|
It isn't that she is criticizing something she loves. It is that she is labeling things people love with negative connotations.
It really is no different than Rush Limbaugh labeling something like Social Security a government handout. She is attaching negative connotations to something people don't think is negative.
And she probably isn't wrong. I don't really care about the issue one way or the other.
But what bothers me is what appears to be a lot of people rushing to defend her and label her as a victim.
That is classic damsel in distress behavior.
She is no more a victim than Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Anne Coulter, Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, etc, etc...
She is producing these videos to be provocative. That is the intent of what she is doing. She is trying to provoke a discussion of controversial issues.
And she is asking for (and recieved) "public" funding to do so.
Am I saying some people aren't idiots for threatening her.
No.
Am I saying that is is completely inconsistent to say she is a victim when not applying the same label to other provocateurs.
Yes.
Earlier a comment was made that I would not be a victim if I took threats from Tea Partiers by posting a kickstarter for an Anti-Tea party documentary, "Because those tea party people are a#~!~$$s."
Do you really think she was so naive in starting this as to not realize 4Chan exists?
Really?
Because if she was that naive, I don't know that she is in a position to be giving lectures as an expert on the topic.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I never saw her as proclaiming herself shocked or victimized by the vitriol aimed at her. What I did see was that the nature of the backlash was symptomatic of the reason for what she perceived as the need for analysis of the industry.
The only people who have any dog in the fight regarding how much money she got are the people that donated. I don't hear them complaining.
She does at time stretch to reach her conclusions. She does seem to gloss over the fact that the reason revenge is a trope is that it's been a trope since the advent of storytelling, and that the reason it began as a trope is because it hits an emotional space that resonates, and has reflected at least early historical realities.
However, it's always a good idea to critically and open mindedly listen to viewpoints you disagree with from time to time. I personally think she makes some valid points.
(And per agreement with the Goblin, she's hawt, not least because intelligence is hawt.)
Agreed on all points.
AFAIK, Anita Sarkeesian hasn't reacted to my knowledge with "shock" about anything that happened. A hell of a lot of gamers have, yes, but last I checked, Anita Sarkeesian was neither all gamers nor all game journalists. As far as I know her, reaction was simply to close comments on her channel, note that it wasn't going to stop her, note that such violent language was why it was important to illuminate certain issues, and keep going. If you have proof to the contrary, please provide it with working links.
And "the Internet is a mean place" is not a valid reason to put up with or excuse people who threaten to kill and rape a complete stranger, let alone for offering a fairly benign criticism (in the academic sense) of video games. Status quo is not god, and is not what should always be considered acceptable.
With the 140k, she can hire staff.
I can't imagine that should would be able to afford private security for more than a year (maybe two) unless she performing that level of Kickstarter annually (please fund this Kickstarter to protect me from a unknown number of monsters that may actually follow up on threats they have made). But of course, at that point, she isn't really making significant amounts of money from this rather than working to make sure that her private security is available.
In the end, none of those people should have been threatened. And I would personally have no problem calling them all victims. They are all being threatened by horrible people.
However, I do believe that not one of them is less equipped to deal with the threats than Anita Sarkeesian. I would even say that she is no where near equipped to deal with those threats compared to even the least of the names mentioned.
Since video games are attacked every day, there will (and should) be a ready roster of counter-attackers on standby to defend them... and indeed there are.
That makes this seem much more like an equal exchange of "attacks." She produces something commenting on video game tropes regarding women (that reasonable people might find inaccurate). In response she receives threats of rape and murder (which few would ever publicly support). These are nowhere near equivalent.
In the end, it seems that these vigilant "counter-attackers" are no performing their job anywhere near adequately. In this example, it is a lot harder to argue that video games are stuck in a misogynistic mindset when the first response to that claim is a torrent of misogynistic comments from gamers.
I can only presume that when the NRA blamed video games for making the gamers more violent, these same "counter-attackers" responded by threatening violence on various NRA members.
I would like to fire these "counter-attackers" from their positions of "Defenders of Video Games." I don't need them attempting to speak for a group that I am part of.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Except that those things are present in Donkey Kong because she wishes them to be there for the reasons she describes. It's impossible that the designers grabbed a simple, obvious, well known cliche for their plot because the head designer feels story in video games is a distraction from the game. Or that the player's character is a man because that's what the target demographics were. Or that Nintendo is still using the plot because they're lazy and it makes them money.
Nope. It's because of misogyny and to turn women into sporting goods.
Yep, that's the most sensible explanation. So she makes references to King Kong and Pop-Eye and women an railroad tracks and doesn't give you any context of subtext and then tells you what it means rather than laying out the actual analysis and context and providing you all of the information so you can make an informed judgment of her analysis.
That is a bad thing.
Except she isn't arguing that that it is done because of misogyny. She is arguing that the result is that a misogynistic message is propogated. She isn't even saying this is a problem as an isolated insodent, but that it only becomes one when it gets perpetrated repeatedly (and she then proceeds to show more examples).
She isn't speaking to the intent or motivation at all, except for calling it lazy.|
|
She isn't examining tropes any more than Glenn Beck is examining Obamacare.
She is specifically looking at them to be critical from her lens and perspective, and bringing focus on any and all negative aspects she can find to re-frame the debate in a light most favorable to her argument.
If I wanted, I could say that video games sexualize men by having them all dress in provacative outfits that accent unrealistic muscle tone, stamina and prowess that creates a mythological hero figure that no man can really attain, leading to male insecurity.
And I would be right. And I would also be looking at a broad issue (heh, pun) under a narrow lens with an intent toward an agenda.
Which is what she is being criticized for.
And if I asked for 6000 cash as a kickstarter to do what I described above, I would fully expect a ton of snark and ridicule from the community that disagrees with my narrow lens of focus on the issue. I would be disapointed if I didn't get it, because the only reason to do it is to be provacative.
That is my point.
I don't care that she wants to do it. I don't care that people want to pay her. I don't care that people are angry at her, or supporting her...I think the whole issue is so trival to real and pressing problems in the world, and even in video games. (why are parents letting children play these games is much more pressing to me).
I do care that she is being labeled as some poor innocent...I'll say it...damsel in distress under attack from the big bad internet because I think that is a far more dangerous stereotype when applied to an actual person rather than to a pixelated one.
She ain't a damsel in distress. She ain't a victim. She is a very intelligent woman who knew exactly what she was stirring up when she put the spoon in the kickstarter, which is succeeding beyond her wildest dreams and has led not only to the kickstarter cash, but also to whatever she gets in income from her youtube channel, speaking fees, increase writing fee....
To kind of quote Jay Z, she's not a Businesswoman, she is a Business, woman!
But we are talking like she is some innocent who we all need to protect...please.
Those are the gender stereotypes that are really dangerous and lead to the glass ceiling and discrimination. When we stop treating women like objects that need to be saved, people will stop make video games where they are treated like objects that need to be saved.
I have no problem with her getting the money, doing the project, etc...I think it is damn impressive.
I do have a problem with anyone thinking she was so naive as to not think she was not only aware that a backlash might come, but hoping for it, to improve publicity and attention.
Citrose if you want to do an analysis of cultural and media influences on male body image funded through kickstarter I'll be happy to throw some money at it. The sharp rise in anorexia and bulimia diagnosis in teen males over the last couple decades indicates something is happening but that's not a zero sum game with analysis of women in games.
|
|
Citrose if you want to do an analysis of cultural and media influences on male body image funded through kickstarter I'll be happy to throw some money at it. The sharp rise in anorexia and bulimia diagnosis in teen males over the last couple decades indicates something is happening but that's not a zero sum game with analysis of women in games.
And that is fine. But I would expect and understand I would get flack for it, likely from feminists who thought I was doing this with intent to poke at them...which I should fully understand going in.
|
|
Citrose if you want to do an analysis of cultural and media influences on male body image funded through kickstarter I'll be happy to throw some money at it. The sharp rise in anorexia and bulimia diagnosis in teen males over the last couple decades indicates something is happening but that's not a zero sum game with analysis of women in games.And that is fine. But I would expect and understand I would get flack for it, likely from feminists who thought I was doing this with intent to poke at them...which I should fully understand going in.
And does your usual definition of "flack" or "snark and ridicule" include death threats and rape threats?
Minimizing the attacks on her to "flack" or "snark and ridicule" is part of the problem. If that's all she'd gotten we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Do you think Rush Limbaugh, Keith Olbermann, etc...don't get death threats?
Go over to 4Chan for a few minutes...
Stop making her a victim, unless you want to make all journalists (or "Journalists") victims. Hell, are the cast of the Jersey Shore victims?
This was an attempt to get attention and money. Mission accomplished on both fronts. Bravo to her, good job.
But the victim label...let me just say I'm suspicious if we would be having this discussion of her victim if she were male.
And that is the real problem. We can't have equality if we treat her as someone who is weak and needs protection we wouldn't afford to someone who is male.
And more generally, why does "treated equal" have to mean "treated like men treat each other"? Why does the way men interact have to be the norm to which women aspire?
Because "treated equal" as being "treated like a man" is the stated goal as far as I can tell, disregarding the hypocrites.
Pay us (like men), and so forth, coupled with "treat me as you would a man of equal status". We can't treat everyone like women, now can we? Women are already dissatisfied with that.
Unless I'm missing something here.
I don't think I did but let's see what you think I'm missing.
This should be amusing.
But as humans we're doing pretty darn good. We're kicking the hell out of the other animals. The white males of the human species are doing particularly well, so much so that we find it easy to ignore most of the world, including the 50% that are female.
Yes, hence "human equality" as in "all humans should be equal" not "human superiority over animals".
Point missed: 1
Though I think it was more ignored than anything.
But they are separate issues. I've never been pulled over for driving while black, and I've never been threatened with death for wanting an education.
I'm confused as to what you think your argument is here. Are you trying to say that since the effects are slightly different, but equally or even more bad they're different issues?
Because you'd be wrong. They're all the same issue.
That's a good thing is it?
A very good thing.
Seems to me it wasn't that long ago that people were all up in arms because women had the audacity to want to vote (the nerve) but that seems pretty silly these days. Now women have the audacity to want control over their bodies and their reproductive systems.
I don't think you know what I mean by "Rad Fems" or this completely irrelevant sentence would never have been posted by you.
Women having control over their own bodies is GREAT. I'm all for it.
Women having control of my body (which is what the extreme Rad Fems want)? No. That is trading one inequality for another, which defeats the entire purpose.
Seems to me that anyone that was really interested in human equality wouldn't mind the smaller movements to achieve these same goals.
Radical/extremist anything is bad.
It's the difference between fighting for your equality, and this.
But what do I know?
So far? It seems not much.
Tell you what, when we reach that tipping point where women have equal rights and representation and then demand more, at that point I'll join your cause against the evil feminazies (a term coined by Rush Limbaugh I believe), but until then I'll give feminists a pass.
The great thing is that to focus on the good you don't have to ignore the bad.
Especially when the bad is inherently destructive to the cause of those who are trying to do good.
Interesting.
So in conclusion I'd say no, I didn't miss his point or yours.
You can say it all you like but that won't make it any more true.
No answer I see.
What she got was just snark and ridicule. Not important.
And the attention she was looking for.
He did answer you.
In the post you quoted.
All you have to do is scroll up maybe half an inch or so to see it.
Or you could continue to pretend he's ignoring you for whatever silly game you're playing, it's your choice really.
Aaaaand Bruunwald's post signals my time to nope my way out of this thread, hope the video gets seen by some of the people who appreciated part 1.
I don't know how anyone can "nope" humanism. Equal treatment for all people? Bullocks!
I'm pretty sure Alice was simply trying to make a graceful exit with a humorous post to avoid being dragged back into the trench-warfare "discussion" or rebutting the failings/shortcomings in Bruunwald's position.
Edit: And FYI, her latest video got flagged and pulled by Youtube before being re-enabled later.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just shake my head at Ciretose...
Blaming the victim of the abusive threats is what you are doing.
Jimquisition is correct YOU people who were SO threatened by a woman asking for equality in video games that you showered her with abuse, YOU are the ones who turned her into a star, YOU are the ones that got her a six figure pay out. It isn't HER you should be upset with it is YOU.
What is SO threatening about a more equal representation of women in video games?! Would you men stop buying games if they featured stronger female leads? THAT is absurd.
|
|
I just shake my head at Ciretose...
Blaming the victim of the abusive threats is what you are doing.Jimquisition is correct YOU people who were SO threatened by a woman asking for equality in video games that you showered her with abuse, YOU are the ones who turned her into a star, YOU are the ones that got her a six figure pay out. It isn't HER you should be upset with it is YOU.
What is SO threatening about a more equal representation of women in video games?! Would you men stop buying games if they featured stronger female leads? THAT is absurd.
No, I'm saying she isn't a victim.
She is a celebrity.
Is Justin Bieber a victim, in your opinion? Kim Kardasian?
Were the people who attacked her feel threatened by her? Yes.
Are the people who attack George Bush or Barack Obama feel threatened by them? Yes.
Are you trying to project the opinions of some idiots onto the broader populace? Apparently.
Are these broad generalizations the source of the anger toward her? I think so.
At then end of the day, would any of us be talking about her in any way shape or form, or about the topic she is discussing, without the controversy.
Nope.
So good for her. Her plan worked. Huzzah and good job.
Just cut the "Poor her" crap. It's patronizing to her intelligence. This was the plan, kids.
I think Mr. Citrose raises an interesting point worthy of discussion (as opposed to vitriol).
In our earlier discussion he posited that if he were to start a kickstarter discussing male body issues he would expect (and deal with) attacks from feminist groups opposed to that. Pedantically I could respond that such an attack wouldn't happen because promoting make health wouldn't fall into the penumbra of what feminists would worry about, but leaving it at that wouldn't reach the crux of what he's actually (and correct me citrose if I'm wrong, please) saying. His point seems to be if others who use provocative presentations to illicit entertainment or discussion likely receive similar treatment, why are we treating Ms. Sarkeesian differently? His position seems to be the difference is gender.
The thing is, I believe that he's right that Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, and Bill Mahr all likely receive their share of over the top threats. But likely so do Dr. Laura, Ann Coulter and Martha Stuart.
So why did the media discuss these instances with Ms. Sarkeesian? My guess is that some of the reasons are:
1. She had until right before that been quietly making videos for some time dealing with similar issues without this response. In short she was less of a celebrity than those others and so the perception was she was putting herself out there less.
2. The sheer volume of response in such a short time likely exceeded the volume most other celebrities get in such a short time period.
3. People love pointing at hypocrisy, despite it being a routine and hard wired part of the human experience. People coming to her saying, in essence, "there's not a problem with misogyny in video games, and if you think so you should be raped" gets people's attention.
What I think, however, is that no matter whom those sorts of comments are aimed at we as a society should exert social pressure to indicate the behavior is not ok. Even if it is a group of theoretical feminists threatening Mr. Citrose with castration.
|
|
I did answer. You just don't agree.
Lara Logan is a victim.
Daniel Pearl is victim.Getting threats from people on the internet, even death threats, does not make you a victim. It makes you a celebrity.
Or is Justin Bieber a victim?
OK, I'm missing it. I'm seeing lot about victim hood and a lot of comparisons to people who are rich and famous for things other than getting death & rape threats.
What I'm not seeing is an answer to my question about the equivalency of "flack" or "snark and ridicule" to death and rape threats.
The first of which I've gotten plenty of online and agree is pretty much expected. The second I haven't and think is something else entirely.
You raised those terms in relation to the response to her kickstarter. Do you really think they're an adequate description or do they trivialize the reaction?
Are you saying all she is famous for is getting death and rape threats?
How interesting.
I'm saying she wanted to be a celebrity (or at least get lots of attention to what she wanted to say) and get money.
So she picked a fight with knuckledraggers and succeeded.
She is no more a victim than Justin Bieber, Kim Kardasian, the Cast of Jersey Shore, Honey Boo Boo's mom, etc...all of whom regularly receive death (and probably rape) threats.
Because there are a lot of really dumb people on the internet who say lots of really dumb things.
She didn't need to set up a kickstarter put videos on the Youtube. She isn't stupid, she knew it would get her attention and kick up a firestorm.
Which is exactly what she wanted to happen and why she made over $150,000's to make Youtube videos.
And it is why you and I now know her name, in the same way we probably all know about "The Rent is Too Damn High" guy.
I praise her for reaching her goals and getting people to pay attention to what she wants to say, even if I personally don't care about what she wants to say. She had a goal, she reached it. Great for her.
But it is ridiculously patronizing, and insulting to the word "victim" to say she is a "victim".
The only reason anyone is talking about her at all is because of the reaction to her.
And the reaction to her (and the money, don't forget the money) was what she was seeking when she created the project.
Again, if you aren't going to say Justin Bieber and Kim Kardasian are victims, both of whom get far more threats, then she ain't a victim.
She is a celebrity. A self made one. Because she did an awesome job of stirring up a controversy and taking advantage of it.
Good on her!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
CAUTION: Extremely long post ahead. Spoilered to avoid wall of text for people who don't feel like reading it.
While I felt that she certainly had some valid points, I also disliked the way in which she tried to get these points across at times. I felt some of it was quite insulting to men, in that it treated us like ignorant bufoons who can't make any use of logic or reason. Unfortunately it has been some time since I watched those videos, and I'm sitting in an office halfway around the world from home just waiting for the greenlight on a 14 hour hardware replacement, so I can't look up specific examples right now. The Twilight one is the only one I can think of straight off the top of my head.
Now anyone who really knows me (which unfortunately is pretty much zero people on here, as I don't spend as much time in the community as I'd like) could attest to the fact that I'm the last person who could be accused of being sexist. My mother is an incredible woman, who raised my brother and I to respect people no matter their gender, sexuality, race, or any other factors. My father backed this up at all times. Throughout my education, and continuing through my adult life, I've always gotten on better with women than men. I also speak from personal experience when it comes to knowing the feeling of being discriminated against - until I was in a relationship from age 18 to 21, most people assumed I was gay, and believe me, I copped a lot of flak for that when I was growing up in a small town in rural Australia. The funny thing is that everyone just took that as proof that I must be heterosexual, never bothering to consider the middle ground there (for anyone that's curious, the answer is that I don't identify as hetero-, homo- or bisexual, I just like what I like. I suppose that makes me bi, but I don't see myself that way). Add that to the fact that until I started losing my hair and put on a fair bit of bulk, I was also a crossdresser, and you've got an instant recipe for vitirol from small minded bigots. I've had threats. I've had worse than threats, I've taken beatings bad enough to take me out of commission for a couple of days. So yes, I know what it's like.
Now, here's the thing. Although I'm not sexist, I really do enjoy things like fanservice in games and other mediums. I like art of beautiful women (and men), and I enjoy seeing them in games and film/television. This doesn't mean that I will automatically by a game just because it has T&A. I still need that game to stand on its own in terms of story and gameplay, and I will admit that there are times when I feel that fanservice is inappropriate. But in a game that is clearly doing it a tongue in cheek manner, and has enough going for it to actually make it enjoyable, I have no issue. Hence why Lollipop Chainsaw and Bayonetta are two of my favourite games from the last five years or so - because they were cleverly written, a lot of fun to play, challenging, and yes, had some fanservice. The same theory applies to other things that I enjoy. Code Geass: Lelouch of the Rebellion has (in my opinion) a brilliant story and is incredibly well written. Should I let the fact that there is fanservice there stop me from enjoying it? Why? Why should I not appreciate beauty?
The Twilight video is actually a good example of a problem I've often had when it comes to discussions with feminists that I used to spend time with in school. It (from memory) seemed to accuse men of hating Twilight for all the wrong reasons, and assumed that we couldn't follow a logical train of thought to find out why we should dislike it and why we should be disgusted by the characterisations of Bella, Edward and Jacob. Now I'll admit that yes, some guys seem to hate on it for no more reason than it being the done thing, but many of us, myself included, have actually read the book and formed our own opinions about it. I've read the whole damn series, and personally I hated it. I felt it was poorly written garbage, and that both Edward and Jacob were incredibly creepy love interests in their own way. I also believe that Bella Swan is quite possibly the worst role model I've ever seen for young women, or at least that she was until all of the other paranormal romance authors started jumping on the bandwagon after Twilight took off (although I like a good romantic plot in a fantasy story, it's rare that I'll read actual paranormal romance. I prefer it to be a subplot in my novels). Anyway, I digress. The point here is that I have regularly encountered feminists who do have some extremely valid points. The problem is that they immediately ascribe the issue as one that is common to all men, and in effect tar us all with the same brush. It's something that I really dislike, and at times it has gotten to the stage that I've started to play Devils Advocate out of sheer irritation at the constant attacks.
TL;DR Version: I feel Ms Sarkeesian often does the same thing as the feminists I went to school with, in that she tars all men with the same brush. Again, this isn't to say that I don't think she has some valid points, I wholeheartedly believe that she does, but I do object to the way she brings those points to bear. When you manage to make even those who agree with you feel like they're being attacked, it's not a good start. I suppose when I take a look at the actual series I'll be able to see if I have the same issues with how they were written, but based on my feelings on her other videos, I wasn't willing to back that particular kickstarter.
A final point, no matter my my personal opinions stated above, I in no way feel that the death threats and harrassment that Anita Sarkeesian has received is justified or right. Nor do I condone threats or harrassment against any person. We should all have the right to live free of fear of this kind of behaviour.
I'm not writing this to try and start an argument about anything, this is merely my personal view on the matter. If you want to discuss it further, feel free to respond here, or PM me if you'd prefer. If you want to start a fight, please don't bother. I won't respond, since I've learnt that it's really not worth the effort.
It's kind of a problem with the Kickstarter format, especially when it spins out of control like this did.
She originally wanted fairly minor funding, right? Then the attacks on her went viral and a ton of cash flooded in, not so much because people thought her product was going to be so great, but in sympathy for and backlash against the attacks.
Now she's got all that money and ridiculously high expectations for the videos.
After going back to the Kickstarter page, I see why so few stretch goals were put into place: there was simply no time. That said, I'd never heard of the woman until the rage-lulz-troll combo took over her marketing campaign.
My problem with the whole endeavor is that it seems Sarkeesian can't present her study from a detached viewpoint. The tone she takes ruins any chance of being taken seriously; no one wants to sit through a lecture when all they wanted was to listen in to commentary from a different viewpoint. Not to mention, some of the examples she crams into the second video leads me to believe that she barely pays attention to a game's plot and story during her playthroughs. She just needs to brush up her acting and speech, while adding a bit of humor to help with the flow.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just shake my head at Ciretose...
Blaming the victim of the abusive threats is what you are doing.Jimquisition is correct YOU people who were SO threatened by a woman asking for equality in video games that you showered her with abuse, YOU are the ones who turned her into a star, YOU are the ones that got her a six figure pay out. It isn't HER you should be upset with it is YOU.
What is SO threatening about a more equal representation of women in video games?! Would you men stop buying games if they featured stronger female leads? THAT is absurd.
So, essentially what you are getting at is that she's a damsel in distress?
:P
Seeing the big picture does not mean you ignore the small things. That's a very common mistake people make.
I won't go over the rest of the stuff again because you seem to be incapable of proper reading comprehension.
I mean seriously, if you'd even ATTEMPTED to actually read and comprehend what was written, this:
no need to be so hard on yourself, it's a complex subject, but what I was suggesting here is that there are a lot of humans, not just white males, and ignoring the feminist viewpoint is ignoring 50% of the population.
Would never have been your response. It is a redundant response to what I said. "All humans" includes females, would you not agree with that? Or are you one of those that holds the opinions that females should not only be equal, but are also deserving of special treatment?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just shake my head at Ciretose...
Blaming the victim of the abusive threats is what you are doing.Jimquisition is correct YOU people who were SO threatened by a woman asking for equality in video games that you showered her with abuse, YOU are the ones who turned her into a star, YOU are the ones that got her a six figure pay out. It isn't HER you should be upset with it is YOU.
What is SO threatening about a more equal representation of women in video games?! Would you men stop buying games if they featured stronger female leads? THAT is absurd.
So, essentially what you are getting at is that she's a damsel in distress?
:P
I actually find it fairly interesting that Aranna appears to be directly aiming an attack at Ciretose, as if he (making an assumption on gender here, but if I'm wrong then I apologise Ciretose) is one of the people who has been sending Anita Sarkeesian death threats. I don't recall seeing any comments from Ciretose saying that he has in fact done this. In fact all he has done so far is express his opinion. Whether or not you agree with him is irrelevant, that's the point of a discussion. Disagree if you want, but try to avoid turning it into an attack by lumping him in with those making the threats.
Additionally, making blanket statements about "you men" is exactly what I was talking about in my earlier post. It's a case of treating us as if we're all of exactly the same mind, and is actually rather insulting. We're just as capable of independant thought and opinions as the female population, and have just as much right to hold them.
Honestly, the amount of hostility that comes across from that comment is simply astounding.
It should be noted that women are now making up majority of college graduates. Will we see a dramatic drop in high level positions being held by white males in the near future. Probably not, but I believe we will see a dramatic shift in the middle range positions.
Males will be pushed to the extremes, maintain the majority of high level positions but also making up most of the lowest level positions in society. The question then will become what does it mean to have privilege and power for a given category of people?
If (I'm pulling numbers out of my rear here) 90% of men are in a lower position than 90% of women, but the other 10% of men are in higher position than everyone, does that mean that men as a whole will still be considered to have the power in society?
|
|
I just shake my head at Ciretose...
Blaming the victim of the abusive threats is what you are doing.Jimquisition is correct YOU people who were SO threatened by a woman asking for equality in video games that you showered her with abuse, YOU are the ones who turned her into a star, YOU are the ones that got her a six figure pay out. It isn't HER you should be upset with it is YOU.
What is SO threatening about a more equal representation of women in video games?! Would you men stop buying games if they featured stronger female leads? THAT is absurd.
So, essentially what you are getting at is that she's a damsel in distress?
:P
I actually find it fairly interesting that Aranna appears to be directly aiming an attack at Ciretose, as if he (making an assumption on gender here, but if I'm wrong then I apologise Ciretose) is one of the people who has been sending Anita Sarkeesian death threats. I don't recall seeing any comments from Ciretose saying that he has in fact done this. In fact all he has done so far is express his opinion. Whether or not you agree with him is irrelevant, that's the point of a discussion. Disagree if you want, but try to avoid turning it into an attack by lumping him in with those making the threats.
Additionally, making blanket statements about "you men" is exactly what I was talking about in my earlier post. It's a case of treating us as if we're all of exactly the same mind, and is actually rather insulting. We're just as capable of independant thought and opinions as the female population, and have just as much right to hold them.
Honestly, the amount of hostility that comes across from that comment is simply astounding.
I wish it was astounding, but I find it is par for the course.
She is now a "victim" that needs to be "saved" to some people, rather than a person who was seeking money and attention.
Which is what she is.
That isn't a bad thing. She wanted attention for something she thinks is important. But that is what happened and what she is doing.
She, as an individual person, not an entire gender.
|
Sometimes I wish I lived on another planet.
Feminist always make great points, but not always in the best way. Still I'm supportive of the videos, at least it opens a venue for discussion. I partially and reluctantly agree with ciretose, yes people who attempt to make changes are threatened by people who find change threatening, but I also think he's ignoring the difficultly women have been having in getting the main stream media to stop showing women as sexual objects or helpless victims. As a male sometimes feminism can be a bitter pill to swallow, don't even get me started on Women On Bicycle by Willem de Kooning, I thought it was a cat on a rocket powered pogo stick, apparently it has something to do with castration, I still can't figure that out. But, videos like these are important even necessary.
Anyway I really shouldn't post to threads like these, to much gender divide not enough understanding and support. If you want radicals like the the one linked to in Rynjin's post to go away, start listening to women. It seems weird but it works.
I think you'd need to watch the Jimquisition that Kevin Mac posted earlier to understand the point Aranna is making.I just shake my head at Ciretose...
Blaming the victim of the abusive threats is what you are doing.Jimquisition is correct YOU people who were SO threatened by a woman asking for equality in video games that you showered her with abuse, YOU are the ones who turned her into a star, YOU are the ones that got her a six figure pay out. It isn't HER you should be upset with it is YOU.
What is SO threatening about a more equal representation of women in video games?! Would you men stop buying games if they featured stronger female leads? THAT is absurd.
So, essentially what you are getting at is that she's a damsel in distress?
:P
I actually find it fairly interesting that Aranna appears to be directly aiming an attack at Ciretose, as if he (making an assumption on gender here, but if I'm wrong then I apologise Ciretose) is one of the people who has been sending Anita Sarkeesian death threats. I don't recall seeing any comments from Ciretose saying that he has in fact done this. In fact all he has done so far is express his opinion. Whether or not you agree with him is irrelevant, that's the point of a discussion. Disagree if you want, but try to avoid turning it into an attack by lumping him in with those making the threats.
Additionally, making blanket statements about "you men" is exactly what I was talking about in my earlier post. It's a case of treating us as if we're all of exactly the same mind, and is actually rather insulting. We're just as capable of independant thought and opinions as the female population, and have just as much right to hold them.
Honestly, the amount of hostility that comes across from that comment is simply astounding.
Fair enough, I wasn't quite sure what Aranna was talking about when Jimquisition was mentioned. I may take a hunt through the thread to find the link later on. Right now I'm on the clock, and the only reason I'm actually posting at the moment is because I need to stave off sleep while I wait for the guys back home to finish what they're doing so I can do some testing... It's after 2AM here in Johannesburg, which is a time at which I'd normally like to be sleeping, or at the very least lying in bed watching a movie or reading something.
I still maintain that wording the comment in the way Aranna did makes it appear to be an attack against the entirety of the male population though, as well as being very hostile. However, perhaps the link will provide some context.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see Anita Sarkeesian as a victim, and I doubt she sees herself that way.
That said, I do not think she should be blamed for the hate that was thrown at her when she launched her Kickstarter (to support a SEQUEL to an already known series of videos she had been making). To do so is akin to the idea of "blaming the victim" (but is not suggesting she is a victim). "Anita Sarkeesian wanted attention paid to her video series, therefore she asked for people to harrass her." This is a flawed assumption, and only shows the fear, ignorance, hate, and bias in the person who thinks that way. It's the same kind of thinking that leads to someone suggesting that a woman who wears a short skirt is "asking to be raped" or that a fit young boy who plays sports is "asking to be molested" by a pedophile.
As it is, her video was funded almost a year ago. She has made two videos so far and will keep producing them. The fact of her existence, the existence of Feminist Frequency (which long predates the Kickstarter), the "Tropes Vs Women" series by the Feminist Frequency (also predating the Kickstarter), and the fact that the videos are being made are incontrovertible. That she was harrassed and some people felt sorry for her because of it, and others felt she deserved it--also these things are what they are. Talking about whether she deserves whatever she's gotten or not are pretty much a moot point. Continuing to beat essentially what is a dead horse--especially page after page after page--only prolongs the discussion and the visibility of her. Jim Sterling was right, the people who make Anita Sarkeesian the most visible are the ones who keep talking to complain about some aspect of her, her series, or her fans or some aspect of the past situation (now unchangeable). It's amazing part of why this thread keeps popping up is because of people saying repeatedly she's not that special and not worth paying attention to, and thus endlessly drawing the attention to her that they simultaneously criticize her for seeking.
Anyway, I'm done here. I know there are minds here that were made up before they ever even took a single look at Anita's videos (if they ever had), so there's no point in discussion based on unwavering misconception and sheer stubbornness.
I keep checking back on this thread hoping to actually see a discussion of what she was actually talking about in her latest video, rather than beating dead horses of the past, but as all attempts to do that keep being derailed (and thus silenced), I may as well go elsewhere.
Hey you're the one that spelled my name Guy Humal. Doesn't bode well for the one touting reading comprehension on his side.
A typo that is then copy and pasted multiple times is still just a typo.
Reading comprehension implies comprehension of what you read (exactly what it says on the tin, in other words), not perfect grammar or spelling, especially of proper nouns.
If I'd wanted to hit you on that I would have made mention of your lack of proper capitalization or some such.
"I'm not sure what you think a "humanist" is but I'm more interested in helping those that need it till we're all on the same footing."
Which then implies that what I am saying is that we SHOULDN'T help everyone equally, which is a lack of comprehension on your part (for the third time in a row).
I'm saying stop focusing on which minority or other group is getting oppressed where and tackling them all like they're separate issues when they're all just branches of the same thing.
Especially when some branches have a plant killing fungus (Radical Feminism, for example) growing on them.
I'm saying stop focusing on which minority or other group is getting oppressed where and tackling them all like they're separate issues when they're all just branches of the same thing.And how exactly do we know about oppression if we're not focusing on minorities?
There's a large difference between "Not focusing on individual minorities" and "Ignoring minorities".
Okay, look at it this way. You need to get a petition signed to make Oranges fully represented at a fruit stand, while Grapes and Kiwis are under-represented too.
Now you can go about fixing this two ways:
1.) Have 3 different people make 3 separate petitions for Grapes, Oranges, and Kiwis.
or
2.) Have a single petition trying to help out Grapes, Oranges, and Kiwis all at once.
It's the difference between a Feminist group that ignores blacks and Hispanics, a Black Rights group that ignores Hispanics and Feminists, and a Hispanic group that ignores Feminists and blacks, and one big group that tries to help all 3.
It keeps a lot of the bias out as well. Nobody's equality is more important than anyone else' at all. And the best part is that (in a perfect world) this would mean there'd be no radical groups that keep trying to kick the other groups down so they can climb up on top of them.
It's been a while since I've seen the particular clip, but Jim wasn't talking about all men, just a segment of the gaming community, and so when you see the "YOU" it seems to me that Aranna was simply lumping Ciretose in with the group that Jim was talking about. I like Jim but I find his videos harder to watch then Anita Sarkeesian because he talks very quickly and with an obscure British accent, he makes some great points, but I feel he's probably a better writer then a presenter. The link for the video should be just on the previous page as Kevin posted it today sometime.Fair enough, I wasn't quite sure what Aranna was talking about when Jimquisition was mentioned. I may take a hunt through the thread to find the link later on. Right now I'm on the clock, and the only reason I'm actually posting at the moment is because I need to stave off sleep while I wait for the guys back home to finish what they're doing so I can do some testing... It's after 2AM here in Johannesburg, which is a time at which I'd normally like to be sleeping, or at the very least lying in bed watching a movie or reading something.
I still maintain that wording the comment in the way Aranna did makes it appear to be an attack against the entirety of the male population though, as well as being very hostile. However, perhaps the link will provide some context.
Hmm. I can see your point, but phrasing it as "you men" rather than just "you" seems like a pointer straight towards blanket accusation. Of course, that could just be how I'm reading it, but unfortunately when posting to a messageboard, we have to be aware that people can only base their opinion on how they perceive the intent and tone of the writing.
When the parties working on the single issues are splintered into so many separate groups that squabble among each other like children and work counter-intuitive to their own goal, something needs to change.
|
|
Whether Ms. Sarkeesian deserved the money or is doing a good job with it or whatever is ultimately irrelevant to anyone that did not back her Kickstarter, including myself, as we are not her "shareholders". For the rest of us, we simply have her arguments to consider.
Anyway, I hesitate to come back in this thread, but... in the video, Sarkeesian recommends a couple of indie games that actually look at the death of a woman in an interesting way--Dear Esther, To The Moon, and Passage. I am not familiar with the latter, but I am familiar with the first two, and I want to strongly encourage anyone who would enjoy a very different kind of game to play these two.
Dear Esther is a little iffy in my mind, although it's definitely worth a play. It feels a little too disjointed and abstract to me. However, the writing is superb and it's an enjoyable and quick play-through that explores the effects of death upon a man.
To The Moon is one of my most favourite indie games, and I only wish there was more like it. Not only does it use the death of a woman in a positive and thoughtful way, it also has a look at the effects of ableism on a person which is not something I see in many games at all! Prepare your tissues however because dat ending ;_;
(Another cool thing about TTM: You can choose to play as a PoC woman who is all kinds of awesome, yet isn't a caricature or forced to become "The Black Woman". Yays.)
Both of them are relatively cheap, you can pick them up on Steam, GOG, and Origin for $10 or less (and actually you can grab Dear Esther as part of the Humble Indie Bundle 8 going on right now).