Anita Sarkeesian/Tropes and Women in Gaming

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Have Implicit Association Tests been used in a well controlled study on media consumption and stereotypes? Last time I checked this is not what IATs were being used for.

 

I didn't say they've been; I merely remarked on alanschu's observation that in social sciences, it's hard to produce reliable, quantifiable results due to social pressure.

 

 

 

 

 

I hope you do realize that you can be both pro-sex and anti-pornography at the same time.

 

No, that's not true, it's equivocation, people are talking about being pro-sexuality which includes pornography, where she is talking about her selfish desires while being entirely dishonest about pornography, clearly she is writing to an audience that hasn't seen pornography in their lives. You can't be pro-sexuality apart from when it's not specifically designed for you, which will be the majority of it.

 

I have to admit, I'm a bit confused. What parts of her article are you referring to? (Please, no "the whole thing"-type of answer   )

Edited March 21, 2013 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Chaz]

I have to admit, I'm a bit confused.

What parts of her article are you referring to? (Please, no "the whole

thing"-type of answer   )

 

I expanded a bit on my post, that was, you know, right under his.

[TrashMan]

The idea that media (not just games) perpetuating stereotypes as having negative effects isn't really new.

 

Of course it isn't. But the impact of it is VASTLY overblown. DiD has it's place as a trope.

 

 

And the reason I don't like her is because she has already been doing YouTube videos. She already had everything she needed. So funding for her project was really unnecessary.... A better camera? Unnecessary. Make-up artist? Unnecessary?

If people want to give her money, I'm not gonna stop them, altough I do find it funny that people gave her money so she can basicly buy a ton of games.

Not to mention that what I have seen of her show was rather boring, and some of her examples and arguments were atotal miss. Maybe she improved the quality of the show with the money, I wouldn't know as I don't watch it.

 

 

And in the end it depends little on how I said it. (I sure as hell didn't  spread around hatered of women or male superiority)

Disliking a you tuber doesn't constitute as racism by any strethch of immagination.

I'm getting sick and tired of the Political Correctness Inquisition hunting down immaginary monsters.

Edited March 21, 2013 by TrashMan

[Chaz]

I'm not gonna stop them, altough I do find it funny that people gave her money so she can basicly buy a ton of games.

 

Not even that, there is no evidence that she bought and even played some of the games she talked about, like double dragon neon. She couldn't have played Dinosaur Planet because it was never released, everything she said could have been picked off from the wikipedia.

 

And even her own research is lazy, Fox never replaced Krystal, he replaced Saber, you know, the main male character, but whatever, her supporters will just rationalize it away like they have been doing for the past 12 pages.

Edited March 21, 2013 by Chaz

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

I have to admit, I'm a bit confused.

What parts of her article are you referring to? (Please, no "the whole

thing"-type of answer   )

 

I expanded a bit on my post, that was, you know, right under his.

 

You mean this one?

 

 

No, that's not true, it's equivocation, people are talking about being

pro-sexuality which includes pornography, where she is talking about her

selfish desires while being entirely dishonest about pornography,

clearly she is writing to an audience that hasn't seen pornography in

their lives. You can't be pro-sexuality apart from when it's not

specifically designed for you, which will be the majority of it.

 

Right, when i say anti-sex I'm saying that she is against sexuality, not that she doesn't want to have sex herself and hopes to remain a virgin

 

>You can't be pro-sexuality apart from when it's not specifically designed for you, which will be the majority of it.

 

That's like when the religious say "we are in favor of sex...    that is only in the missionary position for the sole purpouse of procreation, see? we are pro-sex" Yeah, right buddy. What else you got?

 

 

I still don't understand the basis of this accusation.

She's saying she doesn't like porn, because she finds it degrading (which is a rather problematic statement - she's implying that the women working in porn have no agency and need to be saved from their own decision to work in that industry). But how does this make her anti-sex? She wants to have an enjoyable experience when shagging someone. In what sense is that akin to the religious viewpoint?

[AwesomeOcelot]

I have to admit, I'm a bit confused. What parts of her article are you referring to? (Please, no "the whole thing"-type of answer   )

Apart from most of it being moronic and untrue? She hasn't even attempted to study pornography, she has a stereotype impression of it that people who have never watched porn have. Someone genuinely interested in studying pornography, would look slightly different. She talks about the adult entertainment industry, with a generalized, warped, and ignorant view of it, but then includes adverts on buses and Page 3, and since it's invaded "every part of our culture" probably a lot of other things that wouldn't even involve anything she was criticizing in adult entertainment films.

 

It's a equivocation and the package deal fallacy. She also doesn't back up anything she says, it's completely devoid of evidence, nor citation. People who tell people to "google studies" have not done even a meta-analysis, although they're not great, you really want a quality review of the literature that takes into account the quality of studies, they may have cherry picked some studies with poor methodology, small sample sizes, from crank publications to back up their ideological perspective.

 

 

I know that face, that is not arousal or desire it's the same look I had in my old job on a Monday morning. Dread combined with tedium.

 

Their body parts are generally all cut up, butchered, shaved, bleached, silicon-stuffed and battered into something that represents a brutal war more than it does having happy fun times.

I'd like the right to avoid exposure to triggering abusive and grotesque material should anyone wish to.

 

...so the four lap-dancing clubs I pass need to stop dropping leaflets all over the pavement outside...

 

sharing his Sun Page Three iPhone app with his mate in front of me

This may lead to you having a reduction in how well you relate to your partners and the women in your life as most porn is very demeaning.

 

...people who watch a lot of porn are rubbish in bed.

 

In most porn no-one is interested in enjoyment, it's just their job to stick bits of themselves into each other.

 

...look into their soul-crushed miserable eyes and tell me that looks like fun.

Porn has invaded every part of our culture.

 

...it scrapes off a little bit more of the humanity...

 

The reason for this nonsense? Someone was a little jealous when their boyfriend refused to stop watching porn.

I have had a relationship ruined by being exposed to my partner's porn.

Edited March 21, 2013 by AwesomeOcelot

[Malcador]

 

 

She doesn't make a case that video games are inherently misogynist and that they should be banned and censored

 

To echo this, she does straight up state in her video: "Just to be clear, I'm not saying that all games that use the damsel in distress as a plot device are automatically sexist or have no value."

 

She also states that she has been a fan of the Mario and Zelda franchises for most of her life.

 

 

I dunno, when people really belabour the point that they don't dislike something or think it's bad, it's usually a craven cover.

[babaganoosh13]

 

I do agree that the subway ad with the peel-off stickers is a bit much.

 

What's this?

 

 

It's at the 2:00 mark.

 

 

[Chaz]

I still don't understand the basis of this accusation.

She's saying she doesn't like porn, because she finds it degrading

(which is a rather problematic statement - she's implying that the women

working in porn have no agency and need to be saved from their own

decision to work in that industry). But how does this make her anti-sex?

She wants to have an enjoyable experience when shagging someone. In

what sense is that akin to the religious viewpoint?

.

It's a equivocation and the package deal fallacy

 

lol, I will explain what we meant since he didn't elaborate. When se talk about anti-sex we mean one thing and you and the blogger talk about anti-sex they are talking about a different thing.

 

When I talk about Anti-Sexuality I'm talking about beign against sexuality in the media, in our case, video games. for example Bayonetta is a very sexualized character, her outfit, her moves, her personality. While some people see no harm in this Anita and many feminists condem it (as I showed in her Bayonetta Review)

 

What your Blogger is basically saying is "Hey I'm not anti-sex, I enjoy sex with my significant other and want to have sex in my life, I'm a pro-sex person" she is basically saying that she enjoys the act of having sex and it's not against it, while she is condeming the whole porn industry.

 

 

It's at the 2:00 mark.

 

I was the one that shared that video, but I gues he must have put me on ignore since he had no idea what we were talking about.

 

 

I dunno, when people really belabour the point that they don't dislike

something or think it's bad, it's usually a craven cover.

 

What is a craven cover?

Edited March 21, 2013 by Chaz

[Malcador]

Just meant they're dishonest and it's a bit cowardly to do it. Hm, I wonder if her first video should have been an introduction of sorts, so present the 'point' and state what she's trying to do.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

lol, I will explain what we meant since he didn't elaborate. When se talk about anti-sex we mean one thing and you and the blogger talk about anti-sex they are talking about a different thing.

 

When I talk about Anti-Sexuality I'm talking about beign against sexuality in the media, in our case, video games. for example Bayonetta is a very sexualized character, her outfit, her moves, her personality. While some people see no harm in this Anita and many feminists condem it (as I showed in her Bayonetta Review)

 

What your Blogger is basically saying is "Hey I'm not anti-sex, I enjoy sex with my significant other and want to have sex in my life, I'm a pro-sex person" she is basically saying that she enjoys the act of having sex and it's not against it, while she is condeming the whole porn industry.

 

I fail to see how being anti-sex by your standards would be wrong.

[NOK222]

Guys like **** and asses. Oh no, we're sexist.

 

This is the guy that made that thread about boob armor too. 

[Chaz]

I fail to see how being anti-sex by your standards would be wrong.

 

But did you understand there was an equivocation and we were talking about different things? I mean I don't want to keep making more points if you didn't aknowledged or understood my previous point.

 

Based on the definition of anti-sex that I was using, you can't be anti-porn and pro-sex at the same time because they are mutually exclusive.

Edited March 21, 2013 by Chaz

[alanschu]

And the reason I don't like her is because she has already been doing YouTube videos. She already had everything she needed. So funding for her project was really unnecessary.... A better camera? Unnecessary. Make-up artist? Unnecessary?

 

If people want to give her money, I'm not gonna stop them, altough I do find it funny that people gave her money so she can basicly buy a ton of games.

 

Not to mention that what I have seen of her show was rather boring, and some of her examples and arguments were atotal miss. Maybe she improved the quality of the show with the money, I wouldn't know as I don't watch it.

 

This is probably why she only asked for $6000, and that it was mostly for her time, not for equipment and the like.

 

Disliking her for getting funding to do some research is silly.  If you do that, then you have to chastise any University out there.

Edited March 21, 2013 by alanschu

[alanschu]

 

I didn't say they've been; I merely remarked on alanschu's observation that in social sciences, it's hard to produce reliable, quantifiable results due to social pressure.

 

It's not even just due to social pressure.  A lot of it is straight up ethics.

 

It's hard to set up an experiment and replicate the experiment precisely the same to properly control all the variables.

 

This is why a lot in the physical sciences can scoff at the social sciences as being "a science" because, despite attempts at being empirical, there are challenges that make applying the scientific process more difficult when you start dealing with living creatures, especially human beings.

[Chaz]

A lot of handwaving, still no evidence to support his case.

[Sannom]

* she never said they were inherently misogynist, she said that they reinforce and amplify misogyny, which is a serious accusation

It's an accusation made at every bit of popular culture out there, from video games to books. She focuses n games because that's what she knows best. 

 

And even her own research is lazy, Fox never replaced Krystal, he replaced Saber, you know, the main male character, but whatever, her supporters will just rationalize it away like they have been doing for the past 12 pages.

He replaced Saber and then Krystal was kicked out and then was transformed into a pretty object for Fox to look at. Sarkeesian's point still stands even if she should have filled us in on the whole history of the game.

 

I was the one that shared that video, but I gues he must have put me on ignore since he had no idea what we were talking about.

You have seen the post Alanschu was answering to, right? There was nothing in it to indicate that it was related to the Bayonetta video.

 

And speaking of the Bayonetta video, how do I turn off those annoying red boxes that keep popping on the screen?

Edited March 21, 2013 by Sannom

[Rostere]

By "anti-sex", I assume people mean to say that Anita is not a sex-positive feminist (look it up on Wikipedia). I'm with her on that, but it's important to remember regarding her that she is also not the sharpest tool in the shed. I agree with her general opinions that's pretty much it.

[Volourn]

She's just another trashy s exist whod eserevs to be thrown in the dumpster with all those male sexists. She is a scumbag to be sure.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

That anti-porn but pro-sex article was incredibly condescending.

On the video,

.

[alanschu]

I disagree with the notion of "we are not allowed to have opinions" (I almost didn't continue on past his blog post, and I ended up jumping along for the much of the video).  He mentions "But so what?" in response to the fact that most comments would be bad.  He also implies that people do not get their "fair say" in the discourse.  His blog post actually undermines his assertion that dissenting views can't be presented, as he is literally presenting one with the blog post.

 

Here we are, having opinions and (mostly) interesting enough discussion here.  Comments and voting statistics for likes/dislikes on youtube aren't particularly meaningful.  What you're going to get is people voting yes/no not based on the content, but based on their perception of the whole Anita Sarkeesian drama.

 

This isn't isolated to Anita by any means.  Research is actually being done to determine whether or not comment fields are a negative contributor to the content of the article.  In the linked article, it makes reference to a study done by the University of Wisconsin and how excessively negative comments polarize readers and gave the readers a different understanding of the material presented (it typically polarized them and made them believe more strongly in a particular perspective, despite not really having the knowledge or capability to take such a position).  The article also breaks down other issues with comments (many see them as vitriolic, and the "sensible" posters have already started moving their conversations elsewhere, leaving only the trolls).

 

Some bloggers stopped comments because they found that it had an impact on how they created the content for their blog.  Xark shut down their comments because he didn't want to be bothered with dealing with the vitriolic stuff (nor did he want his blogs associated with any of the trolling), and since very active moderation is required to keep the page clean it became easier to simply shift his discussions to Facebook or Twitter.

 

Even TEDxTalks recognized that comments wouldn't be fruitful and explained why they blocked them on

.  The Youtube channel acknowledged that fruitful and interesting discussions can still take place on whichever social network the viewer felt like taking it to.

 

 

I work for BioWare, and while I am reasonably active on the BSN, I don't need to go to the BSN to find criticisms of BioWare though.  I've seen Mike Gamble step into a thread to make an update in the wake of ME3 and just get jumped on by dozens of people for reasons completely unrelated to Mike's post because people were upset and the BSN was particularly vitriolic in the wake of ME3.  Anita doesn't need to have comments on her Youtube to find criticisms towards her videos, and anyone expecting any sort of meaningful response or discussion in the comments of her youtube are being quite optimistic of what would have occurred there, in my opinion.

 

 

As for the voting type of statistics?  Cooper Lawrence had her book routinely voted down on Amazon because she was associated with the Mass Effect sex scandal.  I'm sure as gamers we can all feel a piece of schadenfreude as gamers "reviewed" her book with the same level of scrutiny that she had given Mass Effect (by not actually experiencing it).  Though the fact still remains that the votes on her book had absolutely nothing to do with the book nor the contents within it.  Useful feedback for both the author and others looking at the book was lost in the sea of gamer rage.  The low scores weren't a reflection of the quality of the book in the slightest.  Metacritic user scores are another good example.  Gamers don't typically use it to properly review materials, but as an outlet for disappointment which leads to further polarization.  Some people "bombing" the score only leads to others trying to prop it up to counter it, and it's not productive.  If the Wisconsin study conclusions have merit, it arguably undermines the understanding people have of the actual game.

 

 

I actually consider this a very serious issue with the way internet handles communication.  People often see it as a license to effectively behave in ways that they typically wouldn't treat people in person.  I find it very polarizing and those polarizing perspectives carry on to the other aspects of these people's lives.  The irony here is that the vitriolic response to Anita's kickstarter pitch led to the hateful reaction, which ultimately helps fuel Anita's decision to not allow comments and the statistics.  She gets told that she should suck it up and not censor, when the reality of the internet is that opinion is pretty much impossible to censor (here we are expressing our opinions).  I'm curious if Anita would have still blocked comments if the discourse around her kickstarter was decidedly less toxic.  I'm sure there will be the standard defenses of "that's just the way the internet is" which I think is a copout. 

 

Part of the reason why I opted out of a particular discussion in this thread is because I'd felt some level of a cognitive dissonance where I felt carrying on the conversation wasn't even unproductive, but rather counterproductive.

Edited March 22, 2013 by alanschu

[Chaz]

As for the voting type of statistics?  Cooper Lawrence had her book

routinely voted down on Amazon because she was associated with the Mass

Effect sex scandal.

 

That's fair enough but in the case of Youtube, downvoting doesn't have any negative impact on your channel. I don't find the rest of the post very relevant, research beign done on whatever? sure, call us when it's done and when it has been peer reviewed.

 

Part of the reason why I opted out of a particular discussion in this

thread is because I'd felt some level of a cognitive dissonance where I

felt carrying on the conversation wasn't even unproductive, but rather counterproductive.

 

It's funny because you are the one who started off this very thread by posting a hateful article by some guy who just dismessed everyone that disagreed with sarkeesian and wrote them off as haters or trolls, at this point I'm not sure if you ignored me or just don't even read.

 

Now I recognize that nobody wants to read nasty comments or insults, but I came here with reasoned arguments and you can't stand it either, you just shut yourself off. I think that what some people really hate is dissenting opinions no matter if they are disrespectful or not.

Edited March 22, 2013 by Chaz

[Sannom]

It's funny because you are the one who started off this very thread by posting a hateful article by some guy who just dismessed everyone that disagreed with sarkeesian and wrote them off as haters or trolls, at this point I'm not sure if you ignored me or just don't even read.

I missed that one. Which post was it?

[Chaz]

I missed that one. Which post was it?

 

The first post, it features an article by a guy that said that said "if video games are going to grow up then bullying needs to stop" first of all I consider bullying to be bad, of course. I was victim of bullying when I was a kid, also some people might consider I was also a victim of virtual bullying because I'm sure someone was mean to me on the internet at some point, but I don't consider someone posting a comment like "**** or gtfo" to be on the same footing as someone insulting me to my face when I was at school, not by a longshot, specially when real life bullying will often get physical.

 

Now that we got that out of the way, the title of the article is ridiculous to me because it says that if video games are to grow up bullying needs to stop? it's implying that video games haven't grown up since they were created decades ago, also, how is someone beign a meanie in the comments section of youtube affect game developers in any way? unclear.

 

Now, on to the article itself, first it paints people who disagreed as "the taliban of gaming"? what? I was slammed here because I compared anita's video to a terrorist trial but this guy can get away with comparing us to terrorists? because we disagree with her? Oh, he's just talking about the ones that were mean/insulting, ok but insulting someone is not the same as beign a terrorist.

 

He also said that the reason everyone was against Anita is because "she was a girl who dared to analyze women in video games" and that's it. First of all, there are plenty of female gamers that have their own youtube channels (with 10 times more subscribers and ratings and comments enabled, mind you) and they don't get that kind of hate. So is it really all the hate because she was a girl? couldn't it be because they disagreed with her or because they don't belive in feminism? Is it because she was analyzing women video games? You could say that, but I see it because she was analyzing video games in a very negative light, her main presuposition is that games amplify misogyny, and her video series is not meant to determine if she is right or wrong, her mind is already made up. The video series is just to list off how many times and in how many instances video games have been misogynisitc.

 

So were all the attacks really becase she was a girl? I don't think so, if it was a guy the one who wanted to create the series he would have recieved pretty much the same kind of pushback, because many of us would have belived that what he was saying was bollox.

 

So does this guy, cliffy b, aknowledges that some people had legitimate critisism and mentions it in his article? nope, everyone that disagrees is written off as a taliban, and I see that as hateful

Edited March 22, 2013 by Chaz

[NOK222]

I take it you're talking about the Hepler incident Alanchu?