Drama in indy gaming and games journalism

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

People become so radicalized that even Anita can appear a moderate.

 

I must say that Anita's public views are quite moderate

 

Her views paraphrased by me

"I want developer's use less tropes, especially those I see to be degrading towards women"

"I want developer's to use more active female protagonists"

"I want more games that don't focus so much on violence"

"I think using tropes that I think to be sexist and not giving women as many active roles as men shows that our society is still leans towards patriarchy"

"I want/hope that game developers start to make more games for my tastes"

 

Her vision for what direction games as medium and art form should develop don't wholly correspond with my vision, but I don't think that her vision is anyway radical.

 

 

 

The issue comes about in two seperate ways:

 

 

1) Anita CAN be radical. Find a video she did on sexist Christmas songs. Have fun with it.

 

2) Anita lies. Check how she misrepresents Fallout New Vegas (and others) in her women as backround decoration video.

 

 

Those two combined, you actually start to wonder if there aren't ulterior motives, moreso with the second one than the first. Either she's soooo radical she pulls ridiculous claims out of thin air here and there (unlikely, as other times she IS quite reasonable), or the girl honestly is just trying to profit off of this situation she's found herself in, leading to profit > truth and thus she'll do misleading or half-assed pieces to gain profit.

 

I'm replaying New Vegas right now and do not feel encouraged to gun down random women.

 

I think if someone feels New Vegas encourages you to do that, it says more about them than about the game.

[Volourn]

Anita is evil. She also hates women. She belittles them. She shames them. She spits in their face.

[Longknife]

Anita is evil. She also hates women. She belittles them. She shames them. She spits in their face.

She farts in their general direction.

[Nonek]

I must say that Anita's public views are quite moderate

 

Her views paraphrased by me

"I want developer's use less tropes, especially those I see to be degrading towards women"

"I want developer's to use more active female protagonists"

"I want more games that don't focus so much on violence"

"I think using tropes that I think to be sexist and not giving women as many active roles as men shows that our society is still leans towards patriarchy"

"I want/hope that game developers start to make more games for my tastes"

 

Her vision for what direction games as medium and art form should develop don't wholly correspond with my vision, but I don't think that her vision is anyway radical. 

 

 

"I want developer's use less tropes, especially those I see to be degrading towards women." And hearin lies the problem, she sees them as problematic, I don't and neither do many other players, I don't see any storytelling technique as problematic if it is implemented well. If it is not then the game will not sell, the problem is therefore non existent and one of personal choice. If she doesn't like the game, don't buy it.

 

"I want developer's to use more active female protagonists." They already do, or allow a choice in gender between male and female. If they choose a set gendered protagonist that is their choice, if you don't like that choice, then abstain from purchasing.

 

"I want more games that don't focus so much on violence." There are already many games that don't focus on violence, others however want games that do, once again the solution is obvious, buy the non violent game.

 

"I think using tropes that I think to be sexist and not giving women as many active roles as men shows that our society still leans towards patriarchy." Once again a personal opinion, not relevant to anybody but herself. If you dislike the non active role of a woman in a game, choose a game where a woman is active, there are many on offer. Virtual reality does not affect the real world, this has been proven time and again.

 

"I want/hope that game developers start to make more games for my tastes." From the tastes she has shown on her videos I most certainly hope that they do not! Game developers cannot make games to every individuals taste, it is an impossible and illogical request, choose a genre you like and a gameplay you like and support it, hope it is successful. Kickstarter offers more options, but cannot cater to everyone. Still there is more choice, more breadth and more representation than there has ever been before. And of course as always video games are inclusive, anyone can and does play them since their inception.  

 

The problem for me with these high minded goals that Ms Sarkeesian and others set, is that the games they want and champion aren't games, they're feature stripped, walking and storytelling simulators. They're clearly degenerate, they strip features, content, ambiguity, subtlety, nuance and most importantly interaction, choice and consequence in favour of preaching at the player. In an insultingly obvious manner, befitting children being told a story, which speaks to the creators mindset I believe.

 

Personally if I want a game that I personally find to be perfect for me so passionately, i'll get off my arse and make it, rather than whining at developers to alter their vision to accomodate me, special snowflake that I am. Women now have a large market share, use the power of their spending potential, developers and publishers will happily step forward to accomodate their spending.

Edited October 12, 2014 by Nonek

[Blarghagh]

I really appreciate how today has gone. Looking through the hashtag, I'm seeing a lot of GamerGate "service announcements" of what to do if you see harassment and a couple of examples of people actually going out of their way to find, report and encourage others to report harassers, including someone who threatened to kill Anita Sarkeesian at GDC'14. Seeing GamerGaters defend someone who has so thoroughly condemned them gives me hope, even if some of them must be doing it to solve a PR problem.

 

It's not going unnoticed either. Brianna Wu (the developer who got harassed out of her house this week) reached out to Adam Baldwin and Milo Yiannopolis to discuss and try to calm the situation down. Even more positively, most GamerGaters lobbied for them to accept. Adam Baldwin declined but Milo is hosting her on his show next week. Calls for discourse from so many sources makes me really happy. It makes me sad that I can't do much more than retweet and signal boost these people.

 

Ah, we are all heroes. You and Boo and I, hamsters and rangers everywhere! Rejoice!

[Elerond]

 

 

 

People become so radicalized that even Anita can appear a moderate.

 

 

I must say that Anita's public views are quite moderate

 

Her views paraphrased by me

"I want developer's use less tropes, especially those I see to be degrading towards women"

"I want developer's to use more active female protagonists"

"I want more games that don't focus so much on violence"

"I think using tropes that I think to be sexist and not giving women as many active roles as men shows that our society is still leans towards patriarchy"

"I want/hope that game developers start to make more games for my tastes"

 

Her vision for what direction games as medium and art form should develop don't wholly correspond with my vision, but I don't think that her vision is anyway radical. 

 

 

 

The issue comes about in two seperate ways:

 

 

1) Anita CAN be radical. Find a video she did on sexist Christmas songs. Have fun with it.

 

2) Anita lies. Check how she misrepresents Fallout New Vegas (and others) in her women as backround decoration video.

 

 

Those two combined, you actually start to wonder if there aren't ulterior motives, moreso with the second one than the first. Either she's soooo radical she pulls ridiculous claims out of thin air here and there (unlikely, as other times she IS quite reasonable), or the girl honestly is just trying to profit off of this situation she's found herself in, leading to profit > truth and thus she'll do misleading or half-assed pieces to gain profit.

 

 

1) I fail find out what is radical in it? It seems only be continuum to her other work to point out what pieces of media she finds to be sexists. Her reasonings for why songs are in list may be somewhat ridiculous, but I don't see anything radical in the video. She don't demand that these songs should be censored, or that people should take actions against them, but instead she ask to hear songs that she likes, which maybe somewhat silly, but not anyway radical thing to ask.

 

2) Lying is not radical, it is just at least morally gray way to get people that aren't very interested about subject to support your point of view. Most of people use lying at least some point of their life to get/try to get what they want. Lying don't make person radical or their opinion radical it just shows that their morals aren't necessary as high as they maybe should be.

 

People making profit when life gives opportunity do so I one of the standing principals of capitalism and general thinking of western societies. But for me she seem to do remarkable job not make profit even though she has amble opportunity to do so, but that maybe because she isn't financially adept instead of moral or ideological standings.  

 

But anyway may point was that Anita is quite moderate in her public views, as she don't try to cause public uprising, or get things censored or made forbidden by law. Most radical thing is that she wants media products that at least currently have somewhat lacking offering in markets. But if such thing make person radical, then I am and large bunch of this forums users are radical as we wanted products that mass markets didn't produce and funded at least one of such product in Kickstarter. So I will not say that person that don't  at least like some aspects of products that mass markets currently offer to be radical even if aspects that she don't like aren't same aspects that I don't like or even like in those products. And way she express her dislike towards those aspects is very moderate compared to way many of us in these forums express our dislike towards products/aspects of products that we don't like.

 

So in short I disagree with Anita's views lot, but I don't think that she is radical anyway that I know.

Edited October 12, 2014 by Elerond

[Bryy]

 

He is the producer and co-writer of Feminist Frequency aka Anita Sarkeesians youtube channel.

 

Anita is being at least somewhat moderate (at least she keeps her mouth closed) but I bet this guy puts into plain words what she really thinks.

 

Way to sound reasonable while backhandedly making a personal attack.

[Longknife]

 

 

 

 

People become so radicalized that even Anita can appear a moderate.

 

 

I must say that Anita's public views are quite moderate

 

Her views paraphrased by me

"I want developer's use less tropes, especially those I see to be degrading towards women"

"I want developer's to use more active female protagonists"

"I want more games that don't focus so much on violence"

"I think using tropes that I think to be sexist and not giving women as many active roles as men shows that our society is still leans towards patriarchy"

"I want/hope that game developers start to make more games for my tastes"

 

Her vision for what direction games as medium and art form should develop don't wholly correspond with my vision, but I don't think that her vision is anyway radical. 

 

 

 

The issue comes about in two seperate ways:

 

 

1) Anita CAN be radical. Find a video she did on sexist Christmas songs. Have fun with it.

 

2) Anita lies. Check how she misrepresents Fallout New Vegas (and others) in her women as backround decoration video.

 

 

Those two combined, you actually start to wonder if there aren't ulterior motives, moreso with the second one than the first. Either she's soooo radical she pulls ridiculous claims out of thin air here and there (unlikely, as other times she IS quite reasonable), or the girl honestly is just trying to profit off of this situation she's found herself in, leading to profit > truth and thus she'll do misleading or half-assed pieces to gain profit.

 

 

1) I fail find out what is radical in it? It seems only be continuum to her other work to point out what pieces of media she finds to be sexists. Her reasonings for why songs are in list may be somewhat ridiculous, but I don't see anything radical in the video. She don't demand that these songs should be censored, or that people should take actions against them, but instead she ask to hear songs that she likes, which maybe somewhat silly, but not anyway radical thing to ask.

 

2) Lying is not radical, it is just at least morally gray way to get people that aren't very interested about subject to support your point of view. Most of people use lying at least some point of their life to get/try to get what they want. Lying don't make person radical or their opinion radical it just shows that their morals aren't necessary as high as they maybe should be.

 

People making profit when life gives opportunity do so I one of the standing principals of capitalism and general thinking of western societies. But for me she seem to do remarkable job not make profit even though she has amble opportunity to do so, but that maybe because she isn't financially adept instead of moral or ideological standings.  

 

But anyway may point was that Anita is quite moderate in her public views, as she don't try to cause public uprising, or get things censored or made forbidden by law. Most radical thing is that she wants media products that at least currently have somewhat lacking offering in markets. But if such thing make person radical, then I am and large bunch of this forums users are radical as we wanted products that mass markets didn't produce and funded at least one of such product in Kickstarter. So I will not say that person that don't  at least like some aspects of products that mass markets currently offer to be radical even if aspects that she don't like aren't same aspects that I don't like or even like in those products. And way she express her dislike towards those aspects is very moderate compared to way many of us in these forums express our dislike towards products/aspects of products that we don't like.

 

So in short I disagree with Anita's views lot, but I don't think that she is radical anyway that I know.

 

 

 

1)  She referred to "I saw mommy kissing Santa Claus" as sexist because it "portrays all women as promiscuous cheaters."

 

wat

 

I mean really. I cannot "wat" hard enough. That combines a blatant misunderstanding of the song's meaning with a ridiculous hyperbole, mixed with a touch of not recognizing history and that Santa Claus stems from Saint Nicholas, who was infact a man. How she could take a song that's essentially about how dumb and adorably naive kids are and twist it into some propaganda song that portrays ALL WOMEN IN THE HISTORY OF FOREVER as dishonest cheaters is beyond me.

 

 

2) You're basically justifying her dishonesty by saying "everybody lies." That's terrible justification and by that same logic, we are all justified in commiting crimes and atrocities because others have done it too. No, misleading info is misleading. She's purposefully or negligently (probably via laziness) misleading people to be up in arms about a game that did absolutely nothing wrong and is by no means guilty of the very things she's claiming it's guilty of.

 

Just because she's not leading the charge and personally making a call-to-arms to censor games or something does not mean she's not a contributor. What she occassionally does ("occassionally" because as we've both said, at times her stuff is more reasonable) is basically incite outbursts from people by portraying things far worse than they actually are. That kind of stuff does NOT help people calm down and...yknow, be reasonable.

   I've not said she's radical; that was a word you brought up (or someone else did and I missed it, I don't know), and no I do not care what label you or others wish to give her. The only label I wish to apply is "problem," regardless of whether she's a problem because she's called a radical feminist, because she's called a member of ISIS or any other claims people might make about her.

   I only care that the woman has shown she can make ridiculous and exaggerated claims while providing misleading and half-assed information to the public in order to further her agenda. No, I don't cut politicians or CEOs any slack when they utilize such tactics, so I'm not cutting her any slack either.

Edited October 12, 2014 by Longknife

[Fighter]

Way to sound reasonable while backhandedly making a personal attack.

 

Such attack. A brutal assault practically. Oppressive even.

[Elerond]

 

 

 

 

 

People become so radicalized that even Anita can appear a moderate.

 

 

I must say that Anita's public views are quite moderate

 

Her views paraphrased by me

"I want developer's use less tropes, especially those I see to be degrading towards women"

"I want developer's to use more active female protagonists"

"I want more games that don't focus so much on violence"

"I think using tropes that I think to be sexist and not giving women as many active roles as men shows that our society is still leans towards patriarchy"

"I want/hope that game developers start to make more games for my tastes"

 

Her vision for what direction games as medium and art form should develop don't wholly correspond with my vision, but I don't think that her vision is anyway radical. 

 

 

 

The issue comes about in two seperate ways:

 

 

1) Anita CAN be radical. Find a video she did on sexist Christmas songs. Have fun with it.

 

2) Anita lies. Check how she misrepresents Fallout New Vegas (and others) in her women as backround decoration video.

 

 

Those two combined, you actually start to wonder if there aren't ulterior motives, moreso with the second one than the first. Either she's soooo radical she pulls ridiculous claims out of thin air here and there (unlikely, as other times she IS quite reasonable), or the girl honestly is just trying to profit off of this situation she's found herself in, leading to profit > truth and thus she'll do misleading or half-assed pieces to gain profit.

 

 

1) I fail find out what is radical in it? It seems only be continuum to her other work to point out what pieces of media she finds to be sexists. Her reasonings for why songs are in list may be somewhat ridiculous, but I don't see anything radical in the video. She don't demand that these songs should be censored, or that people should take actions against them, but instead she ask to hear songs that she likes, which maybe somewhat silly, but not anyway radical thing to ask.

 

2) Lying is not radical, it is just at least morally gray way to get people that aren't very interested about subject to support your point of view. Most of people use lying at least some point of their life to get/try to get what they want. Lying don't make person radical or their opinion radical it just shows that their morals aren't necessary as high as they maybe should be.

 

People making profit when life gives opportunity do so I one of the standing principals of capitalism and general thinking of western societies. But for me she seem to do remarkable job not make profit even though she has amble opportunity to do so, but that maybe because she isn't financially adept instead of moral or ideological standings.  

 

But anyway may point was that Anita is quite moderate in her public views, as she don't try to cause public uprising, or get things censored or made forbidden by law. Most radical thing is that she wants media products that at least currently have somewhat lacking offering in markets. But if such thing make person radical, then I am and large bunch of this forums users are radical as we wanted products that mass markets didn't produce and funded at least one of such product in Kickstarter. So I will not say that person that don't  at least like some aspects of products that mass markets currently offer to be radical even if aspects that she don't like aren't same aspects that I don't like or even like in those products. And way she express her dislike towards those aspects is very moderate compared to way many of us in these forums express our dislike towards products/aspects of products that we don't like.

 

So in short I disagree with Anita's views lot, but I don't think that she is radical anyway that I know.

 

 

 

1)  She referred to "I saw mommy kissing Santa Claus" as sexist because it "portrays all women as promiscuous cheaters."

 

wat

 

I mean really. I cannot "wat" hard enough. That combines a blatant misunderstanding of the song's meaning with a ridiculous hyperbole, mixed with a touch of not recognizing history and that Santa Claus stems from Saint Nicholas, who was infact a man. How she could take a song that's essentially about how dumb and adorably naive kids are and twist it into some propaganda song that portrays ALL WOMEN IN THE HISTORY OF FOREVER as dishonest cheaters is beyond me.

 

 

2) You're basically justifying her dishonesty by saying "everybody lies." That's terrible justification and by that same logic, we are all justified in commiting crimes and atrocities because others have done it too. No, misleading info is misleading. She's purposefully or negligently (probably via laziness) misleading people to be up in arms about a game that did absolutely nothing wrong and is by no means guilty of the very things she's claiming it's guilty of.

 

Just because she's not leading the charge and personally making a call-to-arms to censor games or something does not mean she's not a contributor. What she occassionally does ("occassionally" because as we've both said, at times her stuff is more reasonable) is basically incite outbursts from people by portraying things far worse than they actually are. That kind of stuff does NOT help people calm down and...yknow, be reasonable.

   I've not said she's radical; that was a word you brought up (or someone else did and I missed it, I don't know), and no I do not care what label you or others wish to give her. The only label I wish to apply is "problem," regardless of whether she's a problem because she's called a radical feminist, because she's called a member of ISIS or any other claims people might make about her.

   I only care that the woman has shown she can make ridiculous and exaggerated claims while providing misleading and half-assed information to the public in order to further her agenda. No, I don't cut politicians or CEOs any slack when they utilize such tactics, so I'm not cutting her any slack either.

 

 

1) As I said her reasonings are sometimes ridiculous, but that don't make her opinions radical or even those reasonings.

 

2) It don't matter do she lie or do she not, when we speak about are her opinions radical. Saying people to be radical because they lie is terrible justification in my opinion. 

 

In my reply to this sentence "People become so radicalized that even Anita can appear a moderate." I said that in my opinion Anita seems to be quite moderate and little bit elaborated why I think so, which you replied that  "Anita CAN be radical.", which I took to mean that you think that she holds some radical views, which I disagreed with my reply to your message. 

 

My only interest in this has been to speak about how radical I see Anita's views and actions about games. 

 

 

 

Then back to topic

 

Here is latest installment piece that explains what #gamergate is that has come to haunt my twitter feed

http://gawker.com/what-is-gamergate-and-why-an-explainer-for-non-geeks-1642909080

It seems have some what negative view and is aimed for people that aren't interested about gaming or at least don't read gaming sites.

[Bryy]

 

Way to sound reasonable while backhandedly making a personal attack.

 

Such attack. A brutal assault practically. Oppressive even.

 

Reread what you wrote and tell me how that's not an attack on her person. You're condemning her when she speaks and now when she doesn't. Now the narrative is "at least she keeps her mouth shut" while in the same sentence going "but I bet she has this guy speak for her". Both of which are ridiculous things to say, by the way. You literally just pulled the "at least the woman keeps quiet" card.

 

Why is it so important to you that Anita S. be the bad guy? 

Edited October 12, 2014 by Bryy

[Fighter]

I remember her old videos where she found Christmas songs misogynistic. I though those were pretty radical interpretations. In fact I remember a lot of her old videos quiet frivolous with the use of misogyny. She has become a better politician since and her new videos really do sound moderate. 

 

Also the factual inaccuracies in her older videos were really really in your face sometimes. Which again made for a frivolous and radical interpretation.

 

 

Reread what you wrote and tell me how that's not an attack on her person. You're condemning her when she speaks and now when she doesn't. Now the narrative is "at least she keeps her mouth shut" while in the same sentence going "but I bet she has this guy speak for her". Both of which are ridiculous things to say, by the way. You literally just pulled the "at least the woman keeps quiet" card.

 

Wow...

 

First of all "she keeps her mouth closed" because I think she is a better politician and the public face of their enterprise whereas one Jonathan McIntosh blabbers out his stream of conciousness. Nothing to do with her being female. I would use that phrase for anyone regardless of what their genitals look like.

 

Second. Yes I think her and Jonathan McIntosh share the same world view. It's not that she has a guy speak for her it's like I said she is a calculated politician by comparison. What Jonathan McIntosh blubbers out is the more frank and unfiltered version of what they both think. That is my speculation based on observing her. If that's an attack on her, then whatever, I'm attacking her.

 

 

Why is it so important to you that Anita S. be the bad guy?

 

It's not 'important' for her to be anything. I don't like her views.

Edited October 12, 2014 by Fighter

[Ineth]

Personally if I want a game that I personally find to be perfect for me so passionately, i'll get off my arse and make it, rather than whining at developers to alter their vision to accomodate me, special snowflake that I am.

 

You'll get off your arse and, just like that, make a game which realistically would take millions of dollars and many months to make even for an existing developer/publisher who already has all the necessary human capital and infrastructure? And you'll do this by yourself, in your spare time on a weekend?

 

Come on now, I know there is lots to be criticised about Sarkeesian's videos (from the pre-determined conclusions, cherry-picking, and general intellectual dishonesty, to the offensiveness of her - and other feminists culture warrior's - underlying presumption that society can and should be made a better place by policing & censoring media content that men like to consume).

 

But lamenting that game developers/publishers don't make games sufficiently to one's liking, isn't in and of itself objectionable. Gamers do that too, like, all the time. In fact it's probably the main raison d'être of many gaming related online communities.

Making your dream game yourself, simply isn't realistic unless you've chosen that career path.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

Personally if I want a game that I personally find to be perfect for me so passionately, i'll get off my arse and make it, rather than whining at developers to alter their vision to accomodate me, special snowflake that I am.

You'll get off your arse and, just like that, make a game which realistically would take millions of dollars and many months to make even for an existing developer/publisher who already has all the necessary human capital and infrastructure? And you'll do this by yourself, in your spare time on a weekend?

 

Come on now, I know there is lots to be criticised about Sarkeesian's videos (from the pre-determined conclusions, cherry-picking, and general intellectual dishonesty, to the offensiveness of her - and other feminists culture warrior's - underlying presumption that society can and should be made a better place by policing & censoring media content that men like to consume).

 

But lamenting that game developers/publishers don't make games sufficiently to one's liking, isn't in and of itself objectionable. Gamers do that too, like, all the time. In fact it's probably the main raison d'être of many gaming related online communities.

Making your dream game yourself, simply isn't realistic unless you've chosen that career path.

If folks like Anita want to see games that mesh with their worldview made, organizing a small dev team and doing a kickatarter isn't as much of a hurdle as getting the funding for a AAA size game. Recording poorly researched preach sessions that (falsely) illustrate how hostile games are to women sates the internet activists, but does **** all at providing a solution to the problems they have with games.

[Nonek]

 

Personally if I want a game that I personally find to be perfect for me so passionately, i'll get off my arse and make it, rather than whining at developers to alter their vision to accomodate me, special snowflake that I am.

 

You'll get off your arse and, just like that, make a game which realistically would take millions of dollars and many months to make even for an existing developer/publisher who already has all the necessary human capital and infrastructure? And you'll do this by yourself, in your spare time on a weekend?

 

Come on now, I know there is lots to be criticised about Sarkeesian's videos (from the pre-determined conclusions, cherry-picking, and general intellectual dishonesty, to the offensiveness of her - and other feminists culture warrior's - underlying presumption that society can and should be made a better place by policing & censoring media content that men like to consume).

 

But lamenting that game developers/publishers don't make games sufficiently to one's liking, isn't in and of itself objectionable. Gamers do that too, like, all the time. In fact it's probably the main raison d'être of many gaming related online communities.

Making your dream game yourself, simply isn't realistic unless you've chosen that career path.

 

 

No asking for features and more representation for your personal likes and dislikes isn't bad, after all as you say we provide feedback all the time, however to condemn the entire industry and state that it needs to change. That's going a little too far in my opinion, and painting developers in a very poor light, when they are by and large trying to please their customers and many differing demographics and tastes. Thus I would say that the only way to please oneself, is to produce what one considers the perfect example of a game.

 

Of course as I stated in my previous post there's an easier method, find a developer whose tastes match yours and buy their products. The market already provides an answer to her problem, and thus there is no problem.

 

To ask for or suggest features and content is reasonable, and probably quite useful, to expect your personal vision to be implemented and developers to follow your guidelines is very unreasonable in my opinion. I backed Poe, and made suggestions the same as everybody else, but I expect a game made by the professionals at Obsidian, not Nonek's vision of what is right and true.

 

Edit: I think by their very nature mass market products, even those made to sate seventy thousand or so, cannot please everybody. Thus compromises must be made and the needs of the many take precedence over the needs of the few, and thus though perfection cannot be achieved, satisfaction of the majority can. That's just my opinion however.

Edited October 12, 2014 by Nonek

[Volourn]

"Why is it so important to you that Anita S. be the bad guy?"

 

It's not important at all. But, she is the bad guy. She is evil, and hateful. She is alsoa  flat out liar. I may be a piece of crap but at least I'm honest of it. She pretends to be something she's not. That makes her a coward.

\

She also believes women are weak and pathetic and need to be handheld and treated like little babies. That's sexist, and condescending.

 

\I have way more respect for women than so called 'feminists' do. I treat women like grown adult human beings. 'Feminists' treated them like little cuddled children.  That's evil and scummy.

[Oerwinde]

 

 

People become so radicalized that even Anita can appear a moderate.

 

 

I must say that Anita's public views are quite moderate

 

Her views paraphrased by me

"I want developer's use less tropes, especially those I see to be degrading towards women"

"I want developer's to use more active female protagonists"

"I want more games that don't focus so much on violence"

"I think using tropes that I think to be sexist and not giving women as many active roles as men shows that our society is still leans towards patriarchy"

"I want/hope that game developers start to make more games for my tastes"

 

Her vision for what direction games as medium and art form should develop don't wholly correspond with my vision, but I don't think that her vision is anyway radical. 

 

 

I think that right there is the #1 thing women want more of when it comes to games. Pretty much every woman I know doesn't play games because they are violent. They like the Sims but thats about it. If they made more non-violent games, you might see some more crossover from casual games, and then you would see a lot more women interested in making games, and once you have more women making games, a lot of the stuff people like Anita complain about will just go away naturally. The problem is, how do you do an RPG without combat?

[Volourn]

Plenty of women have no problem with 'violence in games'. Why do people make stupid stuff like that up?

 

People trying to speak on behalf of the entirety of women is hilarious. It's like saying  all men play games because of violence. LMAO

 

It is so disrespectful to the women who have played 'violent' games like FO, Diablo, Destiny, etc., etc. Even the Sims has violence in it.

 

People whine that women are pegionholed into certain roles in entertainment yet they turn around and pegion hole those same women. It's beyond ridiculous.

 

\Women are human beings, damnit. Their likes and dislikes are varied.

 

Let games be made and the potential customers  can decided what they will or will not play.

 

 

\People like Anita and Bruce are wannabe dictators who believe in controlling other human beings. That is simply wrong.

Edited October 13, 2014 by Volourn

[licketysplit]

 

 

He is the producer and co-writer of Feminist Frequency aka Anita Sarkeesians youtube channel.

 

Anita is being at least somewhat moderate (at least she keeps her mouth closed) but I bet this guy puts into plain words what she really thinks.

 

Way to sound reasonable while backhandedly making a personal attack.

 

 

Less passive aggressive than her videos at any rate. That woman has a lump of coal for a heart.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

 

 

 

 

He is the producer and co-writer of Feminist Frequency aka Anita Sarkeesians youtube channel.

Anita is being at least somewhat moderate (at least she keeps her mouth closed) but I bet this guy puts into plain words what she really thinks.

Way to sound reasonable while backhandedly making a personal attack.

Less passive aggressive than her videos at any rate. That woman has a lump of coal for a heart.

Lump of coal eh? I think we know the real reason she hates that Santa Claus song, her dad gave her coal one Christmas and she's held a grudge ever since.

[Fighter]

See no one has a problem with there being more of whatever. It's that "games need to change because the existing ones are terrible", it's the phrases like "the industry needs to stop doing X and think of what it is teaching society" kind of nonsense.

 

People like Anita don't just want games for themselves. What they really have a problem with is that the ones that are really popular are "misogynistic and violent" and therefore they need to be changed.

[Bryy]

See no one has a problem with there being more of whatever. It's that "games need to change because the existing ones are terrible", it's the phrases like "the industry needs to stop doing X and think of what it is teaching society" kind of nonsense.

You honestly don't see how **** like "why do there need to be more women in video games? It's a boy's hobby" is flat-out sexism?

[BruceVC]

 

See no one has a problem with there being more of whatever. It's that "games need to change because the existing ones are terrible", it's the phrases like "the industry needs to stop doing X and think of what it is teaching society" kind of nonsense.

You honestly don't see how **** like "why do there need to be more women in video games? It's a boy's hobby" is flat-out sexism?

 

 

Bryy is correct but I want to add something

 

People seem to object to changes for a variety of reasons, but what is the final product that people who believe in equality want?

 

Its not unrealistic  and the changes that AAA studios can make are already being implemented by some companies. Look at your typical Bioware game, they offer male and female character selection, you can choose your race and you have same-sex Romance options. There games are already inclusive and most people are fine with that. So I am not sure what people are really worried about when we talk about " changes to games that appeal to the entire fanbase"

 

The problem is the perception that exists when people like Anita make videos around these changes, she is automatically dismissed and reviled because of the history around her comments. She is the poster child of hate for most people who support GG. And that is unhelpful when we have these discussions because we need to find middle ground in this debate

[Fighter]

You honestly don't see how **** like "why do there need to be more women in video games? It's a boy's hobby" is flat-out sexism?

 

No.

 

"Why do women need the opportunity to get into video games?" This would be sexist. But we don't NEED more women in men's hobby any more than we NEED more men in women's hobbies. Just do what you want.

 

 

Its not unrealistic  and the changes that AAA studios can make are already being implemented by some companies. Look at your typical Bioware game, they offer male and female character selection, you can choose your race and you have same-sex Romance options. There games are already inclusive and most people are fine with that. So I am not sure what people are really worried about when we talk about " changes to games that appeal to the entire fanbase"

 

People worry about creators being shamed and dragged through the mud when they don't appeal to all demographics. Because they don't have to.

Edited October 13, 2014 by Fighter

[Longknife]

You honestly don't see how **** like "why do there need to be more women in video games? It's a boy's hobby" is flat-out sexism?

 

 

 

Who the HELL said this?