@ Irontruth: Being a humanist makes me manipulative and pro-slavery? What?
No, the failure to recognize that certain groups of people face different difficulties than others, I find that counter productive and disingenuous.
You want everyone to be treated the same, but they aren't right now. Some people have to deal with problems that are different from others, often times based on their race, sex, gender, class, etc.
Ignoring those differences is to tell other people that their differences don't matter. They do matter, because those differences form part of their identity.
To quote a friend of mine (who stole the words directly from my mouth, including the first sentence):
"As a game design major and massive fan of the innovation that comes from the creation of indie games, I never thought I'd find something from my own medium of choice painfully pretentious.
Then I played Dear Esther."
|
Dear Esther is pretentious as all get-out. I won't lie. I don't think it pretends to be anything but, however. Nor do I think that's necessarily a bad thing. Different things are important for the development of games as a medium. Where would literature be without pretentious books? Many of them become 'classics'! :)
EDIT: To be clear, I'm kind of neutral on Dear Esther as a whole; however, I think it's worth a play purely for being something different.
|
Well I just watched the video series on the damsel in distress. I liked it, I thought it was well presented, framed and laid out. She also went out of her way to not blame men directly, but blame society as a whole for perpetuating the female as victim stereotype, while simultaneously perpetuation misogynist ideals. I also liked that she also stated that she wasn't suggesting that games cannot ever use a woman in a victim role, but how it framed it along with male aggression, violence, and fantasy fulfillment as being the main culprit.
I really liked it, so very well thought out. Honestly, I would watch more of her videos.
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.
With that in mind; I watched the video. As others have pointed out, I also don't always agree with some of her specifics, however; I also considered she raised a number of pertinent points.
Do I wish she was better at engaging her viewers interests & didn't have as many personal activities which distracted me from her message (while the hoop earrings were noticeable it was the persistent eye twitch that really kept drawing me off focus)? Yes.Do I consider any of that reason to discount her stated intent out of hand? Very much no.
I recently pre-ordered a copy of Pandora's Tower as the Wii is the only semi-current game platform I own & I'm always interested in new, interesting RPG's. Also because I thought the young lady at my local Video Game Store was cute & she seemed very excited about it. I was not as pro-active at thoroughly checking it out before I had already purchased it, so I was already a bit distraught when I began play. I could see already it sat rather firmly in a number of ms. Sarkeesian's 'Tropes vs. Women', consequently it was no surprise to see it referenced this volume. It was still rather distressing & I continue to waver as I find the story & game itself interesting & enjoyable...
As long as I ignore the 'elephant in the room'.
Which I don't feel like doing. Besides the other points, the fact that at least one of the possible/likely ends includes the 'Mercy Killing' sub-trope is rather off-putting & inclines me more & more to not finish the game.
|
|
Which I don't feel like doing. Besides the other points, the fact that at least one of the possible/likely ends includes the 'Mercy Killing' sub-trope is rather off-putting & inclines me more & more to not finish the game.
I agree, it was painful to even watch that segment, but boy did it drive the point home. About a week ago I said to a friend of mine "Isn't it funny how women and children are most often the victims", well frankly that's because we keep telling women they are victims waiting to be saved. That's the thing about feminist at first you think, a god not this again, but if you listen, really listen, they always seem to make great points.
@ Irontruth: Being a humanist makes me manipulative and pro-slavery? What?No, the failure to recognize that certain groups of people face different difficulties than others, I find that counter productive and disingenuous.
You want everyone to be treated the same, but they aren't right now. Some people have to deal with problems that are different from others, often times based on their race, sex, gender, class, etc.
Ignoring those differences is to tell other people that their differences don't matter. They do matter, because those differences form part of their identity.
Never have I advocated ignoring anyone or their struggles. That's something you've fabricated. What I have said is that focusing on one group to the exclusion of all others is a mistake.
Calling me disingenuous because I disagree with you is silly, but go ahead--you've already made up your mind as to who I am, what I believe, and what my intent is.
Enjoy the moral highground.
Great, now if I ever watch Aliens again, I must be supporting the abuse and murder of women, due to the scene where the marines find the woman still alive in the hive and she asks them to kill her (before an alien bursts from her chest).
Anyway, I hesitate to come back in this thread, but...
You must "buy off" that "Duty Calls" flaw.
|
|
| 1 person 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.
Respectfully, Bullshit.
This is exactly the false equivalency that I am talking about.
Someone being mean to you on the internet is not in the same ballpark as someone being a victim of sexual assault, period, full stop.
It is neither "akin" nor related, and it is a comment that I believe would not be made if we were talking about a man rather than a woman.
Which is my entire point, and what so troubles me about these discussions.
She got insulted on the internet when she asked for money to do a documentary on a controversial topic.
That is what happened.
It isn't the same kind of thinking, and the comparison of the two is what angers so many of us who agree with feminist values but then have to try and defend crap like this which is a pure gender bias that translates any attack on a specific woman into an attack on the gender as a whole equated with sexual assualt.
Which is completely absurd, and half of what the counter argument to her is.
She is 100% correct that many tropes continue gender stereotypes.
And so does crap like this, where someone from 4Chan sending her hateful emails is given equivalency to sexual assault.
That is exactly why I am so offended at her being called a victim. It diminishes the word.
She wanted money to pay her so she can make videos that attack video games, and gamers attacked her verbally.
Even hinting that is in the same ballpark as rape is exactly why so many men who agree with equality constantly find ourselves facepalming.
But I wanna make sure everyone plays To The Moon! I love it so so so much. :(
Preaching to the choir here; it's still lodged firmly into my "favorites" section on Steam.
|
|
OK, I'm still missing it. I get that you think she got exactly what she wanted.
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?
Do I think anyone "Deserves" death or rape threats? No.
Do I think it is part of the territory when you are a celebrity making 150,000 dollars to make videos about video games.
Yes.
I would bet tons of game reviewers get similar hate mail. Hell, log on to X-Box live for a few hours and discuss such things, see what you get in your head-set and mailbox. Or just slide over to 4chan for an hour or so.
She is getting paid 150,000 dollars, plus lord knows how much else, to be a celebrity.
That is what she is doing. Being a Celebrity. This isn't her doctoral thesis, this isn't a study she is conducting for NIH. This is her, giving her opinions, on the internet.
I suspect you aren't really a true internet celebrity until someone on Youtube threatens to kill and/or rape you.
The internet is full of horrible people. If that is where you decide to be seeking income from...hello!
To be fair log in to Xbox Live and do ANYTHING and you'll get death threats and rape jokes from people.
I got a quite amusing message from a guy about a year ago about how he would "skul fuk u n ur family" for booting him after he betrayed me for the 3rd time on Reach.
|
|
To be fair log in to Xbox Live and do ANYTHING and you'll get death threats and rape jokes from people.
I got a quite amusing message from a guy about a year ago about how he would "skul fuk u n ur family" for booting him after he betrayed me for the 3rd time on Reach.
Exactly.
The internet is full of jerks who say horrible things. You have to know that going in, and if that is what you choose to do as a profession...
It's like joining the army and then being shocked they send you some place where people shoot at you.
Yes, it is horrible we live in a world with wars, and that people shoot each other but...hello...you joined the Army, what did you think would happen?
And no, people shouldn't threaten her (or me) on the internet. But it is the internet! Hello! You don't get to collect a 6 figure check for working on the internet and complain that the internet is exactly what we all know it is.
And frankly, when you exploit that vitriol to get publicity and more money.
I don't for a second believe she is that naive. And shame on anyone else who doesn't give her the credit.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"skul fuk u n ur..."
Sounds like a dragon shout.
Don't ever read Jacques DerridaI have.
And you referencing him explains everything. The ad hominems, the non sequiturs, the misrepresentations of what I said, claiming my arguments as your own.
I should have figured.
You were never interested in discussing the topic at hand, just in protecting your damsel in distress from reasoned criticism of her methods and conclusions.
A pox on deconstructionists. A pox I say.
"Feminists need to stop listening to Foucault and Derrida and start listening to Frank Sinatra!"
--Rough paraphrase of Camille Paglia, in the video I linked somewhere above
To that end I thought I'd offer myself as an answer point for any particulars relating to "Feminism 101" kind of topics that might arise from these videos. I'm no expert, but I might be able to shed SOME illumination on the topic.
Just saw this after a couple of months and I'll bite:
I have thus far had a lifelong commitment and interest in the struggle for women's liberation (through socialist revolution) and have read, probably at this point in my life, thousands of pages on the subject, mostly by commies of various shades, but not much by actual feminists. In fact, probably the only feminist writer that I have read at any length (say, more than one book) is Camille Paglia, and, well, it's safe to say that she's probably the Internet Troll of feminism (which is why I enjoy reading her, even when I disagree).
I have, on a couple of occasions, asked pro-feminist posters for suggested reading material and, with the notable exception of two posters, the response has mostly been "I haven't read any books on the subject". (The two exceptions were bell hooks and Germaine Greer--neither of whom strike me as typical feminists.)
Another (gay male) writer that has been of much value to me over the course of my life thus far, has been Gore Vidal, whose essay Feminism and Its Discontents strongly recommends Eva Figes's book Patriarchal Attitudes as the best of the bunch (the essay was from, I think, '71) and the only one that doesn't look shabby next to John Stuart Mill (his words, not mine), but I haven't tracked that one down yet.
So, could you hook a brother up with some recommendations?
@ Irontruth: Being a humanist makes me manipulative and pro-slavery? What?No, the failure to recognize that certain groups of people face different difficulties than others, I find that counter productive and disingenuous.
You want everyone to be treated the same, but they aren't right now. Some people have to deal with problems that are different from others, often times based on their race, sex, gender, class, etc.
Ignoring those differences is to tell other people that their differences don't matter. They do matter, because those differences form part of their identity.
Never have I advocated ignoring anyone or their struggles. That's something you've fabricated. What I have said is that focusing on one group to the exclusion of all others is a mistake.
Calling me disingenuous because I disagree with you is silly, but go ahead--you've already made up your mind as to who I am, what I believe, and what my intent is.
Enjoy the moral highground.
I'm calling disingenuous because you're calling for equality, but your denigrating those who are fighting for their own equality.
Would it be nice if everyone fought for everyone's rights? Yes. But I don't hold it against people who are fighting to gain rights I already have access to, just because they aren't fighting for someone else's as well.
You are putting people down who want to fight for their rights and dignity. If you're doing it unintentionally, no worries, learn something new and move on.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Which is my entire point, and what so troubles me about these discussions.
She got insulted on the internet when she asked for money to do a documentary on a controversial topic.
That is what happened.
And I think that among the more troublesome parts about these discussions is the describing threats of rape and murder on the internet as "insults."
It seems like there is this divide that the conversation is not going to get past where one side sees those threats as vile, uncalled for, and dredged from the darker parts of humanity; then another side that sees them as not good, but as part of the standard language of the Internet and, as such, no less unexpected than someone telling you that they vehemently disagree with you after touch on a controversial subject in a public venue.
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...
Thank You.
This is what I was trying to say in my post but was to upset to articulate it properly.|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The two exceptions were bell hooks and Germaine Greer--neither of whom strike me as typical feminists.
... they aren't? D: bell hooks is pretty much my go-to author for this question...
So, could you hook a brother up with some recommendations?
I have to profess to not being that well read on the subject overall, however. I haven't read many of the old "classics" because very often the material is so dry as to be unapproachable. Add that to the fact that my interests tend to be related to biological/genetic aspects of gender, sociolinguistics and cognitive/neurolinguistics, and sexuality... and I probably read more oddball/scientific things than traditional feminist works. That and a lot of modern-day feminist discussion can be found on blogs and various forums (e.g., the SRS network on Reddit; Skepchick; Shakesville; Feministing; Jezebel; the Good Men Project; etc...)
I found this list and it does a good job of hitting most of the big authors I've read/heard highly of, although I realise it's probably a little exhaustive for your purposes. Then again, I'm not sure what you're most interested in. There's definite worth in reading the "classics" in order to understand the history of modern feminism, I suppose.
Some authors offhand in no particular order (with the note that I may or may not agree 100%, or even at all, with what they write):-
- Mary Wollstonecraft (kind of the beginning... right?)
- bell hooks
- Jessica Valenti
- Cordelia Fine's Delusions of Gender (looks at the science behind gender)
- Gloria Anzaldua
- Judith Butler
- Inga Muscio
- Andrea Dworkin
So, how many here think men are all scum and deserve any insult thrown at them, no matter who they are or what they've done?
So, how many here think men are all scum and deserve any insult thrown at them, no matter who they are or what they've done?Not the point of feminism. You should maybe ask: "who here would consider the female voice in the next game you play?"
That would be more in keeping with the theme and message of these videos.
So what do you call those people who do say/believe such claims, then? Feminazis?
And really, the fact that so many responses to Anita's video pointed out flaws in it speaks for itself.
By responses I mean video responses, not posts on the video itself. If I remember right, she disabled those.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So what do you call those people who do say/believe such claims, then? Feminazis?
The same thing I'd call the Westboro Baptist Church or Islamic terrorist groups: extremists. They exist in every denomination and are unfortunately given a bigger and louder voice than the majority in many cases because the media and pop culture laps it up. In reality they represent a minority opinion.
Usually I'd call them imaginary constructs.
So what do you call those people who do say/believe such claims, then? Feminazis?
Imaginary constructs? Really? You sure about that?
As to why she disabled responses, video or otherwise, I'd think that would have something to do with the death threats, personal attacks, and misrepresentation of her work. Just a guess however.And really, the fact that so many responses to Anita's video pointed out flaws in it speaks for itself.
By responses I mean video responses, not posts on the video itself. If I remember right, she disabled those.
And most of the video responses I've watched do not include any of those three things...
|
|
Which is my entire point, and what so troubles me about these discussions.
She got insulted on the internet when she asked for money to do a documentary on a controversial topic.
That is what happened.
And I think that among the more troublesome parts about these discussions is the describing threats of rape and murder on the internet as "insults."
Have you ever been on 4Chan?
Have you ever logged into XBox Live?
Have you ever read YouTube or Twitter comments?
Again, it is like signing up to go to afghanistan and going "They shoot at me?!?!?!"
She is doing the videos to call out behaviors of people. If she were a man, receiving death threats, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Justin Bieber gets worse pretty much every day, and he isn't even trying to be provocative.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So what do you call those people who do say/believe such claims, then? Feminazis?Usually I'd call them imaginary constructs.
As to why she disabled responses, video or otherwise, I'd think that would have something to do with the death threats, personal attacks, and misrepresentation of her work. Just a guess however.And really, the fact that so many responses to Anita's video pointed out flaws in it speaks for itself.
By responses I mean video responses, not posts on the video itself. If I remember right, she disabled those.
Which is one thing that does bother me about all this while I do believe the comments were vile and horrific I cant help but think she set out to set up the situation to be this way
What I mean is she seems to have comments on all her other videos disabled except for this one, uses the comments to gain attention, then when she has her funding disables the comments again.
If she Disables comments normally to avoid such remarks why allow them on this video and then only disable them once she has got her funding?
|
|
Which is one thing that does bother me about all this while I do believe the comments were vile and horrific I cant help but think she set out to set up the situation to be this way
What I mean is she seems to have comments on all her other videos disabled except for this one, uses the comments to gain attention, then when she has her funding disables the comments again.
If she Disables comments normally to avoid such remarks why allow them on this video and then only disable them once she has got her funding?
Which is absolutely brilliant.
She is doing a wonderful job accomplishing exactly what she set out to accomplish. It is damn impressive, and good for her.
100% serious. Not kidding. I would hire the hell out of her to do PR work for me.
What I'm seeing on this thread is a lot of people acting like she is a damsel in distress. She isn't. She knows exactly what she is doing, she is playing the knuckledraggers like a fiddle for publicity and money toward her causes AND using the comments to illustrate her points.
Well done by her. Sincerely.
So stop patronizing her like she is some naive child, just because she is an woman. That is, to me, a far bigger roadblock to equality than anything in a video game.
I found this list and it does a good job of hitting most of the big authors I've read/heard highly of, although I realise it's probably a little exhaustive for your purposes. Then again, I'm not sure what you're most interested in. There's definite worth in reading the "classics" in order to understand the history of modern feminism, I suppose.
Some authors offhand in no particular order (with the note that I may or may not agree 100%, or even at all, with what they write):-
- Mary Wollstonecraft (kind of the beginning... right?)
- bell hooks
- Jessica Valenti
- Cordelia Fine's Delusions of Gender (looks at the science behind gender)
- Gloria Anzaldua
- Judith Butler
- Inga Muscio
- Andrea Dworkin
Thank you, sister.
... they aren't? D: bell hooks is pretty much my go-to author for this question...
Well, I may be speaking out of line, because what the hell do I know about typical feminism. But, I found this pretty good article on "Redefining Feminism" from earlier this year that was discussing intersectionality as some kind of new thing, even though it sounds a lot like what bell hooks was talking about 30 years ago, so, I assumed...
Also, I found this interview in SPIN magazine that she did with Ice Cube that I can't imagine, say, Andrea Dworkin or Naomi Wolf conducting.
Thank you again.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, how many here think men are all scum and deserve any insult thrown at them, no matter who they are or what they've done?
[Raises hand]
All you pinkskins suck.
What I'm seeing on this thread is a lot of people acting like she is a damsel in distress. She isn't. She knows exactly what she is doing, she is playing the knuckledraggers like a fiddle for publicity and money toward her causes AND using the comments to illustrate her points.
Well done by her. Sincerely.
I haven't really been following this part of the thread, but I agree with these two paragraphs.
It's part of why I think she's hawt.
From a financial perspective, the death threats were a stroke of massive luck for her, considering the attention they brought. An unprincipled person could have faked such comments for the economic bottom line. Lucky she is not such a person.
Madame Sissyl, if you have a moment, I have a question about Swedish womanhood over here.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Which is my entire point, and what so troubles me about these discussions.
She got insulted on the internet when she asked for money to do a documentary on a controversial topic.
That is what happened.
And I think that among the more troublesome parts about these discussions is the describing threats of rape and murder on the internet as "insults."
Have you ever been on 4Chan?
Have you ever logged into XBox Live?
Have you ever read YouTube or Twitter comments?
Again, it is like signing up to go to afghanistan and going "They shoot at me?!?!?!"
She is doing the videos to call out behaviors of people. If she were a man, receiving death threats, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Justin Bieber gets worse pretty much every day, and he isn't even trying to be provocative.
My response has to the part of that post you didn't quote. I am not willing to just accept the part of the Internet that produces this bile. Until they learn to not be idiots I will continue to perceive them as reprehensible attackers and I will show sympathy to who they directed their bile towards.
It doesn't matter if this was her goal all along. It doesn't matter if she benefited from those comments. Those threats should have never been made. Those people forfeited this argument as soon as they hit the submit button.
I am not accepting of arguments that rely on, "it is just a part of the community."