Woman of the Week #7 - Anita Sarkeesian

[Ryan8bit]

The stripper in the video game that gets raped, shot and robbed has no say. She's a representation of the base desires for whatever programmer decided she needed to be put in that game.

Doesn't there seem to be a larger disconnect here though being that they're not really people? I would think porn would cause more actual objectification than playing with fictional characters that don't quite look real. For me, at least, there's always been a lot more of a disconnect there.

 

[Amaris]

And, like not all games feature this game mechanic or require it, not even the majority, not all porn is empowering. And, like a lot of the anti-porn crowd, she likes to paint the bad and the disgusting elements as the norm, the standard.

GTA: V, GTA: IV, GTA: San Andreas, are in the Top 20 best selling games of all time. If you include the Top 25, GTA: Vice City is there as well. These games are violent, and the women in them are excellent examples of wallpaper and objects to be used. The game mechanics allow you to have sex with a hooker, blow her brains out, and rob her, with no consequence.

Here's that list if you're interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_video_games

There's a reason she's highlighting this issue, and it's because some of the best selling video games feature this horrible detail, one that has been trumpeted and celebrated many times over.

Have fun: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=grand+theft+auto+hooker

 

[SeerSGB]

The stripper in the video game that gets raped, shot and robbed has no say. She's a representation of the base desires for whatever programmer decided she needed to be put in that game.

Doesn't there seem to be a larger disconnect here though being that they're not really people? I would think porn would cause more actual objectification than playing with fictional characters that don't quite look real. For me, at least, there's always been a lot more of a disconnect there.

Bingo. If you're going on the scale of worse: What's worse, killng a fictional hooker in a stupid game? Or watching a real woman being beaten, degraded, and her body abused, her slobbering and crying and begging for more--to use an extreme, but commonly found online fetish?

And, like not all games feature this game mechanic or require it, not even the majority, not all porn is empowering. And, like a lot of the anti-porn crowd, she likes to paint the bad and the disgusting elements as the norm, the standard.

GTA: V, GTA: IV, GTA: San Andreas, are in the Top 20 best selling games of all time. If you include the Top 25, GTA: Vice City is there as well. These games are violent, and the women in them are excellent examples of wallpaper and objects to be used. The game mechanics allow you to have sex with a hooker, blow her brains out, and rob her, with no consequence.

Here's that list if you're interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_video_games

There's a reason she's highlighting this issue, and it's because some of the best selling video games feature this horrible detail, one that has been trumpeted and celebrated many times over.

Have fun: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=grand+theft+auto+hooker

Best selling, but not a industry standard mechanic or game play. You're still talking about a small number of games.

 

[Amaris]

The stripper in the video game that gets raped, shot and robbed has no say. She's a representation of the base desires for whatever programmer decided she needed to be put in that game.

Doesn't there seem to be a larger disconnect here though being that they're not really people? I would think porn would cause more actual objectification than playing with fictional characters that don't quite look real. For me, at least, there's always been a lot more of a disconnect there.

Bingo. If you're going on the scale of worse: What's worse, killng a fictional hooker in a stupid game? Or watching a real woman being beaten, degraded, and her body abused, her slobbering and crying and begging for more--to use an extreme, but commonly found online fetish?

Do you control the woman in the porn video? Can you force her to do something she doesn't want to do? No, but in the video game? Sometimes, but sometimes not, because she's an avatar for your personal desire. You can make her do anything you want, and she'll obey. If she doesn't, then that means the programmer actively created her to resist, only for you to force her to bend to your wishes, which includes her being exploited, shot, and robbed.

So yes, the game is worse because of the interactive nature it allows. In the porn video, the porn actress has chosen to accept that role. It's even possible she has a fetish for that kind of play; S&M is popular among many couples. So in the video, you have consent and acceptance, but in the video game you have total control. Think about it.

Now, are there instances where bad things happen in porn? Yes, and that needs to be addressed, and it is being addressed. There are serious issues in gaming that need to be addressed, and they are being addressed. So your "but porn!" point doesn't work for you, because you're reinforcing the need for video games to have this inherent misogyny and sexism addressed. Anita is addressing it.

 

[SeerSGB]

Doesn't there seem to be a larger disconnect here though being that they're not really people? I would think porn would cause more actual objectification than playing with fictional characters that don't quite look real. For me, at least, there's always been a lot more of a disconnect there.

Bingo. If you're going on the scale of worse: What's worse, killng a fictional hooker in a stupid game? Or watching a real woman being beaten, degraded, and her body abused, her slobbering and crying and begging for more--to use an extreme, but commonly found online fetish?

Do you control the woman in the porn video? Can you force her to do something she doesn't want to do? Sometimes, but sometimes not, because she's an avatar for your personal desire. You can make her do anything you want, and she'll obey. If she doesn't, then that means the programmer actively created her to resist, only for you to force her to bend to your wishes, which includes her being exploited, shot, and robbed.

So yes, the game is worse because of the interactive nature it allows. In the porn video, the porn actress has chosen to accept that role. It's even possible she has a fetish for that kind of play; S&M is popular among many couples. So in the video, you have consent and acceptance, but in the video game you have total control. Think about it.

Except, IRC, in those games you can do it, but aren't required to do it. Where as, to me, the latter example is far more disgusting cause it focus on turning a real person into nothing but an object to be abused and used. Would I kill the hooker in GTA? Well, I don't play GTA but if I did, no I wouldn't cause it's not part of the goal.

Have I've killed female characters in game or female players in 1v1 matches? Yes when the story or matched called for, male characters and players too. Did that do anything to make me think that women or men were objects? Nope. But what makes it okay when I kill a male character/player, but taboo when I have to do the same to a female character/player?


There's an argument that circulated a few weeks back on twitter, went a little viral: Men play video games to keep from raping women. Now, would anyone call that a perception of all male gamers?

And that's the problem I have with Sarkessian and her followers: They're not addressing, their sensationalizing. Not once have I said they're not problems, but I am saying she's not focused on doing more than cashing in.

 

[Amaris]

Best selling, but not a industry standard mechanic or game play. You're still talking about a small number of games.

Whoa, now. I said best selling. That means millions of games, being purchased by millions of gamers. For each version. You're trying to minimize something that is not at all small.

The GTA games take up spots in the top 25 best selling games of all time. Collectively, they number 106.5 million copies sold. That's just GTA. There are more games, but these have so much influence, so even if there was only one game, and it sold 100 million copies, it's absurd to assume that these games, or that example, would not be a big part of the issue.

It's also clear that you are minimizing it because it is established that one game can change the entire face of gaming. World of Warcraft, anyone?

Do you control the woman in the porn video? Can you force her to do something she doesn't want to do? Sometimes, but sometimes not, because she's an avatar for your personal desire. You can make her do anything you want, and she'll obey. If she doesn't, then that means the programmer actively created her to resist, only for you to force her to bend to your wishes, which includes her being exploited, shot, and robbed.

So yes, the game is worse because of the interactive nature it allows. In the porn video, the porn actress has chosen to accept that role. It's even possible she has a fetish for that kind of play; S&M is popular among many couples. So in the video, you have consent and acceptance, but in the video game you have total control. Think about it.

Except, IRC, in those games you can do it, but aren't required to do it. Where as, to me, the latter example is far more disgusting cause it focus on turning a real person into nothing but an object to be abused and used. Would I kill the hooker in GTA? Well, I don't play GTA but if I did, no I wouldn't cause it's not part of the goal.

Which should tell you something from the results I posted for you. 43,800 results for "GTA" and "hookers". So why shouldn't Anita address it? Yes, that is the point we're on. Going elsewhere just means I'm going to come back and hammer this point home that much harder.

Have I've killed female characters in game or female players in 1v1 matches? Yes when the story or matched called for, male characters and players too. Did that do anything to make me think that women or men were objects? Nope.


There's an argument that circulated a few weeks back on twitter, went a little viral: Men play video games to keep from raping women. Now, would anyone call that a perception of all male gamers?

Hmm, if only there was someone to discuss the rampant misogyny in video games. Maybe shed some light on how this perception might come to exist. Oh, if only.

 

[SeerSGB]

Best selling, but not a industry standard mechanic or game play. You're still talking about a small number of games.

Whoa, now. I said best selling. That means millions of games, being purchased by millions of gamers. For each version. You're trying to minimize something that is not at all small.

The GTA games take up spots in the top 25 best selling games of all time. Collectively, they number 106.5 million copies sold. That's just GTA. There are more games, but these have so much influence, so even if there was only one game, and it sold 100 million copies, it's absurd to assume that these games, or that example, would not be a big part of the issue.

It's also clear that you are minimizing it because it is established that one game can change the entire face of gaming. World of Warcraft, anyone?

Except, IRC, in those games you can do it, but aren't required to do it. Where as, to me, the latter example is far more disgusting cause it focus on turning a real person into nothing but an object to be abused and used. Would I kill the hooker in GTA? Well, I don't play GTA but if I did, no I wouldn't cause it's not part of the goal.

Which should tell you something from the results I posted for you. 43,800 results for "GTA" and "hookers". So why shouldn't Anita address it? Yes, that is the point we're on. Going elsewhere just means I'm going to come back and hammer this point home that much harder.

Have I've killed female characters in game or female players in 1v1 matches? Yes when the story or matched called for, male characters and players too. Did that do anything to make me think that women or men were objects? Nope.


There's an argument that circulated a few weeks back on twitter, went a little viral: Men play video games to keep from raping women. Now, would anyone call that a perception of all male gamers?

Hmm, if only there was someone to discuss the rampant misogyny in video games. Maybe shed some light on how this perception might come to exist. Oh, if only.

Be nice to have a discussion that didn't start with the default position that all gamers are men and therefore part of the problem. Shame that approach doesn't equal youtube hits.

To bring around another way: How do you feel about the not your shield movement? (link 2)

After coming under fire for supporting the GamerGate movement, females, blacks, Asians, Hispanics, transgenders, gays and bisexuals took control of their own narrative by telling those who attacked them for supporting gaming that they are #NotYourShield.

These people are gamers. They don't want to be tarred with the same brush as the /v/ and /pol/ trolls at the root of these attacks. So why aren't we getting their side? Why is the debate one sided? They're not saying there isn't problems, they're saying they aren't accepting being told by sensationalist what gamers are and aren't and aren't villians.

 

[Amaris]

Oh hell no, I'm not getting into this. You want that, you go into the Gamergate thread. This is about Anita commenting on a serious issue in gaming. Again, we're not going to deviate to other topics, because when we do, I will come right back here, because this is the point, that Anita Sarkeesian has a perfectly valid reason to comment on this issue.

 

[SeerSGB]

Oh hell no, I'm not getting into this. You want that, you go into the Gamergate thread. This is about Anita commenting on a serious issue in gaming. Again, we're not going to deviate to other topics, because when we do, I will come right back here, because this is the point, that Anita Sarkeesian has a perfectly valid reason to comment on this issue.

And that's my points: She's not commenting, she's sensationalizing. The issues are valid, her way of handling is, as I said before, Fox News worthy.

 

[Amaris]

Oh hell no, I'm not getting into this. You want that, you go into the Gamergate thread. This is about Anita commenting on a serious issue in gaming. Again, we're not going to deviate to other topics, because when we do, I will come right back here, because this is the point, that Anita Sarkeesian has a perfectly valid reason to comment on this issue.

And that's my points: She's not commenting, she's sensationalizing. The issues are valid, her way of handling is, as I said before, Fox News worthy.

No, because what she said has been accurate. I even posted links that support her statements. Did you even watch the video, or read the links? The answers are right there.

 

[SeerSGB]

Oh hell no, I'm not getting into this. You want that, you go into the Gamergate thread. This is about Anita commenting on a serious issue in gaming. Again, we're not going to deviate to other topics, because when we do, I will come right back here, because this is the point, that Anita Sarkeesian has a perfectly valid reason to comment on this issue.

And that's my points: She's not commenting, she's sensationalizing. The issues are valid, her way of handling is, as I said before, Fox News worthy.

No, because what she said has been accurate. I even posted links that support her statements. Did you even watch the video, or read the links? The answers are right there.

Ugh...never said she didn't have a valid issue. I'm saying that her style, her presentation, her online interactions, are all geared to selling those points as sensationalized as possible. She's not addressing, she's selling. She's doesn't present herself as open to the debate, just selling her take on the matter and claiming anyone that disagrees is just part of gamergate.

Fox News can be said be accurate, but their style is geared towards selling; not information or debate, but selling the sensationalized take.

 

[Amaris]

And that's my points: She's not commenting, she's sensationalizing. The issues are valid, her way of handling is, as I said before, Fox News worthy.

No, because what she said has been accurate. I even posted links that support her statements. Did you even watch the video, or read the links? The answers are right there.

Ugh...never said she didn't have a valid issue. I'm saying that her style, her presentation, her online interactions, are all geared to selling those points as sensationalized as possible. She's not addressing, she's selling. She's doesn't present herself as open to the debate, just selling her take on the matter and claiming anyone that disagrees is just part of gamergate.

She's been threatened with rape, and death threats. Her statements have been demonized, misrepresented, and shouted down. She, along with other vocal women who have spoken out, have been threatened with death, and rape.

So who is doing the sensationalizing?

 

[{ Emilia }]

So Anita is being harassed and threatened. But Seer wants to make this thread about how he doesn't agree with some of her style (that he completely misrepresents which is either very misinformed or intellectually dishonest). Pretty ugly agenda.
Are you implying she deserved this? If not, why bring it up?

Are you also one of those guys who ask "But what was she wearing?" when something bad happens to a woman?

He's basically saying: "Hey, I'm not saying death threats are great BUT look at what she's doing, both sides are the same and she's enjoying the attention."

No.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

And that's my points: She's not commenting, she's sensationalizing. The issues are valid, her way of handling is, as I said before, Fox News worthy.

No, because what she said has been accurate. I even posted links that support her statements. Did you even watch the video, or read the links? The answers are right there.

Ugh...never said she didn't have a valid issue. I'm saying that her style, her presentation, her online interactions, are all geared to selling those points as sensationalized as possible. She's not addressing, she's selling. She's doesn't present herself as open to the debate, just selling her take on the matter and claiming anyone that disagrees is just part of gamergate.

Fox News can be said be accurate, but their style is geared towards selling; not information or debate, but selling the sensationalized take.

Exactly what "debate" do you think she should be having? One in which she argues against people who think games are a) not loaded with sexism or b) need to have more sexist content?

I'm pretty sure she's not interested in defending the very notion of feminism. Does one accept that women are treated unfairly in various ways and that that needs to be addressed? If so, then you have expressed support for feminism!

She is trying to reach people who may not be aware of these issues in order to bring attention to them on a wider scale. She is not obligated to defend feminism as a concept against bad-faith trolls and MRAs.

 

[T'Bonz]

LOL. Damn, { Emilia }, you scared the hell out of me. I saw the title (before I clicked to check it out) and went "Oh NO!"

 

[{ Emilia }]

LOL. Damn, { Emilia }, you scared the hell out of me. I saw the title (before I clicked to check it out) and went "Oh NO!"

I'm going to nominate you next week!

 

[Saito S]

Best selling, but not a industry standard mechanic or game play. You're still talking about a small number of games.

If you mean, those specific mechanics, then sure. But it seems rather self-evident that the issue is about any instances of sexism and misogyny in video games as a whole. And if THAT'S the metric, it really isn't a "small number" of games. Certainly not all, and maybe not even the majority, but not "small." Besides which, I don't see how the the extent to which specific mechanics are widespread is somehow more important to this issue than the question of, how many top-selling games have some sexist aspects to them.

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? Others in this thread have made this point, but mounting a defense of "all" anything as part of this debate is a huge strawman.

And that's not to mention the sexism and misogyny that goes on behind the scenes in the industry.

Re: porn, several good points have already been made, but in addition: you brought it up as some kind of "well, if games are bad because of this issue, what about porn? Isn't it bad too?" Well, yeah. Like games, it's not all porn and certainly not all consumers of porn, but who in the hell among feminists or anti-GGers, etc. ever made the claim that there are NO PROBLEMS WHATSOEVER EVER with sexism or misogyny in porn?

Of course not all gamers are violent or misogynistic. Neither are all porn consumers, or porn producers. If there is SOME sexism and misogyny present in either industry, shouldn't we stamp it out? If even a small number of consumers are influenced by the product the industry puts out, and actually engage in more misogynistic behavior because of it, isn't that a problem? This is the other reason why "not all (whatevers)" is such a huge straw man. Not only did no one ever say it WAS all, but acknowledging that it's "only some" doesn't change the fact that it's still a problem and one we should be working to solve.

It sounds to me like you just don't like Sarkeesian. You don't like how she presents herself and her opinions. Much of what you've said about why is provably nonsensical (i.e., you've tarred her videos as "blaming all games for being bad" when they pointedly haven't, accused her of claiming that everyone who disagrees with her is "part of gamergate" even though much of her material predates gamergate, etc), but the bottom line is, you don't like how she conducts herself. Fine. You are actually allowed to hold that opinion. But it doesn't change the fact that she's right about the base concept, which is: "there are problems in gaming with sexism and misogyny. We need to fix these problems." It's also worth pointing out that you seem to agree with the base concept, so it's hard to really get behind you when you complain about Sarkeesian being like Fox News. Frankly, I don't think I've EVER heard anyone say "Fox News is horrible, what they are saying is correct but the WAY they say it is so bad." Fox News distorts the truth and outright makes shit up as a matter of course. As I said, you are free to not like Anita Sarkeesian as a media critic, but she's not distorting the truth and outright making things up.

 

[Amaris]

LOL. Damn, { Emilia }, you scared the hell out of me. I saw the title (before I clicked to check it out) and went "Oh NO!"

I'm going to nominate you next week!

I'm glad you brought the thread back. It's just hard to believe the last entry was two years ago! Time flies!

Best selling, but not a industry standard mechanic or game play. You're still talking about a small number of games.

If you mean, those specific mechanics, then sure. But it seems rather self-evident that the issue is about any instances of sexism and misogyny in video games as a whole. And if THAT'S the metric, it really isn't a "small number" of games. Certainly not all, and maybe not even the majority, but not "small." Besides which, I don't see how the the extent to which specific mechanics are widespread is somehow more important to this issue than the question of, how many top-selling games have some sexist aspects to them.

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? Others in this thread have made this point, but mounting a defense of "all" anything as part of this debate is a huge strawman.

And that's not to mention the sexism and misogyny that goes on behind the scenes in the industry.

Re: porn, several good points have already been made, but in addition: you brought it up as some kind of "well, if games are bad because of this issue, what about porn? Isn't it bad too?" Well, yeah. Like games, it's not all porn and certainly not all consumers of porn, but who in the hell among feminists or anti-GGers, etc. ever made the claim that there are NO PROBLEMS WHATSOEVER EVER with sexism or misogyny in porn?

Of course not all gamers are violent or misogynistic. Neither are all porn consumers, or porn producers. If there is SOME sexism and misogyny present in either industry, shouldn't we stamp it out? If even a small number of consumers are influenced by the product the industry puts out, and actually engage in more misogynistic behavior because of it, isn't that a problem? This is the other reason why "not all (whatevers)" is such a huge straw man. Not only did no one ever say it WAS all, but acknowledging that it's "only some" doesn't change the fact that it's still a problem and one we should be working to solve.

It sounds to me like you just don't like Sarkeesian. You don't like how she presents herself and her opinions. Much of what you've said about why is provably nonsensical (i.e., you've tarred her videos as "blaming all games for being bad" when they pointedly haven't, accused her of claiming that everyone who disagrees with her is "part of gamergate" even though much of her material predates gamergate, etc), but the bottom line is, you don't like how she conducts herself. Fine. You are actually allowed to hold that opinion. But it doesn't change the fact that she's right about the base concept, which is: "there are problems in gaming with sexism and misogyny. We need to fix these problems." It's also worth pointing out that you seem to agree with the base concept, so it's hard to really get behind you when you complain about Sarkeesian being like Fox News. Frankly, I don't think I've EVER heard anyone say "Fox News is horrible, what they are saying is correct but the WAY they say it is so bad." Fox News distorts the truth and outright makes shit up as a matter of course. As I said, you are free to not like Anita Sarkeesian as a media critic, but she's not distorting the truth and outright making things up.

Perfectly stated.

 

[{ Emilia }]

Great post (as usual), Saito.

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.

ETA: I'll give Seer the benefit of the doubt and assume that he's also interested in discussing the actual issue.

 

[Amaris]

Great post (as usual), Saito.

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.

Yep. When this whole thing started gaining traction, I went out of my way to study up on it, and Anita was one of the women at the center of the controversy. She's well spoken, considerate, thoughtful, and she has evidence to support her statements. Those who claim otherwise have either never watched her videos, or only watched the misrepresented hit pieces edited by people like thunderf00t and his ilk.

I've mentioned that guy several times. In case you're curious, you can take a look at his work. This is the guy who is supposed to be reasonable, and a rational voice in the Gamergate community: https://www.youtube.com/user/Thunderf00t

He's such a charming individual.

As for his redirection, not to worry. I'm always ready to pull the thread back on topic, which is the accomplishments and courage of this very intelligent young woman.