International Women's Day!

[Orogun01]

Actually, I just want the world to shut up about misogyny and boobs in games and to stop giving award to someone who just made a bunch of low budget YouTube videos (even after she raised a lot of money)

[BruceVC]

Actually, I just want the world to shut up about misogyny and boobs in games and to stop giving award to someone who just made a bunch of low budget YouTube videos (even after she raised a lot of money)

 

Are you talking about Anita Sarkeesian ? If so can you briefly explain what your objection is about her YouTube videos and her raising money, I am missing the point?

[Hiro Protagonist]

Bruce, what's your view on people who raise money concerning social issues but won't provide proof that they are a Non Profit Public Benefit organisation.

[BruceVC]

Bruce, what's your view on people who raise money concerning social issues but won't provide proof that they are a Non Profit Public Benefit organisation.

 

That's a problem for me, we have this issue in South Africa and Africa in general where some NGO's get donations to uplift a particular country and the money is spent enriching a certain  politician or person. This doesn't always happen but it occurs relatively frequently

 

I believe if you accept money for a charity or cause you must also provide some kind of auditable trail where donors can see where the money is going.

 

I assume you are suggesting this is what Anita is doing, do you have any links that I can read around this?

[Hiro Protagonist]

I really haven't been following all of this. I briefly looked over it at the time but generally didn't take an interest tbh. I decided to do a google search on Anita Sarkeesian today due to this thread and found some interesting links.

 

The first link that piqued my interest was the "Anita Sarkeesian Stole my Artwork" Claims Blogger. Quite an interesting read and directs to the bloggers page with an open letter to Anita. The letter is written very well, nice and polite and the artist claims she has contacted Anita but had no response. It seems part of the internet got behind the artist and finally Anita did respond by removing the artists artwork. The artist has this quoted on her home page with the removal. Credit to Anita for doing so. However I found the following quote from the artist a little concerning:

 

 

Anita, thank you so very very much for doing the right thing and finally removing my artwork as I had kindly requested. This is a fantastic first step to recognizing the rights of digital content creators such as myself, and a wonderful example for content creators of different disciplines to try to communicate and work together.

 

I’m very very sorry we were not able to come to an agreement for you to continue using my artwork, but please remember that the door is still open: I’d be incredibly happy for you to keep using my artwork for free as soon as you can provide proof that you are a California Non Profit Public Benefit Corporation.

 

While I’d love to take your word for it because women + games is a topic that is true to my heart, it wouldn’t be fair to the other orgs I’ve worked with to give you permission without proof. I know it’s frustrating, but I have to at least try to play fair and not play favorites.

 

I found that interesting that she'll raise money for things like this but won't provide proof concerning non profit. The artist says 'I'd love to take your word for it' which implies Anita is saying this is not for profit, but then won't prove it. And that claim by Anita (her word) doesn't seem credible to be honest. And I don't blame the artist for calling her out on it and asking for proof. I don't see a problem Anita forming a non-profit organisation and have to wonder why she doesn't do so.

Edited April 17, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist

[Orogun01]

This

[Gorgon]

She's a media personality, which has kinda overshaddowed her 'cause'. It doesn't help that she apparently makes a living milking the controversy. 

 

Get a real job already ?

[Elerond]

Official statement about situation from Feminist Frequency and Anita Sarkeesian.

 

http://femfreq.tumblr.com/post/79882515581/recently-it-came-to-our-attention-that-we-had

 

 

Recently, it came to our attention that we had accidentally used a piece of fan art in a collage we made for my Tropes vs Women in Video Games Kickstarter two years ago. Some of you have politely asked questions and expressed concern about this issue so I will do my best to clear things up here.

 

First, we would like to offer our sincerest apologies to Tammy for mistaking her Dragon’s Lair fan art for official promotional material two years ago when we created this remix collage. Her rendering of famed animator Don Bluth’s character Princess Daphne is so professional looking that we honestly thought it was official art used in the marketing of one of the dozens of Dragon’s Lair remakes and ports that have been released over the past 30 years. Compounding our confusion, Tammy’s image is used on many video game sites and forums without proper attribution to the artist and without indication that it is fan art. It was on one of these sites that we originally found the image which was grouped with many other official images of famous female gaming characters.

 

Feminist Frequency makes a point to try to not use fan art. Many fan artists are so talented that their creative works can look as good, if not better than the official versions. So we try our best to be diligent and make sure all media used is from the publishers and developers of the games discussed but occasionally we do make an honest mistake.

 

We use thousands of images in the creation of our video critiques and we rely on fair use to be able to do that. The fair use doctrine allows for the transformative re-use of copyrighted materials for the purposes of commentary, criticism, parody and education as provided for under section 107 of US Copyright law. As such fair use is a critical legal framework for free speech, after all it is what allows for fan artists to publish their creative works in the first place. Fair use is also what allows even large commercial entities (like Comedy Central’s The Daily Show, for example) to comment on and criticize media clips and images without asking for permission first.

 

We believe that our transformative use of Tammy’s fan art is a fair use under the law. However, since we honestly did not intend to use fan art in this case, we have voluntarily gone ahead and replaced the fan art in our old collage as a gesture of goodwill.

 

Unfortunately, there is now a staggering amount of misinformation about the Tropes vs Women project flying around the internet. It would take too long to correct all of the false rumors but I do want to clarify a couple of facts. 

 

We take copyright and fair use concerns very seriously. As such, we took the necessary time to respond to Tammy’s concern in a proper and considerate manner. The reports that we ignored Tammy’s initial inquiry are entirely false. We have been in repeated contact with Tammy and have worked diligently to try and resolve this issue since we were first notified that the image in question was, in fact, fan art. We gathered our team together to discuss the issues and then responded as promptly as was possible. We did not see her “open letter” blog post until after we had already sent her our first response. We did not feel it would be appropriate or professional to publicly discuss this incident until a resolution could be reached.

 

Complicating matters was the fact that Tammy had recently been in direct social media communication with at least one individual who has participated in the doxxing of me, my team and my family. We do not believe Tammy had any knowledge of this person’s actions, but it necessitated additional caution on our part in dealing with this situation.

Finally, the Tropes vs Women project is a nonprofit endeavor. We never place ads on any of our episodes and always make our videos available for free to everyone on YouTube. For those that may be interested, Feminist Frequency is registered as a public-benefit nonprofit corporation in the state of California.

 

On a personal note, I’d also like to say that I love fan art and have been an ardent supporter of fan works for many years. I am a member of the Organization for Transformative Works, which advocates for and archives transformative fan works online. I highly recommend checking out their website and sending some support their way.

 

If you are interested in learning more about the fair use doctrine I recommend the following resources:

 

• Fair use guide by Digital Media Law Project at Harvard University’s Berkman Center for Internet and Society
• Code of Best Practices in Fair Use by The Center for Media and Social Impact

Lastly, I’d like to extend a big thank you to all those who have continued to support me and my Tropes vs Women in Video Games project.

 

Sincerely,

Anita

[Amentep]

 

 

Here's the thing, are male nurses payed more than female nurses?

 

The way that feminists word their argument would make it seem so, they seem to willfully obscure the fact that the so called gender gap is across different fields.

 

Anyways, happy women's day and whatnot.

There's still some issues (I don't know about nursing, specifically) in some situations.

 

http://www.pnas.org/content/109/41/16474.full

 

Nice read, still I would had liked if they had gotten to the bottom of what their bias was specifically.

 

While the story is interesting, 127 is a rather small sample size. Given that the reviewers were science faculty from similarly situated universities, not only do you have a limited sample size you also have a specific test pool that could skew the data Is the bias endemic to research institutions, institutions of higher learning, to the sciences or the greater culture? We can't know from this study.

 

I'd also argue that with such a small pool you also have a problem of being able to extrapolate to larger populations. Given that we also don't know the backgrounds but do know the faculty were all science faculty at intensive research institutions there might also be a question of whether the "random faculty" coincidentally don't have random backgrounds (ie they end up being products of very similar personal, professional, educational, and life experiences - perhaps enough so that the bias is explained because the random group has become comprised of people who have through similar development brought similar outlooks to the experiment and thus wield a similar bias).

 

There would really need to be follow-up studies on this with broader populations to really understand the bias and where it might come from and whether it exists in the way the study describes on a wide scale.

 

EDIT: Learned a new word today - Doxxing.

Edited April 17, 2014 by Amentep

[Gorgon]

 

 

I'm baffled by the fact that it's illegal to cross the street except on the crossings when there is a green light in the US. How do you ever get anywhere in time. 

 

 

Well, you just break the law.  Jaywalking is pretty common here, occasionally the cops do a crackdown because too many pedestrians get killed by cars but for the most part they ignore it (like everything else, heh).

 

Or because you're black.

 

Supposedly the whole thing is a scam, legislation pushed through by special interest. The whole 'jay walking kills' campaign. Not supported by stats. 

[Elerond]

Feminist Frequency's claim about being registered as non-profit corporation in California is true if you believe public records about corporations. 

http://www.wysk.com/index/california/walnut/mt8qeb8/feminist-frequency/profile

Edited April 17, 2014 by Elerond

[Amentep]

 

 

 

I'm baffled by the fact that it's illegal to cross the street except on the crossings when there is a green light in the US. How do you ever get anywhere in time.

 

Well, you just break the law.  Jaywalking is pretty common here, occasionally the cops do a crackdown because too many pedestrians get killed by cars but for the most part they ignore it (like everything else, heh).

 

Or because you're black.

 

Supposedly the whole thing is a scam, legislation pushed through by special interest. The whole 'jay walking kills' campaign. Not supported by stats.

 

Eh...there's a school across the street from where I work and a lot of the community kids jaywalk to get to the campus. Also about four bus stops for the public transport system (not school bus) along the street where community adults go to catch the bus.

 

There's a high number of accidents on the street but I've not heard of anyone being killed because of those accidents.

 

That said, I've never been late walking either - its not like you can't know how fast you walk and how the lights are timed if you use the road paths more than once. (And at least locally we have crosswalks that aren't at lights now where traffic is supposed to stop for pedestrians using the road to cross)

Edited April 17, 2014 by Amentep

[Gorgon]

I mean how jaywalking became illegal to begin with.

 

It's kinda a seperate problem from the saftety of schoolkids. Firstly the road is usually plastered with signs with little kids crossing the road, secondly kids aren't supposed to cross the road outside the crossings, 'jaywalk' if you will, alone.

[Gorgon]

matter of fact a kindergarten teacher here with 20 kids in tow has right of way over normal traffic. the same right of way given to political rallys' demonstrations and funeral processions. except it's always in effect.

[Hiro Protagonist]

 

Official statement about situation from Feminist Frequency and Anita Sarkeesian.

 

http://femfreq.tumblr.com/post/79882515581/recently-it-came-to-our-attention-that-we-had

 

That's nice Elerond, but we already know this in the links I provided. Part of that comes across as PR fluff. Anita says she was in constant contact with the artist when this was first raised. The artist disputes this. "Except that I (and several of your supporters) have tried to contact you to nicely resolve this via your website, Twitter, and even Kickstarter." - Tammy

 

The fact is it took an internet campaign against Anita Sarkeesian to have the artist's artwork removed from Anita's internet campaign. Anita should have just removed the artwork when the artist requested many times for her to do so. It should never have got to the point it did where an artist needs an internet campaign to get Anita Sarkeesian to do something that's right.

 

Feminist Frequency's claim about being registered as non-profit corporation in California is true if you believe public records about corporations. 

http://www.wysk.com/index/california/walnut/mt8qeb8/feminist-frequency/profile

 

And creating a non-profit organisation is one thing. Anybody can create one. I can go and create one myself if I wanted to. The fact is if you went to the artists homepage, where I quoted that Anita couldn't prove she was non-profit, you would see that the artist linked the official IRS charity site. So we still have Anita not officially non-profit. Just a dodgy registration which was registered a year after her Kickstarter campaign.

 

And it goes back to what I asked Bruce about views on people who raise money concerning social issues but won't provide proof they are a Non Profit Public Benefit organisation. To this day, Anita can not provide proof she is officially non-profit.

Edited April 17, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist

[Elerond]

 

 

Official statement about situation from Feminist Frequency and Anita Sarkeesian.

 

http://femfreq.tumblr.com/post/79882515581/recently-it-came-to-our-attention-that-we-had

 

That's nice Elerond, but we already know this in the links I provided. The fact is it took an internet campaign against Anita Sarkeesian to have the artist's artwork removed from Anita's internet campaign. Anita should have just removed the artwork when the artist requested many times for her to do so. It should never have got to the point it did where an artist needs an internet campaign to get Anita Sarkeesian to do something that's right.

 

Feminist Frequency's claim about being registered as non-profit corporation in California is true if you believe public records about corporations. 

http://www.wysk.com/index/california/walnut/mt8qeb8/feminist-frequency/profile

 

And creating a non-profit organisation is one thing. Anybody can create one. I can go and create one myself if I wanted to. The fact is if you went to the artists homepage, where I quoted that Anita couldn't prove she was non-profit, you would see that the artist linked the official IRS charity site. So we still have Anita not officially non-profit. Just a dodgy registration which was registered a year after her Kickstarter campaign.

 

And it goes back to what I asked Bruce about views on people who raise money concerning social issues but won't provide proof they are a Non Profit Public Benefit organisation. To this day, Anita can not provide proof she is non-profit.

 

 

If you read the official statement it gives explanation why they did what they did. Which is that they didn't remove picture because artist asked its removing but that reason that it was not original artwork as they believed when they decided to use it. I can't say if this is true or false, but it sound that it could be true, as they also stated that they believe that they have legal right use picture without asking permission from original artist, and they gave the law which they think gives them this right and some links that explain fair use in USA. But without court order there are only claims from both sides.

 

Registered corporations has to answer of it money usage to tax authorities, who are quite strict that non-profit corporations are non-profit and currently Tropes against women videos are owned by registered corporation called Feminist Frequency, which is registered as non-profit corporation.

 

IRS site lists only those charitable and non-profit organizations that have tax exempt (meaning that they don't need pay taxes or they need to pay less taxes) status, what Feminist Frequency don't have. But you can find it from California's corporation listings, where it's listed as with non-profit and public benefit statuses. I gave you a link in one of such listings in my previous post.

 

I can't say if it ok for Bruce if public-benefit nonprofit corporation collect money to inform people about social issues or do it need to be charitable organization to be acceptable. 

 

And I would also point out that I posted Anita's statement about issue only because when we speak about arguments in internet it is usually good to read point of view from both sides of the argument, because otherwise conversation becomes quite one sided. I avoided and avoid still give my opinion about issue as it don't have any relevance to me, as I don't have any interest to bash or cheer either side of issue. 

Edited April 17, 2014 by Elerond

[Hiro Protagonist]

I did read the official statement and a few things don't add up.

 

-  We have been in repeated contact with Tammy and have worked diligently to try and resolve this issue since we were first notified that the image in question was, in fact, fan art.

 

This seems to be false as I pointed out.

 

- We did not see her “open letter” blog post until after we had already sent her our first response.

 

Well if Anita was in repeated contact when they were first notified, why would Tammy need to write an open letter? It would never get to that stage.

 

And I could go on. But this is a side issue.

 

You're missing the point Elerond:

 

Anita Sarkeesian cannot provide proof she is a Non Profit Public Benefit Corporation. What should be done with non profit organisations and what does happen aren't always the same. And the fact is Anita Sarkeesian cannot provide proof. That is the point I'm raising.

 

Here's a question for you. Do you think it's okay for someone to register a non-profit organisation, raise funds for their 'cause' and yet are unable to provide proof of what they are doing is non profit. And when you do ask them for proof, they cannot provide it. You are ok with this?

[Elerond]

 

You're missing the point Elerond:

 

Anita Sarkeesian cannot provide proof she is a Non Profit Public Benefit Corporation. What should be done with non profit organisations and what does happen aren't always the same. And the fact is Anita Sarkeesian cannot provide proof. That is the point I'm raising.

 

Here's a question for you. Do you think it's okay for someone to register a non-profit organisation, raise funds for their 'cause' and yet are unable to provide proof of what they are doing is non profit. And when you do ask them for proof, they cannot provide it. You are ok with this?

 

Public benefit corporations are in public register (where you can find that Feminist Frequency is public benefit non-profit corporation)  so I don't see why one should provide more proof than that? Should they give copies of their bank statements? Or what?

 

I am founding member of public benefit non-profit corporation that collects money for "cause" (running young center where people can play games and make and paint miniatures), but if people don't believe Finland's public corporation registry that says that our corporation is public benefit non-profit corporation, then only way that I can prove that it is non-profit is to show them our corporation's bank statements, which we need to show every year for tax authorities who will check them to make sure that we haven't made any profit (and if such thing happens we would get quite heavy fine for doing so). Of course I can't say if such procedures are place in California, but I would bet that is the case.

[Hiro Protagonist]

Whether you can prove your non-profit organisation is a non-profit organisation is not in dispute. Are you going to ignore the fact that the artist claims Anita Sarkeesian can't prove it herself? That's the issue. You seem to be sidestepping the question.

 

Also, Bruce said they have this problem in South Africa with some non-profit organisations. Just because Finland is tightly regulated, doesn't mean other countries are too. There was also a report with over 1000 non profit organisations in the U.S. that had 'problems' with their organisations. It can be nearly any country, even Australia. So I ask again. If a person can't prove they are non-profit, then are you still going to take their word they are even though they say they can't prove it?

 

'Just take out word we are. Look, we're registered! That's all you need to know'.

Edited April 18, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist

[Elerond]

Whether you can prove your non-profit organisation is a non-profit organisation is not in dispute. Are you going to ignore the fact that the artist claims Anita Sarkeesian can't prove it herself? That's the issue. You seem to be sidestepping the question.

 

Also, Bruce said they have this problem in South Africa with some non-profit organisations. Just because Finland is tightly regulated, doesn't mean other countries are too. There was also a report with over 1000 non profit organisations in the U.S. that had 'problems' with their organisations. It can be nearly any country, even Australia. So I ask again. If a person can't prove they are non-profit, then are you still going to take their word they are even though they say they can't prove it?

 

'Just take out word we are. Look, we're registered! That's all you need to know'.

 

But if only proof (as she has told you where her corporation has been registered and in what from, which is something that everyone can check from public register) that she can give you isn't enough, then how she should prove it? So before I start speculate anything I want to hear what is enough for you, as if you ask her to do something she can't then this your demand of proof is only witch hunt, which I will take no part on.

 

And I think that Bruce speaks about non-profit charitable organizations, not non-profit corporations, because non-profit corporation is corporation that don't have right to make profit or tax authorities will fine them. I give you that the not every country tax audits smaller corporations every year (they don't do that even here in Finland), but I don't know any country that don't demand that corporations kept records of their accountancy and ask corporations to sent them in every year (as it is something that every citizen even need to do). And I would also guess that in most cases problems with non-profit organizations is not that they aren't non-profit, but that they don't use money on things that they say they use, which is very big problem with charities and religious organizations. As it is very easy to make your corporation/organization/whatever non-profit as for example you can always give yourself a rise so that your accounts show no profits (which is enough for tax authorities as then you have paid income taxes from that sum).

 

So again do you want them show their account information show that you can check that they haven't done tax fraud, or is your demand for to see proof that they have used their money in things that they have said they have used them or what? Because if they aren't non-profit as they have registered to be, then they are committing tax fraud, which I think is illegal in every country of world. But if you are worried that they don't use their money in things that they say they do, then it's different question, but one that is not about their corporation status as non-profit. 

 

Those problems that you spoke about non-profits in USA were about misuse of money

 

A startling report in today's Washington Post shows more than 1,000 of the nation's nonprofit organizations have each acknowledged losses of a quarter million dollars or more because of theft, investment fraud, embezzlement or other unauthorized use of funds.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/nation-july-dec13-stephens_10-27/

Edited April 18, 2014 by Elerond

[obyknven]

Thread become so boring.

Celebration of International Women day in Russia

http://youtu.be/q2s2unmuMLg

In Soviet Russia women rule you.

[Gorgon]

I like the guy with the minigun babushkas. What's his name anyway ?