Woman of the Week #7 - Anita Sarkeesian

[Bob The Skutter]

just started the tread but I'm going to jump right in with some points that already seem to be missed. Women make up between 45% and 55% of games, and no they're not just playing candy crush she angry birds. The average age of games is 35, so its not just young boys and men, in fact they make up the smallest group of gamers. Women do play online, but lots won't speak or even go under female names because of harassment. There is a blog dedicated to the harassment that gets sent to women gamers and it's from calling them sluts, to dick pics and everything in between.

I used to fairly regularly play Halo with a woman on the team and she ended up switching chat off, unless in team mode, and would still get creepy messages at the end of a match.

Also Anita wasn't using the shooting to have a pop at men, she was pointing out that the masculinity we surround ourselves with is toxic and harms men and their self image as much as women.

 

[Shaw]

I ran across this stuff a few weeks back and approached it with an open mind... basically asking the questions how this got started? and what it is about now?.

Gjoni/Quinn
I read the blog post by Gjoni, and while interesting (in a soap opera or The Jerry Springer Show way) it doesn't seem like the type of thing that should have started... much. He was over the top when attempting to post this stuff to forums, but the basic idea of the blog (which sadly wasn't his first choice) was better. Quinn's own words are fine for describing what happened, so his commentary wasn't really needed... but was as damming of him as it was of her.

I mean, these two were seeing each other... for a few months (excluding their break). They weren't married, they weren't living together, they weren't sharing finances... this was a puppy love relationship with sex. And given that, Gjoni put WAY too much into all this in the end. Quinn might have been wrong and caused the end of the relationship... but it hadn't even become anything all that important yet anyways, so he should have walked away and chalked it up to experience.

But he didn't.

Ethics in Gaming Journalism
Was there a breakdown in ethics (in general)... yes, sorta. In the journalistic aspect... sorta/sorta not.

Here is the thing... this is the small end of gaming. We aren't talking about the big name game companies, we are talking about companies which only barely qualify for the term company to begin with. I've seen small businesses like these in all areas where personal/relationship boundaries between people are crossed... and go wrong (which is why it is so strongly discouraged in larger businesses). But the people involved in this hardly rate in the larger gaming community, so why does it matter?

When you look at the Quinn/Grayson relationship... again, there doesn't seem to be any direct breakdown of journalistic ethics, but it was a poor choice on Grayson's part. But this guy doesn't exactly strike me as someone I'd consider a professional journalist either. So we have someone who is hardly a journalist covering people who are essentially trying to get into game development... none of these people would be on anyone's radar normally, so I doubt anyone was all that worried about journalistic ethics.

But here is the thing... people (in the gaming community) jumped into attacking Quinn first, then started looking for some justification (the Quinn/Grayson relationship) later. And where the breech in ethics (if there had been any) should have rested on Grayson's shoulders, Quinn was always the focus.

Why?

Then it struck me, we are talking about a bunch of people who have had experiences similar to Gjoni's. They are either unable to have relationships with women or have had relationships where their part was more or less a place holder until someone better came along. People with those types of life experiences are going to foster a lot of resentment towards the opposite sex (because I'm sure it happens to women too).

So, as often happens on the internet when you feel invisible, people lash out in antisocial ways that they might not normally do in the real world. And they focused on Quinn.

How did that become national news?
Well, when you get a bunch of people lashing out at anyone, there are always going to be people who want to join in. In this case, men who feel like women are displacing them or shouldn't even be on the same level as them.

So yeah, we are talking about guys who are seriously sick (and don't see it in themselves) looking for an outlet for their frustration at a world that doesn't see things their way. This is about misogyny, plane and simple.

Sarkeesian's videos are anything but ground breaking. They basically point out the obvious, which I guess these people don't think anyone else has noticed before. These things really don't have a place in mainstream gaming, so yeah, it should be limited to gaming porn.

And there is the problem... this stuff which shouldn't be in mainstream media is, which validates the world view of these misogynists. And relegating this type of stuff to limited/restricted pornographic releases is one more way the world is telling them that they are outside the norm.

We are basically talking about adults here, so even if this stuff were restricted, it wouldn't be restricted for them. But they would now find themselves as a fringe subgroup of a group which they had previously considered themselves to be the norm. And that type of potential displacement can drive people to this type of extreme behavior.

Having spent a ton of time reading what they say to each other, and what they think is okay language when discussing women, this is the real issue behind #gamergate. I didn't get more than a couple minutes (about four minutes) into an interview with Jordan Owen when I realized this guy is the poster child for men behaving badly (towards women)... and he doesn't see it in himself at all. Nor does anyone else in this group see the problem with this (which is the problem).


So my take... this is about misogynists who felt like they are the dominant subgroup of the gaming community fighting to keep from becoming what misogynists are in most parts of society... a fringe group that is largely ignored or ostracized because of their views. Frankly, it is sad that they were given a haven in the gaming community for this long.

But on the plus side... they've done a great job of outing themselves.



(Interesting commentary on this in a general respect.)

 

[Amaris]

^ Nailed it.

Also, I'm really glad you typed that out. I mean, not only am I really tired and still sick so it would have taken forever, but I would have probably (read: definitely) used many more fricatives than you, which sometimes waters things down a bit. So, well said. I think it sums up the whole situation quite nicely.

just started the tread but I'm going to jump right in with some points that already seem to be missed. Women make up between 45% and 55% of games, and no they're not just playing candy crush she angry birds. The average age of games is 35, so its not just young boys and men, in fact they make up the smallest group of gamers. Women do play online, but lots won't speak or even go under female names because of harassment. There is a blog dedicated to the harassment that gets sent to women gamers and it's from calling them sluts, to dick pics and everything in between.

I used to fairly regularly play Halo with a woman on the team and she ended up switching chat off, unless in team mode, and would still get creepy messages at the end of a match.

Also Anita wasn't using the shooting to have a pop at men, she was pointing out that the masculinity we surround ourselves with is toxic and harms men and their self image as much as women.

Well said! There are millions of women who are gamers, and to shut them out of the market would be myopic and shortsighted! Fortunately, game companies are starting to make the turn, but they're giants, it takes a while. You can't turn the Bismarck on a dime, same applies to a major game company, but they are turning, and I think that can only work out well for everyone!

Also, Saito said some stuff, so I'll go ahead and agree to it, too.

 

[Jono]

Voted for the second option, but I probably should have gone with the first. I've watched a number of her trope videos and I remember thinking in at least one of them that she skewed either a character or game in a manner I thought was not a reasonable reflection of that character/game outside a very narrow lens. However, I did agree with the general thrust of the points she put across and how poorly games have and do represent female characters, it was just I thought she could have used better examples in whatever episode that was.

As for the GamerGate stuff, I'm only across it in the broadest sense as it hasn't really made much of a news impact here, but the online attacks and threats are disgusting. Unfortunately gamers have allowed quite a hateful environment to fester in the online space we occupy. It will only really change if more of us should stand up and say that this kind of behaviour is no longer acceptable.

 

[RJDiogenes]

Once again the 21st century sinks further into barbarism. Where's law enforcement in all this? If people are threatening personal attacks and school shootings, they should be arrested and locked up for treatment.

 

[{ Emilia }]

Isn't it interesting that this was completely ignored?

Painting "all games" or "all gamers" as prone to these behaviors was never the point. Don't her videos go out of their way to point this out?

They do. She always makes sure to point that out. Which is why Seer's misrepresentation is such a blatant straw man that serves an agenda.

It's the same tactic GamerGaters employ. Keep bringing up this misrepresentation to steer the thread in this direction and make sure we feel the need to defend her. Even though it's obvious that she didn't do anything wrong and is the victim here.

It's a way to try and achieve hegemony in a discourse but it's easy enough to see through it if you know anything about Anita Sarkeesian, gaming culture and this whole mess.

The best way might actually be to ignore it. Because no matter what we say or prove he will keep reiterating the same statements to keep the thread going in this direction. That way we'll never get to focus on the important issue.

It's still happening. We went from discussing what Sarkeesian did wrong to deserve this (hint: nothing) to the faults of "modern feminism".
It's a nice way to redirect a conversation that should instead be about the actual issue at hand here: sexism and misogyny.

But the other side keeps misrepresenting what Sarkeesian stands for and now it's about what feminism stands for. Seer's reading of modern feminism is bullshit, plain and simple. The way he's representing it is just tired old MRA talking points. I'm glad that nobody here is falling for it.

Are there feminists who say stupid shit? Sure. Feminists are human beings and some human beings say stupid shit once in a while.
As a historian who has studied the development of New Social Movements I can safely say that feminism has never been more inclusive and less extreme than it is now. That doesn't mean it can't still improve but the "old school feminism" he was apparently okay with was actually the one that excluded men (there were reasons for that. It was generally assumed that women first needed to prove they can self-organize without men overlooking things).
A modern feminist on the other hand is "a man or a woman who believes in equal rights for both sexes".

Seer can throw his shit all he wants but it won't stick.
What he can do, though, is to keep reiterating his lies and misrepresentations about feminism and Sarkeesian and thus make sure we all stay in the defensive, no matter how absurd it is.

What does this achieve?
It makes sure we won't discuss the actual problem: Women being harassed and threatened for voicing views that support the equality of sexes.

Why do people like Seer not want to talk about this?
Fuck knows. Privilege is the only reason I can think of.

Every discussion of sexism gets invaded by MRA people trying to make the discussion about the faults of feminism in order to make sure the actual problem of sexism is never discussed. It is a way to shut up a discourse we need to have. It's sad that it is happening here, too.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

I've been in a lot of women gaming groups over the years, women only guilds, fb groups for women in specific games.. people have been talking about what Anita S. talks about in her videos for a long, long time. Then Anita S. started making these videos, women were yeah, totally! And it was nothing earth shattering, it was just commentary on how ridiculous so much of gaming was in its throwback sexism.

Then OMFG a bunch of guys discovered these videos and it was war.

What a crock.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

What I find the most ironic is that Sarkeesian is about the tamest representative of feminism one could imagine. She's no firebrand, she's not out there hurling insults at anyone, she is careful not to generalize about men. In fact, much of why she's doing this is to get men to recognize the issues involved, since men dominate the industry and thus have the power to change it.

For someone to watch one of her videos and think a flurry of death threats or a 4-hour video tirade filled with hatred and bile represents a "reasonable" response is just baffling. It's obvious that the people who do this stuff aren't responding to anything she's actually said. They're responding solely to the fact that she's a woman saying something negative about an activity they enjoy. They don't really care how she's saying it. They don't even care what she's saying, in any meaningful way.

It's like a woman walking into a boys' clubhouse, seeing posters of naked women all over the walls, and asking, "Hey guys, I think it's a little bit creepy and inappropriate that you have pornographic posters everywhere in here. Would you consider maybe taking them down?"

And then they beat her to death.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

Yea that is exactly how I've felt about this whole thing.

Bunch of vids people have been chatting about for some time and suddenly REACTION.

 

[Jedi_Master]

What I find the most ironic is that Sarkeesian is about the tamest representative of feminism one could imagine. She's no firebrand, she's not out there hurling insults at anyone, she is careful not to generalize about men. In fact, much of why she's doing this is to get men to recognize the issues involved, since men dominate the industry and thus have the power to change it.

For someone to watch one of her videos and think a flurry of death threats or a 4-hour video tirade filled with hatred and bile represents a "reasonable" response is just baffling. It's obvious that the people who do this stuff aren't responding to anything she's actually said. They're responding solely to the fact that she's a woman saying something negative about an activity they enjoy. They don't really care how she's saying it. They don't even care what she's saying, in any meaningful way.

It's like a woman walking into a boys' clubhouse, seeing posters of naked women all over the walls, and asking, "Hey guys, I think it's a little bit creepy and inappropriate that you have pornographic posters everywhere in here. Would you consider maybe taking them down?"

And then they beat her to death.

I saw an interesting illustration on FB the other day:

Imagine you are reading a book in a cafe' and as you finish the book you close it and say out loud "Hmm that book was good but I did not enjoy how the female characters were portrayed".

Just then 10 guys walk up to you and start accusing you of wanting all books to fit your personal perception, that you are determined to run men out of the book business and that you are ignoring how women are portrayed in countless other books. Oh and they have statements from "real female authors" who disagree with your perception on women, and if you don't stop talking about this issue, they are going to burn your house down.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

What I find the most ironic is that Sarkeesian is about the tamest representative of feminism one could imagine. She's no firebrand, she's not out there hurling insults at anyone, she is careful not to generalize about men. In fact, much of why she's doing this is to get men to recognize the issues involved, since men dominate the industry and thus have the power to change it.

For someone to watch one of her videos and think a flurry of death threats or a 4-hour video tirade filled with hatred and bile represents a "reasonable" response is just baffling. It's obvious that the people who do this stuff aren't responding to anything she's actually said. They're responding solely to the fact that she's a woman saying something negative about an activity they enjoy. They don't really care how she's saying it. They don't even care what she's saying, in any meaningful way.

It's like a woman walking into a boys' clubhouse, seeing posters of naked women all over the walls, and asking, "Hey guys, I think it's a little bit creepy and inappropriate that you have pornographic posters everywhere in here. Would you consider maybe taking them down?"

And then they beat her to death.

I saw an interesting illustration on FB the other day:

Imagine you are reading a book in a cafe' and as you finish the book you close it and say out loud "Hmm that book was good but I did not enjoy how the female characters were portrayed".

Just then 10 guys walk up to you and start accusing you of wanting all books to fit your personal perception, that you are determined to run men out of the book business and that you are ignoring how women are portrayed in countless other books. Oh and they have statements from "real female authors" who disagree with your perception on women, and if you don't stop talking about this issue, they are going to burn your house down.

This is a great illustration, too.

 

[Jedi_Master]

The Sea Lion comic is one of the funniest I have ever read. I love it.

I think one of favorite multi-quoting, textwall posting member's spirit animal is a sea lion.

 

[Ryan8bit]

Peer reviewed article on violence in video games and its effect on women:
http://jiv.sagepub.com/content/27/15/3016

That's the abstract. I've attached the PDF below.
Enjoy.

Thanks for that study, it was an interesting read. It's far from exhaustive though. A lot of things that I wonder about it:

- Why didn't they do a breakdown by age? I've seen studies that focus on young people that show a correlation (not a cause) between general violence and aggression, but not too much in the way of adults. I have a feeling because their sample set was all college kids that it's not entirely representative.
- What is the breakdown in score differences in the men's post test in the treatment group? Did all men show an increased score? 50% higher, 50% the same? Some lower, but most higher? Were the ones that changed already on the high side, or on the low side? What other correlates may they have besides simply being men?
- How long was the term of the experiments, and what are long term effects?
- Why specifically would the men be more influenced by these images? To me, the implication of this study is not that the images they saw were a causal factor, but rather that they just unmasked pre-existing beliefs, otherwise you'd expect to see it in women too (or even all the men). To say that they're a cause is a stretch.
- Why did they only test people observing games, and not actually playing them?
- Not specific to this study, but more of what I was questioning earlier: How is it that some people can't separate characters, especially those in the Uncanny Valley, from actual real people? This is the part that concerns me the most.
- Have these guys even played video games? Some of their conclusions gave me the impression that they didn't understand the subject that much. And that's fine as it's not really relevant to the data, but I think it has some impact on conclusions.

 

[mimic]

So how do we get more women interest in computer sciences/programming? What do we need to do at the educational level, to steer or encourage young women in highschool to see the computer industry as a possible career choice?

This article covers most of it: Why are there still so few women in science?

A while ago, I read Solar by Ian McEwan. In it, his male character gives a speech that parodies actual comments made by Lawrence Summers about why women don't go into 'hard' sciences. Both Summers and the fictional character come to the conclusion that women just aren't interested in that kind of thing, as 'theoretical physics isn't nurturing and women are naturally nurturing,' or something like that.

Lots of men seem to think that women aren't in tech because they just aren't good at it/aren't interested in it. And I'll call bullshit. It's the message of 'women aren't welcome here' that makes us turn away. The frat-boy 'brogrammer' culture isn't exactly welcoming to people who aren't 20-something white males.

Read up on 'culture fit' as a hiring practice used by tech companies. It's a way of discriminating against women and people of color without being called to task for it.

 

[sidious618]

A while ago, I read Solar by Ian McEwan. In it, his male character gives a speech that parodies actual comments made by Lawrence Summers about why women don't go into 'hard' sciences. Both Summers and the fictional character come to the conclusion that women just aren't interested in that kind of thing, as 'theoretical physics isn't nurturing and women are naturally nurturing,' or something like that.

How did you like the book overall? I heard very different remarks on that book, but I'll get around to it eventually because I'm a McEwan fan. Glad he parodied the "women just don't want to work in science!" line of thinking, though.

For those who dislike Sarkeesian, you should check out her appearance on Colbert. Colbert and her explores the issues at work here in a pretty great way.

 

[Amaris]

As of late, I see the debate the same way I see the fundamentalist debate:

Fundamentalist: "Sinner! Antichrist! Burn in hell!"
Non-Religious: "I have every right to live my life free of your harassment."
Fundamentalist: "Oppression! You're trying to take away our rights!"

Gamergate Proponent: "Tits! Ass! In this game I can fuck a hooker and shoot her in the head!"
Female gamer: "I'm not comfortable with the idea of women being used as sexual fodder."
Gamergate Proponent: "Slut! Whore! You want to take away games and pussify them!"

Or, to put it another way:

"It's about ethics in journalism" is as legitimate a claim as "it's about states' rights".

 

[Saito S]

A while ago, I read Solar by Ian McEwan. In it, his male character gives a speech that parodies actual comments made by Lawrence Summers about why women don't go into 'hard' sciences. Both Summers and the fictional character come to the conclusion that women just aren't interested in that kind of thing, as 'theoretical physics isn't nurturing and women are naturally nurturing,' or something like that.

How did you like the book overall? I heard very different remarks on that book, but I'll get around to it eventually because I'm a McEwan fan. Glad he parodied the "women just don't want to work in science!" line of thinking, though.

For those who dislike Sarkeesian, you should check out her appearance on Colbert. Colbert and her explores the issues at work here in a pretty great way.

...sorta. I actually had mixed feelings on the interview. I recall seeing others here talking about this (don't remember whether it was in this thread or not) and saying more or less the same thing I'm about to say: Colbert is a funny and intelligent guy, but sometimes the whole right-wing scaremonger slinging "gotcha" questions parody/persona runs roughshod over his guest's ability to actually talk. And I felt that was the case here; he interrupted her just as she was beginning to answer several times, inserting some unneeded and detrimental awkwardness into the discussion.

I did think she handled herself pretty well, though.

As of late, I see the debate the same way I see the fundamentalist debate:

Fundamentalist: "Sinner! Antichrist! Burn in hell!"
Non-Religious: "I have every right to live my life free of your harassment."
Fundamentalist: "Oppression! You're trying to take away our rights!"

Gamergate Proponent: "Tits! Ass! In this game I can fuck a hooker and shoot her in the head!"
Female gamer: "I'm not comfortable with the idea of women being used as sexual fodder."
Gamergate Proponent: "Slut! Whore! You want to take away games and pussify them!"

Or, to put it another way:

"It's about ethics in journalism" is as legitimate a claim as "it's about states' rights".

Spot on.

 

[sidious618]

The gimmick can sometimes override the interviews, yeah. She seems to have had a good time, though!

 

[Robert Maxwell]

As of late, I see the debate the same way I see the fundamentalist debate:

Fundamentalist: "Sinner! Antichrist! Burn in hell!"
Non-Religious: "I have every right to live my life free of your harassment."
Fundamentalist: "Oppression! You're trying to take away our rights!"

Gamergate Proponent: "Tits! Ass! In this game I can fuck a hooker and shoot her in the head!"
Female gamer: "I'm not comfortable with the idea of women being used as sexual fodder."
Gamergate Proponent: "Slut! Whore! You want to take away games and pussify them!"

Or, to put it another way:

"It's about ethics in journalism" is as legitimate a claim as "it's about states' rights".

That's why I made this, of course:

 

[Rincewiend]

Games or movies can reinforce or challenge how you view the world or society.

I honestly can't think of how any video games have done that in my adulthood. Same with movies/TV.

You won't get any argument from me there, but I'm not sure what this really has to do with what I said.

Psychologists, and medical science, disagree with you, and you'll find them in the links I posted earlier.

Most of the articles you linked had to do with depiction of real women in media. It had nothing to do with the perception of fictional/non-realistic characters. I'd wager that if MRIs were done of people playing games, that most would probably be perceiving all of the characters as objects, regardless of their depicted gender. At least, that's how I play games. If I were to treat video game characters as real people, I'd never be able to kill any of them.


I feel somewhat concerned for some people here that allow video games to change worldviews or bleed into their real life and behavior.

Peer reviewed article on violence in video games and its effect on women:
http://jiv.sagepub.com/content/27/15/3016

That's the abstract. I've attached the PDF below.
Enjoy.

[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GI1fNjdeOvY[/yt]