makes me question the motivations of everyone involved.

Yeah except A) Feminist Frequency is a non profit organization by every definition of the law, B) she started this way way before haters and Gamergate gave her the exposure that made her grow and C) No fucking Patreon account like half of the online haters put out for videos attacking Anita.

 

[Oersted]

I think what is becoming abundantly clear is that there is a LOT of money to be had on BOTH sides of the whole gamergate debacle, at least for the figureheads.

That makes me question the motivations of everyone involved.

Forgive me, but are you concern trolling? Looks like it.

 

[Corpekata]

I wonder if the people that bring up the Hitman score system actually played the game (because Thunderf00t sure didn't).

The scoring system in that game penalizes you from doing anything that is not being a really stealthy ninja. Yet the game clearly has mechanics in place that subvert that, such as the marking system ripped from Splinter Cell. So entire mechanics are discouraged by the scoring system, not to mention like half the weapons. Is the game actually discouraging you from using any of that stuff? Not really.

The scoring system in the game was one of the more heavily criticized aspects of the game too, so it's weird to see it brought up as a crutch so often.

It's sort of like how Deus Ex Human Revolution's experience system heavily favored stealth takedowns over lethal stuff, yet clearly has many elements in the game tailored to the more violent play throughs.

 

[Raist]

But we have an awful understanding of what sexism is and so its harder to consume sexist media and be conscious of the line.

If this is the case, how exactly can one claim that this or that is sexist or not, particularly when it comes to video games? I don't quite get your argument here.

 

[Vice]

If you think that playing games where in many cases your goal is to "save the princess" can contribute to making you a sexist person, then surely you'd think that playing violent games can make you a violent person.

The whole issue with her argument is that she spent three videos criticizing the "women are weak and need to be saved" trope, but then you realize that she also criticizes strong women in video games, because they're essentially depicted as men.
And so her view basically boils down to a few non-overlapping positive and negative traits men and women are supposed to have, which isn't any better that what she criticizes in the first place.

Miss. Male Character is about slapping a bow and lipstick on a dude to make a new character. Think Ms. Pac-Man.

She for instance argues that in Hitman you're encouraged to mistreat/objectify women because of one scene in the game. Which not only doesn't encourage you to do that at all, but even penalizes you for it. How is this not misrepresenting?

It's easy as hell to avoid the penalty and having a non-total stealth run is only discouraged on the higher (Highest in Absolutuiomn?) levels of difficulty.

 

[joe2187]

All that money, an unfinished production and zero solutions.

I dont understand this logic, it's widely known about all the harrassment she's received and how it's damaged her life and her time to work on the project.

And even then the original project was to highlight the tropes and issues in the games.

 

[The Technomancer]

If this is the case, how exactly can one claim that this or that is sexist or not, particularly when it comes to video games? I don't quite get your argument here.

By examining our works critically. Recognizing sexism isn't necessarily difficult when we carefully consider things, but we don't carefully consider most of the media we consume, we just let it wash over us. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, I don't expect everyone to be actively thinking about the themes and perspectives in every game, movie, or show they consume, but some people should be. And some people are.

 

[Aikidoka]

"She for instance argues that in Hitman you're encouraged to mistreat/objectify women because of one scene in the game. Which not only doesn't encourage you to do that at all, but even penalizes you for it. How is this not misrepresenting?"

The game developers had to intentionally program the video game to cause the player to go into a brothel and give the player the option of killing prostitutes. In that sense,the player is invited to take part in the action by the developers.

More importantly, Anita repeatedly states that by itself Hitman is perfectly fine and justifiable. However, Hitman does not exist in a vacuum, and the trope of being able to murder prostitutes in video games is highly prevalent. Just look to games such as Dishonored and Red Dead Redemption. To this end, Sarkeesian is not taking things out-of context but putting games into context with the rest of the world.

Also, to people stating that video games do not cause sexism, very good! Sarkessian never says that and only claims that the prevalence of sexism in the media we consume serves to reinforce the place of sexist ideals in our culture. Denying that the content of media has no affect on people is idiotic - one needs only to look at the use of Propaganda and sensationalism throughout history.

However, one does need to look at actual scientific research on the matter so:
http://jiv.sagepub.com/content/27/15/3016.short?rss=1&ssource=mfr

http://psychology.okstate.edu/facul...ial_Cognition_Lab/Publications_files/PPMC.pdf

 

[faceless007]

Don't you think the other side has played a role in creating this environment as well, by coming at this from an "you are either with or against us" tone? Coming at these topics with a closed forum kind of view, that these are 100% right and there is no room for debate.

Can you point to exactly what she has said that leads you to characterize her approach this way? (Please don't bring up the fact that she disabled YT comments. Please.) Because I really don't see her as any more closed-minded or dogmatic in her style than anyone else who approaches a subject from a particular intellectual framework.

I mean, it's true that Anita phrases things as declarative statements in her videos without very much "in my opinion." Because that's what making an argument is. She has her thesis, and so she's going to state it declaratively and then present her arguments in support of it. That's Argumentative Writing 101. I write similarly in my posts on the subject, and you're doing exactly the same in your post in describing her videos. Even in academia, people don't preface the conclusions of their papers with "IMO". It's taken as a given that when people write arguments they're going to state them in the strongest, most direct way they can support. That doesn't automatically mean the author is completely binary in their thinking and unreceptive to counter-arguments, it's the nature of discussion. Exactly what would you have had her do differently that would not just dilute the arguments she's making?

I think the issue is that, the games industry is steeped in misogyny and ignorance. And some of that is because of all the years of these things being the norm. Problem is, you can't approach educating people in the industry on these issues with the view point that, THESE THINGS are this, and if you don't agree you are wrong. Or if you don't agree you are a misogynist.

Well, why not? First off, if, as you just admitted, the gaming industry is like that, how could any possible approach to the problem not begin with the simple step of explicitly stating that it is a problem and here are examples of it? How else do you begin the discussion? Second, I don't agree that "THESE THINGS are this, and if you don't agree you are wrong" is an accurate characterization of her tone, but even if it were, it demonstrably did succeed at educating people in the industry as evidenced by the number of developers and designers who have publicly acknowledged such. Third, I don't think Anita has ever claimed that if you don't agree with her you are a misogynist. Can you provide a cite for that? Because honestly, that's exactly the sort of overly defensive misperception repeated by so many of her detractors who are completely unfamiliar with feminist (or really any academic) critique and who are prone to inferring statements that simply aren't there.

 

[Interficium]

A lot of money is generally involved in any social topic of considerable size and conversation. And Anita raised her TvW money and established her platform before gamergate became a buzzword.

Yeah, I mean look at Anita! She's raking in 27,000 a year that she splits between several people.

Now she only has to work at McDonalds 5 days a week instead of 6!

Yeah except A) Feminist Frequency is a non profit organization by every definition of the law, B) she started this way way before haters and Gamergate gave her the exposure that made her grow and C) No fucking Patreon account like half of the online haters put out for videos attacking Anita.

Forgive me, but are you concern trolling? Looks like it.

All of you need to calm down. First of all, I said both sides. And I meant both sides.

These crazies make over 8k a month to film an anti-anita documentary

Brianna Wu is making well into six figures on patreon

Anita herself just raised $230k in one month.

There is a lot of money out there. On both sides. This is indisputable. And I think it really muddies the waters. I guess this can be handwaved as concern trolling, if you want to just be completely binary in your thinking. I think it's important, with all the crowdfunding money becoming a bigger part of this conversation every day, to always keep in mind "Cui bono"

 

[DoktorEvil]

Didn't she attribute a school shooting to "toxic masculinity" like hours after it happened.

Source please.

 

[The Technomancer]

Source please.

She did, it was a tweet. "Toxic masculinity" is something very specific though. Its not calling masculinity toxic, its delineating the aspects of masculinity which are toxic.

 

[Vice]

All of you need to calm down. First of all, I said both sides. And I meant both sides.

These crazies make over 8k a month to film an anti-anita documentary

Brianna Wu is making well into six figures on patreon

Anita herself just raised $230k in one month.

There is a lot of money out there. On both sides. This is indisputable. And I think it really muddies the waters.

Receiving money for activism is as old as activism itself though.

 

[Uncle Rupee]

All those complaining about how she spends the money people donated to her, unless you yourself have her money, need to stop. She didn't rip you off and of course she's grabbing a salary out of this. Big deal! It wasn't from your own money after all.

Generally speaking when people are held accountable, it's best to be done by third-parties who are not personally invested. There's nothing wrong with people wanting some transparency in how she has spent the funds, considering she has not delivered on her project's goals despite receiving several times the amount she originally asked for. Many other kickstarters have gone through similar things and no one defended them the way you are defending FF.

Also, the fact that FF is a non profit organization under U.S. law should count for something.

The fact that the breast cancer foundation is a non-profit organization doesn't mean people can't criticize the CEO for taking a half million dollar salary... why should FF be free from criticism just because it is a non-profit? Doesn't make sense... if it's going to claim that label then it had better live up to higher ethical standards.

I do agree that it's taking forever for her to release her videos. But considering what happened around last time she released one in August (fucking Gamergate was abortion'd into this world) I think I understand why she might have thought that laying low for a bit would be wise. But I know they're coming.

classy...

 

[stupei]

All of you need to calm down. First of all, I said both sides. And I meant both sides.

These crazies make over 8k a month to film an anti-anita documentary

Brianna Wu is making well into six figures on patreon

Anita herself just raised $230k in one month.

There is a lot of money out there. On both sides. This is indisputable. And I think it really muddies the waters.

Brianna Wu is a game developer. Anita Sarkeesian is a game critic. I guess, in theory, those guys are documentarians.

These are all jobs that people receive money for. If this somehow muddies the waters, that means we cannot trust anyone who is paid money to do their job. As far as I know that's ... everyone in the world?

I'm just not sure I see your point. People do a job and then there is money or they have to find another job to do. Such is life.

 

[Oersted]

All of you need to calm down. First of all, I said both sides. And I meant both sides.

These crazies make over 8k a month to film an anti-anita documentary

Brianna Wu is making well into six figures on patreon

Anita herself just raised $230k in one month.

There is a lot of money out there. On both sides. This is indisputable. And I think it really muddies the waters.

Brianna Wu is receiving donations in reaction to her harrassment.

Sarkeesian is receiving money because people support her message.

Your both sides "argument" is reaching, to put it mildly.

 

[zeldablue]

Really excited for the masculine stereotype stuff. I feel like that might be more helpful for people who don't understand why feminine stereotypes suck.

It's not like games make people sexist. It's more apparent that most people have sexist feelings locked up that are being exploited by the games they play. Same for violence. It's not making you violent, it's exploiting hidden feelings that most kids, teens and adults are unwilling to heal or face effectively.

It's simply the result of consumerism exploiting base desires to fill the voids of their consumers. It's ugly, but it is what it is.

 

[Trey]

If this is the case, how exactly can one claim that this or that is sexist or not, particularly when it comes to video games? I don't quite get your argument here.

If a wide assortment of games rely on tropes which specifically depower, denigrate, dehumanize, or otherwise strip depictions of women of their agency in order to fulfill a role in a game, then yes, that's sexist. It's the commonality of these depictions that make this problematic, combined with the relative dearth of positive examples of women in gaming.

This can apply to most or all of media, which finds its roots in a society that favors men.

 

[Raist]

Bull-fucking-shit.

Back that argument with evidence or take it back. I assume you're not talking about the Mrs. Male Character trope because that's an entirely different thing that doesn't get critizices because "women are basically depicted as men".

That's from her thesis. What she thinks positive traits should be for men and women.

So why exactly can't women be strong or decisive for instance?
In a perfect world where you want no sexism, that table should be a list of negatives and positives, regardless of gender.

To me it's the same basic mistake as saying "the VG industry is mainly targeted at men because it's dominated by shooting and fighting and racing and sports games".
There is no reasonable, non-sexist grounds for thinking that these genres can't appeal to women.

 

[The Technomancer]

That's from her thesis. What she thinks positive traits should be for men and women.

So why exactly can't women be strong or decisive for instance?
In a perfect world where you want no sexism, that table should be a list of negatives and positives, regardless of gender.

To me it's the same basic mistake as saying "the VG industry is mainly targeted at men because it's dominated by shooting and fighting and racing and sports games".
There is no reasonable, non-sexist grounds for thinking that these genres can't appeal to women.

...except for how they depict women. You're arguing the same point that she is?

EDIT: Also that chart is, in context, presented as a "stepping stone"

 

[joe2187]

So wait is she changing the release schedule of her videos?

Seems like she's going to release a different video instead of the "fighting fucktoy" one she announced at the end of her last video.

 

[CambriaRising]

I guess if you do any sort of activism you have to live impoverished by it.

 

[Interficium]

Your both sides "argument" is reaching, to put it mildly.

I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish in this post. What argument? What's your point here?

 

[Deleted member 126221]

That's from her thesis. What she thinks positive traits should be for men and women.

Are you for real?

 

[Corpekata]

That's from her thesis. What she thinks positive traits should be for men and women.

So why exactly can't women be strong or decisive for instance?
In a perfect world where you want no sexism, that table should be a list of negatives and positives, regardless of gender.

To me it's the same basic mistake as saying "the VG industry is mainly targeted at men because it's dominated by shooting and fighting and racing and sports games".
There is no reasonable, non-sexist grounds for thinking that these genres can't appeal to women.

You are massively misreading that part of her thesis.

 

[FlyinJ]

I guess if you do any sort of activism you have to live impoverished by it.

It's better that way. Makes it harder for them to get their message that makes me uncomfortable out.

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

She is affecting game companies already like EA and Bioware.

I feel like this kind of logic sums up Anita's detractors (let's face it: Gamergate) 100%.They think that she is infecting people like a fucking virus.

 

[stupei]

So wait is she changing the release schedule of her videos?

Seems like she's going to release a different video instead of the "fighting fucktoy" one she announced at the end of her last video.

She doesn't explicitly say that, but it seems like it could be a possibility.

The "fighting fucktoy" video seems like it's going to honestly be one of the hardest ones to produce -- over such a contentious subject that even all feminists don't agree on all the time, whereas most of her other videos are primarily basic boilerplate stuff -- and given the tone in some of the threads about Bayonetta, it might also create one of the most extreme reactions. I would sort of like it if she held off releasing that one in this current climate.

It would be interesting if she responded to all the "men have problems too" criticisms by highlighting some of the problematic portrayals of men and masculinity in games. (I wonder if they'll still find a reason to call her a man-hating hypocrite.)