Ben-DutkaThis has gone far enough.
I am a huge proponent of the advancement of video game journalism. I knew, as we all knew, that gaming and women clashed for decades.
There are indeed examples of sexism (both against females and males, I'd like to add) and I can point to several examples of how video games haven't been remotely fair when including members of the fairer sex in such adventures. I can also point to many examples of developers taking the necessary strides to fix the problem, and just how far this industry has come in the past five or six years.
Anybody who wants to produce intellectual, thought-provoking articles on this topic, and anyone who wants to delve beneath the surface and ask challenging questions, has my immediate respect. For the record, Anita Sarkeesian has never been one of these people. I was three minutes into one of her first YouTube videos when I said to myself, "Well, she's doing this for attention and she's bound to get it. She doesn't actually know anything about the industry and she refuses to do an ounce of real research but hey, that's why she's on YouTube and not writing for the Times or the Atlantic."
And of course, such publications would never have produced print versions of her presentations because they're poorly presented and critically flawed. She's not a journalist. She's not a doctor. She's not an expert on the subject at hand. She's just another YouTube personality who got precisely what she wanted: Attention. She was angling for that from the start and every time she's confronted with the legitimate facts, she ducks and evades. Eventually, we should all just accept that she hasn't really produced anything worth discussion.
This isn't helping gaming. It just tells other journalism professionals that someone like Sarkeesian can be one of our most visible – and supposedly important – personalities. Well, that's about all she is: A personality. I don't begrudge her one ounce of the fame and attention she has received but I won't for one second believe she had any other ulterior motive.
motivations are deduced from the content of actions.
I'll make the claim all I want, and I will do so with all sorts of certainty.
If you put yourself in the public eye and don't actually put out the requisite amount of effort to be considered legitimate in ANY capacity, you are only doing it for attention.
End of story.
On the Colbert Report, I watched him ask her 4 or 5 times to name a couple examples of games. She tried not to, and after much pestering, her only example was GTA.
She's clueless. Any avid gamer, even those who don't want to admit it for fear of sounding sexist, knows it.
This is the dumbest thing that has ever appeared on this website.
Never read her article – but she's certainly easy on the eyes ….
this story further gives her unnecessary attention. ..you realize that right PSextreme? if we ignore her babbling maybe she'll eventually give up and go crawl into a hole and die.. or maybe someone can just pay her to shut up and leave
Why should she shut up? She's absolutely right.
There's a old saying: Don't feed the trolls and some people are sending McDonald's and pizza to the troll's house. Every time someone send her death threats or call her nasty names it boost her profile.
If you want to have a discussion on video game violence or how women are represented in games that's one thing. But I saw her Hitman video and it seems she doesn't want to have a honest debate
I know I've never been active in the comments, but I've been a reader here for years now. I just wanted to say that this is the last article I'll be reading here, and that I'm disappointed that you are spreading ideas like this as a person with a platform of any real size. It's ideas like this that discredit cultural critics like Sarkeesian, and convinces people that gamergate is okay, or worse, justified. Her critical analysis is from a feminist point of view and is specifically about pointing out common tropes, which is why she gives such a "shallow" analysis: she's not trying to give a fair review, she's giving a detailed analysis under a specific critical lens.
I hope you can reflect on how cultural critics like Anita are important, and that games as "art" won't always be analyzed in a balanced consumer review format, but also under critical theory lenses.
I think it's more disappointing that you don't really understand the article and are incapable of engaging it through discussion.
I've always been disgusted by the way women are treated online and in forums. (and by the way, if you were an avid reader here, you'd know all the writing staff have been, too) The article isn't about not allowing her to have a voice or about saying inequality doesn't exist at various levels.
The point of the article in short (editorial, by the way) is that it's frustrating that a voice is given to a person who doesn't understand the medium well enough to give an accurate or helpful critique of the issue. I'm quite sure the writer of this article would have been fine if it had come from someone who knows the industry and was able to give an accurate picture of the issues. As is, she's wearing a mask publicly as if she understands all that the industry offers and does the public a disservice by not knowing the issues. What's more, she doesn't even seem to be aware of the double standard at play here. And then finally, she is inconsistent on what "gamergate" is! (Make up your mind…. is it about scantily clad women or about how women are treated by other gamers?? I don't even know anymore, myself!)
My issue is that many of the common "tropes" fail to point out the even more common "anti-tropes", if you will. She does little to promote positive change, and instead, does more to cultivate a sort of gamer witch-hunt in a society that already likes to blame whatever ills that society on gaming population! (They already try to blame American gun violence on video games, for example)
So, in short, I'm a little disgusted by your lack of ability to really discuss the issue. Your reaction is "I'm gonna go and never come back!" as opposed to understand the deeper, underlying principles the author of the article takes issue with. And for me, that is a more silencing attitude than the one you are trying to abhor.
Last edited by Underdog15 on 11/3/2014 9:06:15 AM
Underdog, pretending that she needs to possess irrelevant knowledge about gaming in order for her observations about sexism to have any merit is ridiculous, and it is absolutely just an excuse to dismiss her opinion rather than acknowledge the problems she's pointing out. That is why this op-ed was so damn stupid.
Sarkeesian doesn't have to prestige in Call of Duty or hit the level cap in Borderlands 2 or any crap like that to notice that women are hypersexualized and objectified in games. If anything, her being an "outsider" gives her observations more credibility, not less.
Crap like this article is just one of the ways that 'GAMERS' try to pretend that there isn't a serious problem with the industry.
Underdog, I understand the article 100%. I get that Ben isn't trying to silence her, but I'm disagreeing with his two claims which are:
1. Anita is only doing this for attention, and has no other motive for her work.
2. Anita isn't qualified to talk about the subject.
Both of these viewpoints are sexist in their own right, and are used to discredit her work. As a game developer, I back Anita and her work and applaud her bravery for continuing to put herself in harms way to bring attention to a topic that is important to the game industry. Did she get attention? Yes. Why? Because the issue is important and polarizing. Just because she received attention, does not mean she had no other motive for her series.
The second point, that she isn't qualified, is ridiculous. You don't have to be a "hardcore gamer" to be able to apply cultural criticism to a medium. In fact, it would probably add bias to your critique if you WERE a hardcore gamer. Anita doesn't have to be accepted as a true gamer for her critiques to matter; she's a feminist critic with an interest in games who is applying her knowledge to critique her hobby. I honestly wish there were more outside voices giving their thoughts and critiquing games from other points of view, because it would only help the industry mature even faster.
Basically, I found this article to be reactionary, misinformed, and defensive. Those are not the kinds of qualities I'm looking for in my news sources. "Anybody who wants to produce intellectual, thought-provoking articles on this topic… has my immediate respect." Maybe Ben should follow his own advice.
I'm curious as to what point in any of my posts I might have indicated she must be a "hardcore" gamer, whatever that even means, in order to have insight… Again, you've missed my point (as well as the article's).
Bio and Jak,
Being an outsider does less for her, I believe. Here's why:
What sorts of things do you think typically make headlines or are heard by the general public not involved in gaming? I can guarantee you that people aren't talking about the positive things going on in Journey or Last of Us with grammy award winning composers, quality writing getting acknowledge by writer's guilds, top quality acting performances, appearances by well known talents like Ellen Page, Willem Defoe, or Kevin Spacey. They aren't talking about how impressive it is to see artists on 3D art boards creating what they do. And perhaps worst of all through all of this, they aren't talking about excellent female lead characters like Ellie, the new Lara, Aveline (or other female characters in the AC series like Bloody Mary), Chloe and Elena in Uncharted, and the countless other solid female leads that have been around for years! Heck, look at a character like Aerith from FFVII back in 1997. We've had games with strong female characters for years. How it's possible for even an "outsider", as you call her, to not know basic information like that without at least a very minimal amount of research is beyond me.
Anita is unable to comment on any of the strides gaming has made. She is unable to do more than complain about the negatives. A strong argument COULD be made to help her points by pointing us back in the direction we have already made positive strides in. Instead of saying "this is bad", she should be adding to that, "but we can and have made progress… let's continue in that direction". But she is incapable of doing so. She can't even provide examples beyond the obvious, "GTA is bad" schtick we all know.
And it weakens her point. OBVIOUSLY. You know it does. Already, gamers who KNOW all the good things I mention ignore her because they quickly see she doesn't fully know what she's talking about. And in any avenue, most of being about to provoke thought or change INCLUDES knowing your audience and how to talk to them. You can't rely on people to see good things and ignore the bad (it's a rare skill, unfortunately). If you're glaringly unknowing about a sizeable amount of proof against your point, it is difficult to garner respect. And that's the issue she's faced with. (ask a doctor what they think of the anti-vaccine crowd. It's difficult to argue with people who don't even understand the science behind their own points let alone the real science of it all.)
What's worse, is that she reinforces the traditional stereotypes to the public unfamiliar with gaming that gamers are still adult children living in their parent's basement. These folks already know of things like Grand Theft Auto and Call of Duty. They don't know about the other stuff.
In short, she does nothing to educate those who know nothing about gaming and she does nothing to begin a healthy discussion with those that do know.
Jakintosh:
As for your points on 1… Whether you want to admit it or not, it is for attention. Her motives may come from a good place. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I got into my business because I want to provide better recreational opportunities for youth. When I advertise, sure, I want people to be more aware of the lack of programming out there, but I also want them to pay attention to my business. The same applies to her. She wants more attention for her cause. And while the cause may be honourable, to pretend that this isn't to her own personal benefit is extremely naive. At the end of the day, while I'm passionate about youth programming, I'm advertising because I want my business to succeed. She and I are the same, the difference between us and other "selfish people" being that we're both fortunate enough to work in a field we're passionate about. So it's personally -REWARDING- work in a variety of ways, but it's still also a means to our ends of success seeking…. Don't forget….. it should strike you as odd for her to attempt a platform without giving it more thought. It would not have taken much research for her to have done this in a FAR more effective way. The way she did it served her own purpose far better than the cause, and I think that's what resonates with the author. That's not sexist. That's how our capitalist society works.
As for 2, how in the WORLD is that sexist? She isn't qualified to touch on gaming. End of discussion. It's not like Ben made those comments about Jade, or something. You know… a woman of success within the actual industry?
In conclusion, it would be fine to have outside voices. That's not the issue. The issue is outside voices allowing themselves and presenting themselves as experts on the topic without even understanding it in it's entirety. She doesn't even know how to make an argument or commentary on where things should go! All she can say is "it's bad". That's it! When asked, she says generic things like "Maybe the woman shouldn't be the damsel!" without thinking "hmm… are there games out there that DON'T require rescuing a damsel?" or "are there games where a man needs to be saved?" Heck, even Call of Duty sports a female US president….
And that's my issue. My issue is that she is just noise because of the way she's handled this. That isn't demeaning to her pro-feminist message. It isn't an attack on her values or her as a woman. It's my frustration with her inability to offer the gaming industry with anything tangible to help it move in the right direction. She doesn't help anything. All she's done is locate a soapbox to preach a pro-feminist message (which is fine), but does so while crippling any actual progress that might have been made by ignoring it and reinforcing negative stereotypes placed on gamers at large (which is irresponsible and not ok).
That's just the way it is. She's done nothing to help the issue. But she certainly has garnered a greater following for herself. That is what the article is talking about. No one has benefited but herself (whether intentional or not is irrelevant). That is what the author sees. And that is why you do not understand the direction the editorial is coming from.
Last edited by Underdog15 on 11/3/2014 12:21:07 PM
There's absolutely no reason why she needs to mention the positive stuff in games. She doesn't need to appease or appeal to "HARDCORE GAMERS". People like you will ignore her no matter what, so it's a waste of time trying. She's focusing on the larger crowd of people who casually play, because they're the demographic that brings in the cash, which means their prevailing attitudes will dictate future development.
Frankly, anyone who ignores her because she doesn't have some frivolous 'in depth' knowledge of completely unimportant things is oblivious, and probably part of the problem. Anyone who understands how rampant misogyny runs in games and would like to see that end should applaud her efforts. She gets death and rape threats instead, from the very people who expect her to be a "HARDCORE GAMER". Frankly, "HARCORE GAMERS" sicken me.
I really wish you'd stop putting words in my mouth. That's 3 times now you've responded to what your head imagines I have said.
I didn't say she needs to appease "hardcore gamers". I said it's difficult to get respect from people when you make it obvious to them that you don't understand the issue you're addressing. (Even my wife thought so, and she plays ZERO games ever.) You don't need to be "hardcore" to know a lot of games have solid female leads. You don't need to be "hardcore" to know that most people know how to be kind. And you don't need to be "hardcore" to know there are redeeming values in the industry.
I also didn't say I ignore her, nor did I say she has no points of value.
If we're going to start hurling around insults with generalized "people like you" comments, being "oblivious", etc., then I have to say I feel the same way about your over-generalization of "hardcore gamers" sickening you because of a couple idiots who send death threats. I also find it offensive that you are treating her as if she is above reproach or treating her like a damsel in distress in need of saving from the "evil hardcore gamers".
Get a grip, Bio. The point is she could have done this in a MUCH more effective manner, but she didn't. You can't possibly expect everyone to respect her point of view because… well… I'm not sure why you think she should be above reproach, actually…
In fact, just stop responding to the imaginary things I've said. For once, try to respond to something I actually brought up. It would make this discussion much more straight forward.
Last edited by Underdog15 on 11/3/2014 12:35:19 PM
And yeah, I'm sorry, but I do think if you want to tackle an issue that you believe is facing the largest multimedia industry in the world, you should do at least a tiny bit of preliminary research.
I would.
I am responding to what you're saying. I just think you don't like the response. You keep saying she needs to bring up the positive things in gaming, or that she should mention there are strong female leads in games (I can think of maybe 1 or 2 strong female leads that are also not hypersexualized, whereas I can think of a few hundred female characters who are nothing but mindless sexpots).
You're basically saying she has to stroke your hobby's ego if she wants to criticize it at all, and that's asinine. Again, she's not even trying to convince you. You were never going to listen. Dutka was never going to listen. She's trying to reach the larger audience, and she has. Society at large is now having a discussion about sexism in gaming, it's something that's in the New York Times, on Colbert, etc. Because she, and people like her, have started speaking up.
She's having an incredible impact, and her message has been very effective. The death and rape threats have helped as well. The more neckbeards retaliate like that and prove her points for her, the more normal people will realize how effed up this industry is.
I think you, and people like you, are just pissed because she's not a fan of your hobby. The thing is, you can really like something AND admit that it has problems.
Still doesn't change the fact that she is nothing more than a sock puppet with no real opinions of her own.
Her boyfriend Jonathan McIntosh is the puppet master with his hand shoved up her ass, writing all of her carefully crafted scripts.
She isn't even a gamer, and if you think you can argue otherwise, you best click this link first before you make a fool of yourself.