Tropes vs Women

[monkey0506]

As if human decency and positive cultural values were determined by popular decree.

I'm not certain, but I hope that this was meant to be satirical, or at least ironic. Because otherwise I have no bloody idea what the freaking hell you're blithering about here. Cultural values are absolutely determined by popular decree, and it's by such that they are changed. What's considered "human decency" is based almost exclusively on these same cultural values.

Maddox is an ignorant idiot for suggesting games designed by women are doomed to be boring.

Did anyone actually expect anything less than this from Maddox? His points generally have some validity, but the majority of what he says is designed to be inflammatory.

...and if more women played games then we'd have more My Little Pony games. It's insulting to men and women to suggest that is the case.

What's truly ironic here is your usage of the My Little Pony franchise given the whole brony movement. The Friendship is Magic franchise probably (source: personal experience) has a broader male fanbase than its female followers. I cite personal experience: when I went to see the Equestria Girls movie at the theater, there were more single adult men in the room than young girls, their parents, and single adult women combined. One event is unlikely to be viably demonstrative, but I'm too lazy to look up any proper statistical data at 3 AM.

There are actually a lot of women in the gaming market:

What's funny about this image is the fact that the woman depicted clearly is not a gamer, as can clearly be seen from the positioning of her hands. The man sitting beside her is holding the controller exactly as any of us who play games would do. She is holding her controller as if it is a week-old rotting fish.

Whether you agree with Anita or not,  her decision to disable comments on her videos after being publicly funded to make them was/is a pretty 'meh' thing to do. Telling people how it is and closing off any chance of a debate is not the logical nor the mature way forward imo.

Eh... welcome to the internet? Have you seen the comment sections of videos/articles/blog entries that take a feminist standpoint? I bet Anita would love a constructive discussion, it's just that she probably got 99 rape threats for every constructive comment. Which in itself proves that there's a lot of work to be done when it comes to gender equality.

Eh... welcome to the internet? The fact that the majority of comments are not constructive or even strictly representative of the poster's true feelings on the actual issue at hand is not (IMO) a strong rationale for disabling comments altogether. I second the notion that the exposure to these comments would do more to reinforce her point than the detriment done by closing them off and appearing completely closed-minded. Preventing feedback, valid and viable or not, seems to me an equally aggressive tactic to those posting the trollish comments in the first place.

Here's some honesty about myself and likely a lot of men, when I see a woman at the bar wearing a cleavage shirt and/or short shorts, I see her as a sexual object because that's what she's dressing as. I have very little respect for these women. Their only use to me in that social environment, in the clothing they're wearing, is the view they offer. I am massively more attracted to a woman in a simple t-shirt and jeans. This woman, now I would like to know her as a person.

I honestly feel the same way, and I've recently discovered that about a girl I've known for over a decade. A few years ago we became extremely close, and I developed feelings toward her. At the time her dress was much more modest and casual. As it happened, she got a boyfriend and our friendship fell somewhat by the wayside. Throughout the past few years (while she dated this same guy, things got pretty serious between them) her dress has become much more sexually provocative and explicit. I've only recently become consciously aware of the fact that I thought of her less and less as a person I cared about (admittedly this was in part due to the changes in the dynamic of our friendship, but I recognize her attire as playing a role as well), and more as a sexual object. It wasn't until I made efforts to reengage the friendship that I truly realized how much her personality had changed over the years...to the point that I wouldn't want to be in a serious relationship with her today.

It's silly to the point of being obscene, but "modest is the hottest" is something I personally find to be genuinely applicable. Provocative dress floods the male brain with hormones that elide rational thought or true emotional connection. That's not to say that women shouldn't be able to dress how they choose, or that there isn't a proper time and place for dressing that way, but if a woman is seeking a relationship (as opposed to casual sex), then she should at least be aware of what she's wearing.

I feel anxious discussing feminism here because I don't want to get flamed, but I see the AGS community at large to be thoughtful and open minded so I have been willing to open up and risk getting slammed lol.

The AGS community is open-minded? lol, funny.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that if women are constantly portrayed as inferior, or as objects, and that it happens to often and so subtly we barely register it, it will begin to affect us. Again a lot of us are intelligent adults capable of making our own choices and understanding these adverts are incorrect while still laughing at them, but some people aren't. Some people don't think about these things and just sit there chuckling and thinking "Haha, yes! Women are like that!"

As egotistical as I am, I'm not ashamed to admit that I believe most people fall somewhere below "imbecile" on the intellectual scale. By and large the problem as I see it is that people are lazy. They don't want to exert effort to actually think for themselves, and so they blindly follow behind and jump on whatever the latest bandwagon happens to be. Of course there are plenty of people who are too hipster for that and consider themselves thinkers because they make the decision not to follow the trend, without even stopping to actually think about the issues.

I spend a lot of time on self-evaluation, and any debate I enter, I do so knowing not just where I stand, but why I stand there. Most people don't do this. Given the opportunity, most people will not be able to adequately explain why they prescribe to this point-of-view or that. I have engaged in debates with friends to later discover that they are incapable of defending their stance. Even something as trivial as why a particular TV show or movie is good or bad. A lot of my friends aren't able to back-up their opinions.

When it comes to stereotyping women, I think the trend continues. Stereotypes exist for a reason, but there is no catch-all for any group because as humans we are individuals. I personally find sexist jokes funny most of the time. And racist jokes. And gay jokes. I tend to find these jokes funny, not because I am just blindly prescribing to these stereotypes though. As you said, I can understand why they're incorrect but still laugh at them. The idea that a person is inferior because of anything other than who they are as a person is completely laughable to me. I also find religious jokes to be generally funny, despite my beliefs. I'm not going to get butt-hurt over it. The funniest jokes are generally the ones that are true anyway.



As to the topic at hand, I don't have anything useful to say as I'm not going to watch the videos because they simply don't interest me. I'm aware of what they are, and I've been made aware of what they say. Out of every game design I've ever conceived, the damsel-in-distress trope has never even come up. In fact one particular project I've been working on for several years has a (hopefully) strong female character who isn't a love interest, and she even takes the lead at some points. I definitely agree, and can see that games are sexualizing women, but I just don't buy those types of games in the first place. As rarely as I actually sit down to play a game, that's not really what I'm looking for. If I really wanted to I could Google my own porn, guys.

[LUniqueDan]

Wow, anti-frenchers are early this morning.
Yeah I know, Satan is everywhere because people don't believe in Satan.

Since when is analysis the same as bitching?

In that particular case, the concept of "bitching" and "analysing" are almost recovering the same phenomenon. That's why I use the word "bitching".

[...] but if you get good at *identifying* it you can help to lessen it.

No it won't. That's precisely the very essence of the examples I gave earlier. It's on the nature of cultural studies. Any attemps to modified what was previously criticised, if noticed, will magically make the cursus morph into something else. Just look how fast the same Buffy morphs from "empowerment" to "An illustration on how society love to see women suffers".

Oh, and condescendingly butting in thinking you and you alone have discovered "the real issue here" is preeettty patriarchal.

Predictable ad hominem crap. Illustrating very well why I maintained that cultural studies tend to be useless, sterile and not leading to any possible rational solution (hence it's bitching). In that case to serious and concrete gender issues. Being right is soooo patriarchy ? Making statements without believing them is soooo feminist ?!?

Anyway, you just gave me a very good illustration of " In fact, any speeches / narrations / discourses / stories that is not [edit:itself] a meta-speech / critique can be easily  stretches to be accused of being patriarcalistic. Try ! The olny game 100% kosher will be something like a Q&A game where the player has to identify the thropes. [/b]".

Dudes gotta stop flipping out whenever a feminist identifies sexism in something. It's critique, not a boycott.

Therefore you're not looking for concretely appliable solutions ? (hence "bitching" ?). I'm a feminist (amongs many other political positions of mine) in that sense that i'm looking for better social positions/conditions for women. You're not.

The idea with feminism is that patriarchy and misogyny are all over the place and bleed into everything [...]

There's other definitons, less "cultural studies", less religious. You're a religious biggot. Your Satan is just call "patriarchy". Unless you state "by the positive" what was expected, it's olny university-grade bitching. But it's going to be patriarchy, right ?

[dactylopus]

It's a crying shame that not all decent women and men want to call themselves feminists, and I think the blame for that is about 50-50 smears by their opponents on the one hand and shooting themselves in the foot on the other.

I agree, and actually do see myself as a feminist.  I just wish there was a term for it that implied equality for everyone a little more concisely, because, as Andail points out:

There are a number of areas where men suffer from conservative gender roles

Patriarchy affects both men and women, and my support of feminism is support for more equality in gender roles.  This means women should be paid what men are paid for the same jobs, and men should pay the same low rates as women for car insurance.  Equality, preferably by enriching the lives of the underprivileged, is the goal.

Pop-culture has the potential to effect great changes in people's thinking and attitudes, and that gives creators a responsibility to think about the message their work communicates

Think about, yes.  But I don't feel they have any responsibilities beyond awareness.  I'll change this to echo an earlier statement:
Skimpy clothing has the potential to effect great changes in mens thinking and attitudes, and that gives women a responsibility to think about the message their work communicates.
Again, think about, yes.  But they have no responsibility to dress more conservatively because of this.  Another example would be pop stars like Britney Spears.  Many women and girls see her as a role model, and believe that because of this she has a responsibility to project a certain behavior.  I feel she only has a responsibility to think about, to be aware of her possible impact.  At the end of the day she is an artist, and she should be free to express herself in any way she sees fit.

OTOH, worrying about every possible stereotype or implication can be creatively crippling, and PC over-sensitivity often produces bland, non-challenging works

I'll absolutely agree with this statement.

A lot of these tropes are quite old, and once meaningfully reflected aspects of society. Do we need more new, modern tropes that acknowledge and bolster greater gender equality? What would they be?

In answer to the first question here, I believe that the answer is yes.  We do need more modern tropes.  I sadly have no idea what they should be, but I do feel the need for them.  I also believe that they will come as culture grows, and as more varied examples are provided.

There are actually a lot of women in the gaming market:

What's funny about this image is the fact that the woman depicted clearly is not a gamer, as can clearly be seen from the positioning of her hands. The man sitting beside her is holding the controller exactly as any of us who play games would do. She is holding her controller as if it is a week-old rotting fish.

I was about to roll my eyes in the middle of your first sentence, before you mentioned the controller, as I thought you were going to make a completely different argument.  I hadn't noticed the positioning of her hands, but now that I do, it is actually pretty funny.

Here's some honesty about myself and likely a lot of men, when I see a woman at the bar wearing a cleavage shirt and/or short shorts, I see her as a sexual object because that's what she's dressing as. I have very little respect for these women. Their only use to me in that social environment, in the clothing they're wearing, is the view they offer. I am massively more attracted to a woman in a simple t-shirt and jeans. This woman, now I would like to know her as a person.

I honestly feel the same way... It's silly to the point of being obscene, but "modest is the hottest" is something I personally find to be genuinely applicable. Provocative dress floods the male brain with hormones that elide rational thought or true emotional connection. That's not to say that women shouldn't be able to dress how they choose, or that there isn't a proper time and place for dressing that way, but if a woman is seeking a relationship (as opposed to casual sex), then she should at least be aware of what she's wearing.

I agree with this as well.  I tend to be a little more conservative about my own sexuality.  For example, I am not interested in one night stands or casual sex.  I wouldn't want to sleep with someone unless I was either in a relationship with them, or such a relationship was a likely outcome.  As such, I perceive a woman dressed provocatively as not being my type.  She is 'sluttier' than I am, and would probably be more interested in a similarly 'slutty' man.

In fact, any speeches / narrations / discourses / stories that is not [edit:itself] a meta-speech / critique can be easily  stretches to be accused of being patriarcalistic. Try ! The olny game 100% kosher will be something like a Q&A game where the player has to identify the thropes.

I agree with you that pretty much anything could be argued to be patriarchal or anti-feminist.  I'll also state that sometimes it's actually appropriate, as are many of the ideas in these videos.

[monkey0506]

dactylopus: I'm curious what argument you thought I was going to make (about the image, no need to keep quoting it).

[dactylopus]

dactylopus: I'm curious what argument you thought I was going to make (about the image, no need to keep quoting it).

I thought it was going to be the old argument that she doesn't look like a gamer.  It's not that I thought you would feel this way, just that I've heard it a lot about different things and it seemed like that was where you were going in the first half of the sentence.

Such comments are sadly common, like how girls in cosplay as comic book characters don't look like they'd actually read the comics, or the Idiot Nerd Girl meme:

[Myinah]

I feel like I have contributed to this thread enough at this point, but I wanted to say that I think the term you are looking for Dactylopus is egalitarianism. I personally identify with egalitarianism, but I gladly accept the term feminist (inter-sectional) too because while in many ways things have improved significantly for women in the western society (although we still have a long way to go), there are clearly still issues that need addressing and this term reminds us that we are looking at issues of inequality pertaining to the oppression of women.

When we are looking at things like female genital mutilation, breast ironing, forced marriage, honour killings, domestic violence (I'm not disputing men are never victims) and reproductive rights, the people campaigning and fighting for these causes and people tend to have been feminist organisations. I'm not really aware of an egalitarian charity focussing on these sort of things, but I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong.

[Andail]

I'm afraid the real issue here is the usual "Damned if you do, damned if you don't issue" relatively common with most of the "cultural studies".

No, it's called a complex issue. Just because there are no easy answers doesn't mean you can disqualify the entire field. Everything that demands a deeper analysis will yield conflicting answers. If you want an absolute right or wrong answer, you can turn to mathematics (or AGS coding).

This high-level bitching is useless, sterile and can't be use in order to rationnaly solve any gender issue.

What? What's "high-level bitching"?

• Mario didn't give a damn ? It showed how we tacitely agree with violence against women ! (Patriarchy)
• Peach saves Mario ? Despiction of Women as slave/male'tool ! (Patriarchy)
• Princess Peach didn't give a damn ? It's the bad vamp/bitch trope ! (Patriarchy)
• They both save Luigi in a cooperative mode ? They kill poor throopas in a violent game !(Patriarchy)

Has anyone ever said this? Or are you just coming up with imaginary scenarios because they fit your theory? Can you link to a feminist/gender theory debater who said these things?

I second the notion that the exposure to these comments would do more to reinforce her point than the detriment done by closing them off and appearing completely closed-minded. Preventing feedback, valid and viable or not, seems to me an equally aggressive tactic to those posting the trollish comments in the first place.

Except that in this case, the comment section became a breeding ground for bullies to encourage each other to come up the worst possible threats. Such mob mentality is better nipped in the bud.

The AGS community is open-minded? lol, funny.

As egotistical as I am, I'm not ashamed to admit that I believe most people fall somewhere below "imbecile" on the intellectual scale.

I spend a lot of time on self-evaluation, and any debate I enter, I do so knowing not just where I stand, but why I stand there. Most people don't do this.

Just wanted to express my disagreement with the statements quoted - no further comments, really. If you want to come across as arrogant and disdainful, be my guest.

Also, this whole "we shouldn't call it feminism, we should call it egalitarianism" is a bit insulting to the femininst movement.
Up until 100 years ago, women couldn't vote, couldn't inherit and were practically considered legally incompetent. This didn't change thanks to a bunch of self-contented men saying they prefer the term "egalitarianism", no it was really hard work by feminist organisations.

You can't just say that you prefer everyone to have equal rights and expect that to change anything. It's called feminism because that's where the focus is, that's where its roots are.

And Myinah described aptly why their work isn't done yet. [/list]

[dactylopus]

I wanted to say that I think the term you are looking for Dactylopus is egalitarianism. I personally identify with egalitarianism, but I gladly accept the term feminist (inter-sectional) too because while in many ways things have improved significantly for women in the western society (although we still have a long way to go), there are clearly still issues that need addressing and this term reminds us that we are looking at issues of inequality pertaining to the oppression of women.

Egalitarianism is the closest, I suppose, but isn't specifically related to gender equality.  That's why I didn't use it earlier.  It'll work well enough, though.

When we are looking at things like female genital mutilation, breast ironing, forced marriage, honour killings, domestic violence (I'm not disputing men are never victims) and reproductive rights, the people campaigning and fighting for these causes and people tend to have been feminist organisations. I'm not really aware of an egalitarian charity focussing on these sort of things, but I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong.

These are most certainly feminist issues, or women's rights issues, or more generally, civil rights issues.  I am in no way trying to argue otherwise.  I can see how they relate to the discussion in a very broad sense but we're getting further and further away from the discussion on tropes.

Also, this whole "we shouldn't call it feminism, we should call it egalitarianism" is a bit insulting to the femininst movement.
Up until 100 years ago, women couldn't vote, couldn't inherit and were practically considered legally incompetent. This didn't change thanks to a bunch of self-contented men saying they prefer the term "egalitarianism", no it was really hard work by feminist organisations.

You can't just say that you prefer everyone to have equal rights and expect that to change anything. It's called feminism because that's where the focus is, that's where its roots are.

Fair enough.  I'm not in any way trying to insult feminists (I would be insulting myself).  I am fully aware of the rights that feminists fought for and won, I'm not an imbecile.  Yes, it was hard work, and yes, there is still more work to be done.

To explain where those comments were coming from:  I felt like the conversation was drifting into broader issues of gender inequality, not just improving things for women, but for men as well.  As has been said, patriarchy perpetuates gender roles and gender inequality, and both men and women suffer as a result.  This, I feel, is an egalitarian issue in the general sense.  Each individual aspect may relate to women's rights (equal pay, abortion) or men's rights (child custody, insurance), but the overall goal of equality and reducing the disparity between the genders is egalitarian.

I didn't mean any harm by those comments, and I apologize if any harm was inflicted.  Risking a tone argument here, I'll say that I think more men would be on board with feminist ideals if we could all identify as egalitarians.  I'm not speaking for myself, because I have no problem identifying as a feminist.  I am merely pointing out how powerful language can be.  The word feminism can be seen to (even though it doesn't) imply a superiority of women as a goal.  This can be especially true when considering some of the radical feminists of the past, those who have contempt for and openly hate men.  Feminism has come a long way, that's absolutely true, but I know men who get that 'feminazi' connotation from the word, and I'm merely suggesting that on some issues, using the word egalitarian may actually lead to a conversation rather than a gut reaction.

I'm not trying to derail the conversation here, though.  I got swept up with the discussion, as most of us did.  Snarky did a good job of trying to steer us back on course:

I do want to get back to the original topic, though. I don't have time to write at length right now, but some bullet points:

(Probably) non-controversial points

• We should definitely aim for better and more varied representations of women in computer games
• More women in more important positions in the industry would hopefully help with that, and would be a good thing in itself

(Maybe) more interesting opinions

• Sexualized portrayals are not inherently bad. Enjoying the portrayal of sexy people is perfectly natural
• However, ubiquitous sexualization is unhealthy on a personal and societal level, and the commercialization and exploitation of sex (because "sex sells!") demonstrates the problem when capitalism intersects with lizard-brain instinct (see also: junk food, gambling addiction, ...)
• Pop-culture has the potential to effect great changes in people's thinking and attitudes, and that gives creators a responsibility to think about the message their work communicates
• OTOH, worrying about every possible stereotype or implication can be creatively crippling, and PC over-sensitivity often produces bland, non-challenging works
• It's hard to come up with and tell a story, and the thing with tropes like "damsel in distress" is that they work
• A lot of these tropes are quite old, and once meaningfully reflected aspects of society. Do we need more new, modern tropes that acknowledge and bolster greater gender equality? What would they be?

I agree with pretty much everything said here, and feel that this is where the real discussion on the "Tropes vs Women" videos belongs.

[monkey0506]

The AGS community is open-minded? lol, funny.

As egotistical as I am, I'm not ashamed to admit that I believe most people fall somewhere below "imbecile" on the intellectual scale.

I spend a lot of time on self-evaluation, and any debate I enter, I do so knowing not just where I stand, but why I stand there. Most people don't do this.

Just wanted to express my disagreement with the statements quoted - no further comments, really. If you want to come across as arrogant and disdainful, be my guest.

I'll grant you that I was being extremely arrogant, but for the most part I actually stand by what I said. People, at least in this country, if not simply too lazy to think for themselves, I think we can agree are horrifically undereducated. When I attended my first semester of college (last year, I've put it off for some time), I was appalled at the level of work that was being deemed "college level". I took the mandatory English course online (Composition & Rhetoric I), which was terribly unfortunate because it meant that I had to actually read every interaction with my classmates. Reading their papers for peer review was far worse. The professor acknowledged to me privately that I was at a level far beyond the rest of the class, but that because of it she would hold me to a higher standard.

In all honesty the course should have been considered remedial, and not for college credit. The whole experience only strengthened my negative views about people (in general) as intellectuals. Around these forums I don't really feel that the same applies. This community is a terribly small subset of the human population though, and even fewer of us still actually arrive here from the U.S. My opinion on the matter is arrogant, and it's definitely biased, but it has been reinforced throughout my life by experience.

As to the comment about the open-mindedness of the AGS community, I actually feel that in general the community as a whole does try to keep an open mind. But there are still some instances where opposing the popular view isn't met by, "I disagree with you, but appreciate that as your opinion," and instead something more along the lines of, "What kind of mentally deficit, sub-human creature are you to dare to disagree with us? You're an [censored]." (I do appreciate the irony of accusing someone else (albeit generically) of throwing around insults about mental proficiency when I myself stated that most people are less than imbeciles...)

It's not in every occurrence, it's not in every debate, or every topic. It's not always directed at me, and hell there's probably times when I've been the one doing it (e.g., I refuse to relent on my vendetta about code indentation). This was just my way of, how did Dan put it, "high-level bitching".

[Trapezoid]

As long as there are people who resent that feminism still exists and see these videos merely as a generic prompt to ramble on about how they know better than those ivory tower women and their "experiences", it's gonna be hard to stay on topic. Also, dudes in this thread talking about what they find attractive, for some reason. Sigh.

When we are looking at things like female genital mutilation, breast ironing, forced marriage, honour killings, domestic violence (I'm not disputing men are never victims) and reproductive rights, the people campaigning and fighting for these causes and people tend to have been feminist organisations. I'm not really aware of an egalitarian charity focussing on these sort of things, but I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong.

When all those things exist, it strikes me as rather sheltered to look at the word "feminism" and get all scurred by the "fem" part. It's more backseat-driving. Dudes setting up pointless hoops for feminism to through, and pretending they'd be on board if only this, if only that. Don't be that guy!

Wow, anti-frenchers are early this morning.
Yeah I know, Satan is everywhere because people don't believe in Satan.

Since when is analysis the same as bitching?

In that particular case, the concept of "bitching" and "analysing" are almost recovering the same phenomenon. That's why I use the word "bitching".

[...] but if you get good at *identifying* it you can help to lessen it.

No it won't. That's precisely the very essence of the examples I gave earlier. It's on the nature of cultural studies. Any attemps to modified what was previously criticised, if noticed, will magically make the cursus morph into something else. Just look how fast the same Buffy morphs from "empowerment" to "An illustration on how society love to see women suffers".

You act like one person's reading of one piece of fiction suddenly becomes a consensus in the entire feminism community. Here's a tip: there is no feminist community! And even if there were, feminist critique is an exercise. Like I said, it's not a boycott. It's rarely meant to tell anyone what they should and should not enjoy, except in the harshest of cases.

Anyway, you just gave me a very good illustration of " In fact, any speeches / narrations / discourses / stories that is not [edit:itself] a meta-speech / critique can be easily  stretches to be accused of being patriarcalistic. Try ! The olny game 100% kosher will be something like a Q&A game where the player has to identify the thropes. [/b]".

Why do you think anyone is calling for 100% kosher? Why do you think it's a contest?
All forms of critique, social or not, can involve at least as many "rules" as you seem to think feminists are calling for. Do you think if Roger Ebert had his way, all movies would just be a list of things he thinks are good? No, because critique is not a rulebook, and you don't need to act so dramatically every time a feminist suggests something might have problematic undertones.

Therefore you're not looking for concretely appliable solutions ? (hence "bitching" ?). I'm a feminist (amongs many other political positions of mine) in that sense that i'm looking for better social positions/conditions for women. You're not.

Discussion, awareness and the call for deeper analysis of media are worthy pursuits. EVERYBODY agrees with "better social positions/conditions for women"-- that's not special. That's like saying "I don't SUPPORT rape." Like it's a matter of vote. Like there's no ingrained psychology we need to dismantle. Wouldn't that be nice.

[dactylopus]

While we all wait for her next set of videos, I thought I'd post this TED talk given by Anita Sarkeesian:

[embed=560,315]http://youtu.be/GZAxwsg9J9Q[/embed]

I didn't realize that there was such a massive campaign against her.  This certainly explains why the comments were turned off on her videos, and gives me more reason to support her cause.

These videos have created a phenomenon, propelling Anita to the forefront of the discussion on women's representation in video games (and media).  This is a great thing, because it gives the overall movement a voice.  Anita is no longer just a feminist blogger on YouTube, she is becoming a spokesperson.  With all of the support she is receiving, she is also becoming the kind of voice that people will actually listen to.

[Jared]

I tentatively disagree. She's high profile and people are aware of her, but her arguments are often poorly constructed and researched which is unfortunate. These are things that do deserve to be discussion points, but when she offers up extreme arguments that are easily countered (strawman arguments, if you will) it's difficult for her to be taken seriously by a lot of people. It's equally unfortunate that there's a perception among some of her supporters that taking issue with any of her videos is a sign of misogyny (a word bandied about far too readily these days)

I'm also slightly dubious about the 'massive campaign' against her. Maybe I stick to the more genteel areas of the internet, I don't know, but I've seen basically no abuse of Anita Sarkeesian. I've seen plenty of well constructed posts countering and debating things she has said and a couple of joke images (Her with some tangled up Christmas lights and a message saying "I bet the Patriarchy did this" - stuff like that) but nothing genuinely hateful. Due to the fact that she's done so much work disabling comments I can't evaluate for myself - I don't want to be unkind to her but I'm sceptical whenever somebody makes complaints about 'trolls' and 'abuse'. Having put up with plenty of abuse myself I have little patience for thin-skinned people and most people are prone to exaggerate the level of trolling around.

[waheela]

I tentatively disagree. She's high profile and people are aware of her, but her arguments are often poorly constructed and researched which is unfortunate. These are things that do deserve to be discussion points, but when she offers up extreme arguments that are easily countered (strawman arguments, if you will) it's difficult for her to be taken seriously by a lot of people.

People often say this. I really don't see it, but maybe I'm missing something. Could you give me some examples of which arguments you think are poorly constructed/researched?

I'm also slightly dubious about the 'massive campaign' against her. Maybe I stick to the more genteel areas of the internet, I don't know, but I've seen basically no abuse of Anita Sarkeesian. I've seen plenty of well constructed posts countering and debating things she has said and a couple of joke images (Her with some tangled up Christmas lights and a message saying "I bet the Patriarchy did this" - stuff like that) but nothing genuinely hateful. Due to the fact that she's done so much work disabling comments I can't evaluate for myself - I don't want to be unkind to her but I'm sceptical whenever somebody makes complaints about 'trolls' and 'abuse'. Having put up with plenty of abuse myself I have little patience for thin-skinned people and most people are prone to exaggerate the level of trolling around.

Again, sorry, I'm a little confused. Are you saying that because you haven't seen it in your circles, it doesn't exist? All this is documented on her website: http://www.feministfrequency.com/2012/07/image-based-harassment-and-visual-misogyny/

[xil]

I'm also slightly dubious about the 'massive campaign' against her. Maybe I stick to the more genteel areas of the internet, I don't know, but I've seen basically no abuse of Anita Sarkeesian. I've seen plenty of well constructed posts countering and debating things she has said and a couple of joke images (Her with some tangled up Christmas lights and a message saying "I bet the Patriarchy did this" - stuff like that) but nothing genuinely hateful. Due to the fact that she's done so much work disabling comments I can't evaluate for myself - I don't want to be unkind to her but I'm sceptical whenever somebody makes complaints about 'trolls' and 'abuse'. Having put up with plenty of abuse myself I have little patience for thin-skinned people and most people are prone to exaggerate the level of trolling around.

Again, sorry, I'm a little confused. Are you saying that because you haven't seen it in your circles, it doesn't exist? All this is documented on her website: http://www.feministfrequency.com/2012/07/image-based-harassment-and-visual-misogyny/

Welcome to the internet Anita, you must be new here.

I can guarantee (using the same scientific backing as Anita's arguments) that Rebecca Black has got and will still get far more trolling than Anita.

Ignore it, move on, they'll grow up/get bored eventually. Making a page like that probably just spurs them on more.

[Myinah]

Death and rape threats are not something to be taken lightly. There is a difference between regular dumb ass trolling and threatening violence. They know her face, they know her name and I'm certain 4chan doxxed her so they know where she is. It seems ridiculous to just be like "Pfffft, no big deal, everyone gets trolled online." I'd be scared. I think it was brave of her to continue the campaign in spite of the threats. I'd be terrified one of those guys really was a psycho who would make good on a threat.

And like Waheela said, just because you don't see something, doesnt mean it didn't occur. I saw the comments on the trailer for her kickstarter project. They were sickening. Criticism is not the same as a violent threat. Why do people think its acceptable? "Oh, it's the internet, just take it on the chin! They'll get bored!" How do you know that? How do you know one of them isn't going to actually carry out the threats? There are some sick individuals in the world. Violence against women is not uncommon.

You know what else, being silent has never solved bullying and harassment in my experience. In isolated incidents maybe, but this isn't just about Anita, harassment against women is prevalent online, and it just allows it to continue unchallenged. I think showing that these things happen is important. I think taking a stand is important. As a community, the more people who say "That's not cool. Don't do that shit." the less people will do it. Social pressure affects change. There will always be a few jerks, but if the gaming community actually said "Guys this is fucking awful, stop it!" then maybe it would lessen considerably. If people just twiddle their thumbs while people send harassing messages like "I'm going to impregnate you and force you to have a late term abortion." (From the Jenny Hanniver story regarding rape threats on Xbox Live.)It's not acceptable to threaten someone like that as far as I'm concerned.

At the end of the day she doesn't want to subject her pages to a stream of violent threats for the sake of one or two intelligent comments. It's not like by disabling youtube comments she's somehow disabled free speech or criticism of her videos. We are discussing her now so what's the big deal? I think it's better she disable them than it become a stream of vile abuse. That doesn't do anyone any good. There are response videos with open comments so people can have their say there if youtube comments are so essential to this whole debate. Or youtubers can make a response video as many have.

I would also like to have the good counter arguments recommended to me for the sake of balance. I'm not inclined to sift through many angry response videos to find a few kernels of good content so if anyone has any of these good counter points they can direct me too I'd appreciate it.

[waheela]

I'm also slightly dubious about the 'massive campaign' against her. Maybe I stick to the more genteel areas of the internet, I don't know, but I've seen basically no abuse of Anita Sarkeesian. I've seen plenty of well constructed posts countering and debating things she has said and a couple of joke images (Her with some tangled up Christmas lights and a message saying "I bet the Patriarchy did this" - stuff like that) but nothing genuinely hateful. Due to the fact that she's done so much work disabling comments I can't evaluate for myself - I don't want to be unkind to her but I'm sceptical whenever somebody makes complaints about 'trolls' and 'abuse'. Having put up with plenty of abuse myself I have little patience for thin-skinned people and most people are prone to exaggerate the level of trolling around.

Again, sorry, I'm a little confused. Are you saying that because you haven't seen it in your circles, it doesn't exist? All this is documented on her website: http://www.feministfrequency.com/2012/07/image-based-harassment-and-visual-misogyny/

Welcome to the internet Anita, you must be new here.

I can guarantee (using the same scientific backing as Anita's arguments) that Rebecca Black has got and will still get far more trolling than Anita.

Ignore it, move on, they'll grow up/get bored eventually. Making a page like that probably just spurs them on more.

I kinda agree with Myinah on this. By ignoring threats, you are indirectly sending the message that these threats are normal, acceptable and shouldn't be challenged. Ignoring problems don't make them go away.

[xil]

Death and rape threats are not something to be taken lightly. There is a difference between regular dumb ass trolling and threatening violence. They know her face, they know her name and I'm certain 4chan doxxed her so they know where she is. It seems ridiculous to just be like "Pfffft, no big deal, everyone gets trolled online." I'd be scared. I think it was brave of her to continue the campaign in spite of the threats. I'd be terrified one of those guys really was a psycho who would make good on a threat.

And like Waheela said, just because you don't see something, doesnt mean it didn't occur. I saw the comments on the trailer for her kickstarter project. They were sickening. Criticism is not the same as a violent threat. Why do people think its acceptable? "Oh, it's the internet, just take it on the chin! They'll get bored!" How do you know that? How do you know one of them isn't going to actually carry out the threats? There are some sick individuals in the world. Violence against women is not uncommon.

You know what else, being silent has never solved bullying and harassment in my experience. In isolated incidents maybe, but this isn't just about Anita, harassment against women is prevalent online, and it just allows it to continue unchallenged. I think showing that these things happen is important. I think taking a stand is important. As a community, the more people who say "That's not cool. Don't do that shit." the less people will do it. Social pressure affects change. There will always be a few jerks, but if the gaming community actually said "Guys this is fucking awful, stop it!" then maybe it would lessen considerably. If people just twiddle their thumbs while people send harassing messages like "I'm going to impregnate you and force you to have a late term abortion." (From the Jenny Hanniver story regarding rape threats on Xbox Live.)It's not acceptable to threaten someone like that as far as I'm concerned.

At the end of the day she doesn't want to subject her pages to a stream of violent threats for the sake of one or two intelligent comments. It's not like by disabling youtube comments she's somehow disabled free speech or criticism of her videos. We are discussing her now so what's the big deal? I think it's better she disable them than it become a stream of vile abuse. That doesn't do anyone any good. There are response videos with open comments so people can have their say there if youtube comments are so essential to this whole debate. Or youtubers can make a response video as many have.

I would also like to have the good counter arguments recommended to me for the sake of balance. I'm not inclined to sift through many angry response videos to find a few kernels of good content so if anyone has any of these good counter points they can direct me too I'd appreciate it.

I've seen plenty of sickening comments on plenty of YouTube accounts belonging to people of either male or female gender, fact.

My solution, which is rather cost effective, is to do the best you can by ignoring it (feel free to report to twitter/youtube by all means! Ban comments if you want less evidence though I guess?), move on and hopefully they will get bored and hopefully they won't murder you.

You provide a lot of points I agree with, in fact, I agree with everything you say.

But please explain your solution to the problem.

[Stupot]

My game features a dude in distress, so feminist points for me. Yay!
Having said that, the only damsel in the entire game is a flirty cougar who is most definitely a sex object. Feminist points lost. Boo!
So sue me, most of the game was written in my horny years.

[Trapezoid]

The greatest evidence that people are a little too ready to demonize Anita is that anybody's actually defending YouTube comment sections. YouTube comments are notoriously worthless even when the complacency of dudebros isn't being challenged. Turning off the comments means absolutely nothing of value lost. Consider why you suddenly care.

[dactylopus]

After the first sentence, I thought it was going to be a sort of 'whine and play the victim' type of a talk.  After listening further, I realized that wasn't exactly the case.  She's not playing the victim, she is the victim.

When the talk was concluded, I did understand more why she turned off the comments.  The horrible threats she was receiving were beyond the normal YouTube reaction.  I still think that keeping the comments open would serve well to expose the kind of bigotry on the internet, on YouTube, and in gaming culture, but I understand why she deactivated them and I have no further complaints about that point.

Having said that, I disagreed with 2 comments she made in the TED video.

She said: "Its not 'just boys being boys.'  Its not 'just how the internet works.'"

The sad reality is that it is boys being boys, and it is how the internet works.  On the internet, no matter who you are (male or female) you will receive awful degrading and threatening comments, mostly from 'boys.'  I say 'boys' here rather than men, even though the large percentage of them will be grown men.  The reason I say 'boys' is because these men lack the maturity to handle themselves appropriately, and enjoy the anonymity of the internet when it comes to spouting vile thoughts.  The attacks are not exclusively made upon women, as these 'boys' are equal opportunity bigots.  Everyone will get their fair share of hate on the internet.

None of that was said to excuse that behavior in any way.  These 'boys' are wrong, no matter who they are attacking.  One can accept the attacks and choose to ignore them (as most of us will), or speak out against them.  Speaking out tends to inflame the situation, increasing the amount of hate, which is why most of us don't.  But I felt that she has developed a thick skin, otherwise she would not have discussed the issue in that TED Talk, and she wouldn't be continuing her video series.

So you can say she just needs to get over it, or accept it, but I think she's handling it appropriately.

I'll agree with Jared, though, and say that she's not always the best at constructing and researching her points.  I feel that she only tackles the issue from one side, but then again, that's her angle.  More statistics and numbers would do wonders in illustrating her point of view.  So, while she may not be the best choice for a spokesperson in regards to women in games, she has become a popular voice.  As such, I will support her efforts, and hope that she will be able to hear the more constructive criticisms and improve her approach.