Feminist Frequency VS actual sane female perspective
I remember the big discussion about girls in games a while ago, and remember being shown Female Frequency. Something really bugged me about the stuff she was talking about, but I didn't get into it. Today I read something on Destructoid, it's a "fellow female" perspective on her "series", and it sounds pretty spot on. FF has a big trollwhore (edit: apologies for the use of stupid language, was unintended as personal attack. Was seeking to portray "person who manipulates media and public opinion for won gain") played the victim card (edit: referring to flames pre-Kickstarter and hype during) to get paid to the tune of $150,000.
Which is really sad for real concerns about females. Or males, for that matter. I have nothing against well balanced critiques on representation, but obviously those don't "sell".
http://www.destructoid.com/epic-comment-elsa-on-tropes-vs-women-featured-on-reddit-240143.phtml
Just read this:
Which is really sad for real concerns about females. Or males, for that matter. I have nothing against well balanced critiques on representation, but obviously those don't "sell".
http://www.destructoid.com/epic-comment-elsa-on-tropes-vs-women-featured-on-reddit-240143.phtml
Just read this:
Comments
So perhaps I don't agree with all her analyses.
But geez... in what world is defacing webpages and making a mutilation-game of a person a right response to "asking money to buy video games" (and that is really a somewhat cynical interpretation, I think she has a total valid campaign)? She got the money, and of course "being a victim" has brought more attention to the campaign, but obviously what she wants to do (combined perhaps with the backlash) resonated with many people. They think she will make something of worth, and if she can, why shouldn't she?
And if by some stretch that was not part of a "real" issue of woman, the incident has at least made me much more aware of such issues (I was totally amazed at the things people were doing and saying), and it spurned many people to write about this (a few articles on Gamasutra, and many responses on blogs) which added more info and viewpoints on the matter.
(Also, I don't think "working in the games-industry", or "being part of a gaming community", are necessary requirements for making critiques).
Of course, if she does not come through with the series, and disappoint her backers, it would be sad...but it will be nothing different from any other KickStarter project going south.
And finally, if anyone has a problem with her work, they should criticize it directly, and not focus on (what they perceive?) as her techniques to get attention to that work.
1. She's asking for funding to play games and make videos. Exactly what MOST video game journalists do for a living.
2. She conveniently deletes, disregards and ignores all valid and sane responses.
3. She trolls people to get trolled more to say "I'M BEING TROLLED".
4. She's not doing what she's asked for money to do, but instead rather jetsetting and pushing her fame. (citation in Elsa's writings)
She sounds like Julius Malema to me. A manipulator of controversial sentiments and fearmonger. But hey, the best thing I can do is to stop talking about them so, erm, I'm sorry, world.
Further reading:
http://www.destructoid.com/a-response-to-some-arguments-in-anita-sarkeesian-s-interview-230570.phtml
http://www.destructoid.com/interview-anita-sarkeesian-games-and-tropes-vs-women-230337.phtml
http://www.destructoid.com/kickstarter-project-leads-to-harassment-and-threats-229304.phtml
Anita Sarkeesian had some really bad shit happen to her. There really is nothing in anyone's day to day experience that allows us to relate to what it's like to have your entire life infrastructure attacked and threatened continuously. People attempting to hack into every account you own, including bank accounts, knowing that all it's going to take is one screw-up you may have made years ago for it to all come crumbling down? That is not warranted, nor in any way justified by a desire to get "revenge" for words posted to the internet. Nor is the psychological impact of daily threats of the worst sorts of violence imaginable apparently being taken into account... All it takes is one crazier person to take it too far, and these people know where you live.
She is entitled to talk about whatever she wants to talk about. What, exactly, is the thing that's wrong in talking about something shit that happened to her, which should never have happened? Every single defensive reaction or attempt at justification is another illustration of how much there is wrong with our society that we can't react with compassion to a terrible series of events.
The posted comment (and a response comment on the follow-up Destructoid post) are full of rhetorical errors. Why is expertise in "female representation in video games" a thing to question - surely the fact that Sarkeesian has done analyses of female representation in other media for a long time now is enough? Why does she need to be an "expert" and how is that expertise defined? Why is there a false equivalency set up between #1reasonwhy and FF? Surely having more people talking about something that is very definitely a problem is a good thing, right? What the FUCK is with the argument that harassment is implictly ok if you ask for money to buy games? Firstly, the money was for production costs, mostly video equipment rental and time, game costs are quite probably a minor factor in that. Secondly, what the hell could possibly justify any level of harassment in response to asking for money for games in the first place? Game reviewers get paid to review games and they don't pay for those games most of the time, so what exactly is the argument about? Another false equivalence is set up here between game reviewers, film critics and (oddly) free youtubers posting stuff - those are not the same thing, neither does Sarkeesian's production method and budget feature as a logical reason for harassment. There's yet another false equivalence drawn by trying to relate what she's currently being interviewed about (the absurd scale of harassment) with the series she's producing. They are not the same thing and they should not be - yes, the harassment is related to the kickstarter campaign, but interviews resulting from that harassment are in no way "paid for" by the kickstarter, that's just poor thinking. Sure, being upset that she's missed a deadline is valid, but BE upset about THAT actual problem, rather than conflating totally unrelated things together in order to justify being more upset... So yeah, shit argument is shit.
By all means, disagree with Sarkeesian's analyses, with her opinions and with her logic, but as soon as that disagreement means attacking her character or representation as a human being, you done fucked up. I don't agree with her take on Bayonetta, as is quite well cataloged somewhere on this forum, but I'm not going to call someone a "trollwhore" to try and denigrate their argument.
So, I go back to my points made about her, not about "the feminist discourse":
1. She's actively monetising the discourse. I find that to be distasteful. Liken it to this: "I think contemporary music were all made crap. Please give me money so I can buy all the pop music in the world, and all the mp3 players, hifis and other devices so I can listen to them all and tell you why they're all crap".
2. She disregards any unsupporting comments, responses and discussions. I've not seen a single piece of discussion or response between her and anyone who doesn't agree with her - not Elsa, not anyone else. If someone was truly for "discourse" they would be open to discussion, but she's just pushing "Mine Nationalisation", not wanting to better "the economy", so to speak.
3. So I'm sorry for the terrible things that happened to her. If it happened to me, I would be very sad. But it wouldn't happen to me, because I don't try to push a certain agenda to the Nth degree, disregarding and ignoring every attempt at a (and no, I'm not saying the trolls are rational.) balanced discussion. If she cries herself to sleep at night I'm truly sorry for her, but I doubt she is, what with the 300 new games she's bought herself and her superstar status. She's gonna make *gasp* 13 videos instead of 5 with her extra $10,000 Kickstarter money. That's so generous of her.
4. She's not delivered on her deadlines. And if that's purely because of harassment, ok, sorry I even mentioned it. But during the time she was supposed to deliver, she instead has been doing other things. Like getting more people to agree with her through talks. One of her latest blogs? "The researching phase has begun! So far we’ve purchased well over 300 games for this project. As of now we can play games from the following systems: SNES, Gamecube, Wii, PS2, PS3, PS Vita, Xbox, Xbox 360, iPad and PC/MAC. We are also looking to acquire a 3DS XL when it becomes available next month." She's made more videos before she got funded than now. Fact.
Again, I don't fault the feminism discourse. Females are being discriminated. I feel that being exploited too makes it worse for the discourse, not better.
I am going to mention that Anita Sarkeesian only asked for $6000 for the purpose of funding some youtube videos that she would give away for free. And a lot of people loved the idea. This is a perfect use of Kickstarter. This is exactly the kind of thing that Kickstarter exists for (among other things).
Seriously @Tuism what is wrong with that? She wasn't money grabbing or deceiving people. She'd been making these videos for a while out of her own pocket before her Kickstarter campaign. The people who backed her knew what they were going to get, and I don't believe they're feeling disappointed even with some delays.
The people who didn't back her, like yourself, seem to be crying injustice.
[quote = Tuism] She disregards any unsupporting comments, responses and discussions. I've not seen a single piece of discussion or response between her and anyone who doesn't agree with her - not Elsa, not anyone else.[/quote]
The notion that she should respond to people like Elsa is ridiculous. Elsa did not in any way attack the substance of her message. Just her methods. The way she funded her project has NOTHING to do with feminist discourse. Sarkeesian is not an expert in crowd funding, or entrepreneurship, or managing publicity. Debating that would add nothing to the world. Sarkeesian wants to talk gender discourse and right now she's a feminist celebrity (regardless of whether she's an expert in the field or not). So she uses her opportunities to talk about that.
She's in a particularly good position to highlight female harassment in cyber space, so yay for her that she's trying to make a difference there. I'd hope that if I were in her position I'd do the same thing.
Yeah I wish she would explain publicly why she retracted her Bayonetta video or do a better video of Bayonetta with a better analysis. But I don't believe that she has to explain herself to me otherwise ALL OF HER CREDIBILITY IS IN QUESTION AND SHE IS EQUIVALENT TO JULIUS MALEMA. That would be silly. That's not how discourse works.
@Tuism I know it's bad internet form to assume things about people based on the things they write. But I assume that your problem with her has nothing to do with the reasons you've given. Your reasons simply aren't rational.
Tenders were a perfect way to turn political influence to money, that doesn't make Tenderpreneuring right.
Kickstarter was the perfect vehicle to turn her hype machine to profit, but does that make it right? The idea that poor methods doesn't detract from the message doesn't gel with me. Again, I have nothing against the Feminist discourse, but justifying it by saying Zia from Bastion is a damsel in distress and reducing every women who ever appeared in a school uniform as the sum of just that goes to show how much "research" is being done by her. She's going through games and jotting down every mention of (or lack thereof) women and ending every point with "therefore women were objectified". One could do the same and change the subject to animal cruelty or male stereotypes.
Her methods, IMHO, have made a circus out of the real issue of feminism. If she was serious about the discourse she could be discussing things and making sure people come to an understanding, not parrot-fashioning the same thing over and over again. I simply don't believe for a minute that she wasn't aware that she'd get backlash from it. I bet she counted on it. Hence Kickstarter. Did her old videos cost her $1200 a pop to produce? Would that just cover her cost of living?
Just to draw another example, I'm no fan of religion, and I did read Dawkin's book God Delusion. I didn't disagree with him, but his methods, while much more thorough, scientific and intelligent, also made me cringe because it seemed more to be propaganda than real research.
But I'm gonna leave it at this, I see no point to make anymore, personally I find it unfortunate that she is making money off the plight of real people, and not really helping those who she's benefiting off of with it, and I don't particularly need the world to agree with me :)
I can confidently say that the world doesn't agree with you, but all misogynists do.
I couldn't find a definition. Instead I found cognitive dissonance, which I assume you're not talking about? http://www.thefreedictionary.com/cognitive+dissonance
If you mean what I think you mean, then it could be said my anti-Sarkeesian feelings are only reinforcing your pro-Sarkeesian feelings... Then where would we be?
--------------------------------
I still don't understand why she can be deemed someone who's doing good when:
1) A person who wants to further a discourse refuses to discuss it with any challengers. Scientific method dictates you test your methods. She attempts to shut down all opposing, which seems propaganda-ish and...
2) A concerted effort at attempting censorship and I'm-not-listening-to-youness (or I'm-right-you're-wrong-ness), which I'm sure she KNOWS would get her negative backlash, which...
3) She thrives on, in publicity and monetarily.
But again I go back to an old point - balanced, considered viewpoints don't "sell" as well as extremist, controversial view. And I hate this notion of "credibility is ruined if I have to explain myself". It further divides people and gives people carte blanche to have no accountability for their ideas and actions, and results in "all I have to do is make noise, reason be damned". Religion works that way. Socialism works that way. Dictatorships work that way. Come to think of it Democracy works that way, even if it wasn't supposed to.
And again I ask: How has she furthered the feminist cause? By getting more people to shout at each other? How about getting more people to understand each other? Why shouldn't THAT be the point?
EDIT It's getting hard to tell whether you're being serious or are joking... if you're seriously calling me a misogynist, I sincerely hope you see why her methods are insincere, incorrect and undesirable. I by no means hate women nor wish women in a subordinate standing in the world I live in, and if any disagreement with her brands a person a misogynist... well, that's just warped. And you must hate all Asians. Watch out for the wrath of Kim Jong Il. (evil joking face)
The comment on Zia from Bastion comes from the same article that blithely dismisses the sheer sexiness of the fairies from Rayman Origins, right? The same article that also mentions how a character saying she likes dressing up sexy explains why her combat gear is completely impractical? All that the feminist perspective here is trying to achieve is to make people consider these things slightly differently: Why are ALL the fairies in Rayman Origins sexy? If each fairy is different, maybe they'd have different body-types and/or dress senses, maybe? If their personalities were the important part of their characterisation, then surely that would come across, right? ... On a related note, how much stock should we put in the words a sculpted character says to justify their sculptedness? That kinda feels like a tautology to me, a character could be made to say anything to justify themselves. I find the whole "she likes dressing up sexy" angle particularly weird when later in the same paragraph, the author goes on to explain why she's an awesome and kickass empowered female character because she did something heroic while her gravity-based superpowers were disabled - surely if that was a REMOTE possibility, she'd dress practically and not rely on the gravity forcefield protection all the time, right? Wouldn't she be a better character if that power-off incident CHANGED her dress sense to be more aware of that potential for her costume to need to save her life?
@Tuism: I think @BlackShipsFilltheSky is trying to say that an idea should be considered on its own merits whenever possible, not solely as a product of the person who had it. Yes, that often produces ideas that have been had before, because the people having them aren't in possession of information otherwise, but it also prevents situations where people refuse to talk about real issues because they're being brought up by the "wrong person" in the "wrong way". This is, and always will be, a continuum - we often use people's reputations to help us not wade through ideas that have already been considered, for instance - but asking someone to explain their point of view when their current project IS TO DO EXACTLY THAT, seems a bit odd. "Prove your credentials! ... No, no, don't prove them by doing that thing I say you need them do be able to do in the first place, that's cheating!"
So far, Sarkeesian is literally only providing a different opinion from a viewpoint that has historically been absent in games culture to a large degree. Demanding that a critic provide solutions both undervalues the information they're providing AND overemphasises their impact on the creative process. All you need to do as a creator is take criticism into account. By all means, decide for yourself what's too far and what isn't, on whatever axis you'd like to be deciding on, but don't rely on a critic for concrete solutions.
To address your point 1 above, this discourse is around GAMES. It will take more games to be created before the next step of this discussion is even possible. That's what criticism is: A generational feedback loop on any creative medium. Because Sarkeesian is critiquing already released games, no answering change is possible. I'm sure that's why EA had her talk to DICE, to inform developers directly of this differing point of view so that they can, at the very least, consider it during their next creative efforts. What those developers (and indeed, us ourselves) do about this alternate viewpoint is totally on us, we might ignore it, we might play it up, we might want to make statements in support or to the contrary, but at least we'll be better armed to think about this stuff.
Perhaps eventually Sarkeesian the critic will morph into Sarkeesian the philosopher, or maybe Sarkeesian the game developer. Either of those would be pretty cool... Just please, please stop putting things that aren't the same into similar contexts and then assuming that you should be equally outraged at both: Another kind of voice talking about the outputs of popular culture that's sustained by donations is in no way the same as misappropriation of state funds for private gain through manipulation of agreed-upon legal processes. One of those things is a crime, the other is TALKING!
Dismissing other points in an article doesn't make the Zia point less true. I don't agree with the Rayman fairy justification either. Gravity Rush is a different kettle of fish because I believe she still missed out on every other part of her character and went to just the one thing found in the first hour of play - and the point I/he made was that Sarkeesian only took the first stop on the busroute and stopped her examination there in all cases. Which leaves her argument with holes, holes that she is unwilling to engage on every, any and all levels completely at all. That's something I don't agree with. She's not encouraging dialogue, she forces her view, period. She has every right to do it. Though, in doing so in the public eye, she invites the same from everyone else. Knowingly, in my opinion.
And I missed the mark by referring to tenders in the Malema case - my mistake (does that make the rest of my claims invalid and therefore I shouldn't have admitted fault? Yes if I were her). I meant to refer to his social manipulation of sentiments about nationalisation, with which he got hype power, with which he got paid (I should have made it clearer). I don't think it's such a stretch the parallel the two.
On everything else, I agree, and have never disagreed. I'm repeating this statement again. I do and will look at the discourse on its own merit. I've never said the feminist discourse was moot. That was never ever what I was speaking about. I don't understand why that's still being talked about. I don't know why I'm being told what the feminist perspective is as if I'm a women hater when I didn't say there was anything wrong with the feminist perspective.
So to cap it off, it is my opinion that I'm open to discussions about the subject, and my mind remains open to reason and logic, which is my exact bugbear with her. She doesn't seem to be, and I don't think that attitude should be supported.
Actually I'd argue she has helped. Look at how Halo 4 is treating sexist behavior. Though she's only part of the drive to make games more friendly towards females she IS a part of that, and it IS producing action (that will hopefully produce results).
Also she reviews video games and helps educate people about gender representation. Duh. Seriously, reread this. You are asking for silly things and are doing it in a very mean and nasty way.
Are you sure you know what the field of feminism is?
We're all adults, we can make up our minds about the various sides of the arguments. We can do research into them when there is a disagreement. It's OUR responsibility to stay informed, not other people's responsibility to inform us. Demanding proponents of ideas always face off, not just against proponents of conflicting ideas, but against all the people who are never going to be swayed anyway, is not constructive. This would be a terrible terrible system.
The thing is: You, and people like Elsa, ARE NOT ACTUALLY ENGAGING IN THE DISCOURSE.
Your insults are personal, and about the way she conducts business, they're not about feminism at all. What would her motivation be in responding to your criticism of how she manages her life?
You don't like her personally. So the FUCK what?
Also, do you realize that there are thousands of scholars and bloggers who are discussing gender representation and other gender issues constantly? Sarkeesian is just one person in a decades old field of research with many people certainly more qualified than her.
But she's making this field visible to the public in a way few have achieved before. If nothing else then that is her achievement. People who don't normally think about gender representation are actually being confronted with it.
Sadly a lot of people do not like being confronted with critique about gender representation.
Why am I still being painted an anti-feminist here? I've made it plenty clear that's not what this was about, from the very beginning.
I've apologised for mistakeningly using insulting words, and have had no intention at "insulting", and all I've been talking about is sound, practical, logical items of "how she conducts business". If how we conduct business were irrelevant, then noone should get upset at devs not crediting "inspirations" of games, noone should get upset over having their work copied, noone should get upset over great many things. My criticism of her deserves no response from her, and nor have I needed or asked for one from her. The discussions and challenges I refer to are discussions regarding her discourse, sound and logical reasons why her methods are flawed and could use more attention to detail. How it would IMPROVE the discourse. How that engagement might sway opinion towards the discourse because people tend to listen when you don't disregard their ideas. But she has no interest in that, it seems.
Since when was it required that every mention of Sarkeesian be about "The discourse"? If you'd like to engage in that, feel free to start a thread about it. And I didn't dodge any discussions on "the discourse". I plainly agreed that the Rayman faeries' reasoning were bust. Because I'm not talking about it now it means I'm not ever going to? That's insulting.
That is true, I guess it's no big deal, why then all the ire at not such a big deal?
I'm finding this a bit of a waste of time for both myself and everyone else cos, while I've readily listened, agreed, disagreed, and apologised for mistakes, it seems I'm the only one who's not ignoring all points they don't like. So I'm going to rest my case, and find more interesting things.
You actually accused Feminist Frequency of playing the victim card to get the $150,000 she got from Kickstarter. She was only victimized AFTER Kickstarter. You're not even being chronologically accurate while at the same time demanding that she answer your criticisms and those of people like you.
I'm super glad she's been smart enough not to wade down to your level.
Her victimy certainly didn't start at the kickstarter, she had plenty of flame before the kickstarter. And she knew it.
Subsequently I'd hope she has been paid by EA for her lectures. And paid for her TED talk (assuming TED talks are paid things).
However I'd be hard pressed to come up with an argument that goes: When you are making a career talking about gender representation and have been in a position where you've been severely and continually harassed based on your gender and on your work about gender representation then you are NOT in a position to lecture on the subject when you are invited to lecture on the subject. (Although @Tuism did make such an argument)
My opinion is that she manipulated media to reach those results before the kickstarters started. That's my opinion, and unless you have proof to the contrary neither yours nor mine is worth more than the other's.
And that she was supposed to be doing something else like delivering on her promise which of course isn't as important as getting paid. It's great for her that she's getting paid.
The first article written on Kotaku about the harrassment happened two weeks after her funding was successful.
http://kotaku.com/5923224/rather-than-hide-from-the-hate-her-gaming+and+sexism-series-is-geting-online-anita-sarkeesian-wants-to-expose-it?post=54960109 You realize that a delay in delivering on a promise is not the same as not delivering? With Kickstarter you have to set expected deadlines before you know whether you've got funding or not. I mean, I missed Pocket RPG's release date by two times the entire original development schedule, some people weren't happy, but they got a better game for it. Promising dates is freakin hard, especially before you've even begun production.
If she had actually cancelled some of her promises I'd be outraged.
I mean, I don't think she should be missing deadlines, and I don't think she should be given a free ride, but you are implying that she is messing around and betraying those that supported her. Again, do you actually have any evidence? Do you know how she spends her days?
[Edit] Also, it doesn't seem to be entirely clear that she IS missing deadlines. It seems what she did was not keep people in the loop with updates for a month, which isn't the same as not working on the project... I'd say it is more likely to be a result of working on the project really hard and trying to sort out logistics.
[Edit] After looking a bit further, this was the first post Sarkeesian wrote about harassment. http://www.feministfrequency.com/2012/06/harassment-misogyny-and-silencing-on-youtube/ She'd already successfully funded the project at least 3 times over at this point. A week later Jezebel wrote a story about it and Kotaku reposted it. http://kotaku.com/5917887/when-theres-so-much-bullshit-online-you-forget-how-to-feel?tag=feminist-frequency Though I think it is important to point out that Sarkeesian didn't write these subsequent articles, nor is there evidence that she manipulated these people to, in fact Jessica Coen clearly infers that she believed the story was important to her and her website.
So where is the evidence that she "manipulated media to reach those results before the kickstarters started"? I've love to see it. I'd dearly love to know how such a thing is even achievable.
I think this is a far more reasonable assessment of how she's inadvertently benefited from the harassment (even if emotionally it has been horrible) http://www.kotaku.com.au/2012/12/feminist-game-critic-on-her-attackers-they-cast-me-in-the-villians-role/
And I speak for myself here @Tuism, but I think that the reason you're feeling like people are going off at you for mysogeny is because your argument around the "media manipulation" thing is really, really strange. I don't understand why it's odd that she should talk about the utterly horrendous and unjustifiable harassment she's been a victim of. I think it's a great thing that she lifts the lid on stuff like this happening and exposes it to as many people as possible... The bottom line here is that it feels like you're, on some level, justifying the harassment by saying that she willed it into existence in order to be famous and rich. That's really not too far removed from the whole "She was wearing a dress, officer" argument and is a sort of slut-shaming. Now I know that you might not be trying to say that! But that's what it seems like you're siding with, given how upset you seem to be about the success of her Kickstarter. The bottom line here is that NOTHING JUSTIFIES THE HARASSMENT, even if she were begging to be harassed, nobody should have behaved that badly toward her or anyone else. It's a very male-centric position to assume that a woman left a bunch of men with no choice... I hope that goes some way towards explaining where some of this is coming from.
As for the argument about the Kickstarter and promises and time and poor research and all that:
1. I'm sure people would find reasons to dislike Sarkeesian no matter what she did around her FF videos now. Personally I'm glad that she's not making the same videos that she'd have made had she only gotten $6000 from the Kickstarter, if only because then people would be calling her greedy and dishonest simply due to the generosity and conviction of well meaning people. That feels kinda unbalanced to me.
2. Disagreeing with the high-level stuff that's popping up around the FF representation videos before they're done is fine. I just don't see why it has to be a source of dislike for someone else, sure you can disagree - just like I disagreed with the points I raised from the Destructoid article you quoted. The point of which was to question that author's level of awareness of the actual issues of female representation problems, which I personally found lacking. Note, however, that I didn't imply anything about the writer of that article, even though we both know that piece was penned to assuage the basest capitalist leanings of that site and scum for more page views and hence ad revenue ;) I still haven't implied anything about the person that wrote those words, only the organisation they work for... Back to the point of this paragraph: The videos aren't done yet, so no matter how much you disagree with the cursory research (for being, oddly enough, too cursory) I'm choosing to wait for the videos in question to be done. At which point I'm sure I'll disagree with certain parts of them and @BlackShipsFilltheSky in spectacular and novel ways :)
Sometimes a simple mistake is just a mistake, especially involving language (which isn't someone's first language at that). Let it go?
I'm not comfortable with getting repeatedly slandered as a misogynist for not agreeing with Sarkeesian's methods, not her views or "the discourse" (like I keep repeating). I've apologized quite easily and yet continue to be personally attacked. Thanks @dislekcia, I've not and would not play any language card as an excuse, I made a mistake, and I've apologized, whether you think that's enough or not says nothing of my character.
I'll not address that point anymore. In fact, I feel this discussion has become a bash session for me personally instead of the points that I have stated over and over again, so I'm not actually going to come back to this anymore.
If anyone wants to discuss "the discourse" we can do it elsewhere.
I agree, the feminist discourse is important in understanding why things are the way they are, and if there's something inherently wrong with the way we think about/create them. I've unfortunately not been talking about that directly at all, so I apologise for wasting everyone's time for not talking about something that helps people make better games, if that's a crime (don't see why it shouldn't be in these parts, but I'm certainly not the only offender :P) then please hang me out to dry.
My idea of media manipulation includes taking a controversial topic, claiming to champion it, ignoring all challenges and detractors, and making it seem your point is the one and only, and monetising it. (and again I'm going to draw the Malema parallel here, re mine nationalisation)
A look at her videos before Tropes VS Women shows zero negative or challenging comments, so either noone disagreed or challenged her on anything she's ever said, or she's deleted it all. The latter seems a reasonable conclusion to draw seeing she's drawing challenges now. It can't have been a new thing.
She's deleted some of her past (most controversial) video (Bayonetta) with no reason given. That in combination with the fact that she's not once responded to challenges on her work, feels like censorship of opposing opinions (or maybe she didn't like the video in hindsight, or maybe she was over-harassed on them, but that doesn't explain it cos she's comfortably closed comments on other bits of content/videos).
Her blog has nothing but "I agree with you" comments, pre or post the kickstarter. Logically, it is impossible that she's had no challenges (senseless or valid) to her points or methods previously, therefore it was deleted. She has not, again, engaged with anyone else's voice but her own.
If I were to delete this thread I would be frowned up on for it. That's the same basis as my critique on her methods.
I would try and forensically go back to the opening comments of the Tropes VS Women video, except I started clicking "load more comments" and got tired after the 20th click and it didn't move a day. I have better things to do than forensic research on a youtube video. I think the beginning comments would be relevant and telling of how obvious it was that she would be negatively received by many.
All of that, to me, adds up to the conclusion that she always knew she was going to get a lot of negative sentiments around the kickstarter, and she did it expecting monetisable controversy. Another view would be she began all campaigns unaware of negative sentiments that could come from them. These are both views and opinions, and if you don't think I'm entitled to my own analysis, well, so be it.
I'm implying that she feels that she would rather get paid or get more famous than to meet deadlines. Again, why the extremist view? Why must my critique of her missing deadlines be certainly that I think she's betrayed everyone and will never deliver on what she said she would? It's obvious that she could have delivered on it with or without the funding, I've mentioned that before.
One could also say that she feels it more important to "further the cause" by vesting time that way instead of on her original promises. If you feel it's ok to miss deadlines and commitments, that's your opinion. I know that Kickstarters are "usually late", I'm not of the opinion that makes it all ok. And either side of these are only personal opinions, not facts. I am able to respect both sides of the discussion and include them into my consideration. I find that better than disregarding views that don't agree with mine.
She's had many months. The idea that someone will happily respond to anyone who agrees with them and then at the same time exclude, censor (wherever she could) and ignore challenges entirely (intelligent ones or not) doesn't sit well with me. Again I never said she should reply to every single thing ever (what's up with the extreme views? Can't a reasonable amount be assumed?), but when not even a single engagement has happened, it doesn't balance "you are awesome" comments and responses that she promotes/allows/engages with. Is that not a fair view to take?
I feel that not allowing a balanced discussion IS forcing the issue. It's like a radio station only allowing one kind of opinion on air. You could say that she's not a radio station, well she has a platform, and her platform is certainly not private anymore. She has no responsibility to keep a balanced view, you could say that. I just don't agree with that.
And the months thing, Are you also saying that because she could very possibly turn around and be engaging on discussions in future, therefore I cannot critique her lack of engagement now?
Really?? I don't know why I need to repeat myself so many times.
1. Not allowing a balanced discussion where one could/should be taking place.
2. Monetising controversy over a genuine cause for own gain. She could have asked for donations of games, but didn't. She wasn't being "funded" before, yet she was making videos before. "Asking for money to buy games" isn't an opinion, it's fact (see her blog). Do movie critics ask for money to buy movies? Do music critics ask for money to buy tracks and playing equipment? The difference between her and these guys with a job in the critic game is that she's leveraged a cause. Does that make the cause less legit? No, it makes her an opportunist. I find that distasteful. Note that it is my opinion.
Rest assured that I have not said a single thing to suggest that harassment is fine and she brought it on herself. It may be hard to believe but I really do talk about what I talk about exactly as I talk about it, not making obscure alternate points.
I don't understand why this is still on the table, at no point did I disagree with anything feminist, not FF, Bayonetta, not her videos on Girl on Fire or Lego, not anything like that. Could it be that you're mistaking my saying that "she does not engage, and goes so far as to disallow challenges to her point" as the same as my disagreement with her principles? Rest assured, again, that I have not ever spoke about disagreeing with "the discourse", as I've made so abundantly clear throughout.
To end off, I'd like to point out that I have strived to form a balanced view of each item I take issue with, have always, will always (whether I state as such or not), then formed my own (primarily sceptical) opinion. And that is the approach I like when dealing with things, and goes to explain why I don't like discussions that are one sided because people exercise their right to not engage, or censor, or ignore. I think growth come from exchange of ideas, and I walk my talk.
I still don't enjoy being told what I said when I haven't said it. I still haven't said anything misogynist, women hating, or anti-feminist, though that's what I'm being painted as. I still hadn't personally attacked anyone besides the one thing I had VERY early on apologised for.
On this, I'll say no more. This thread is dead to me :)
(assuming everyone watches How I Met Your Mother could be my biggest crime here)
That is not cool. Blaming a victim for something that should not have happened at all is not ok when it's the implication that a short dress was "asking for rape" and it's not ok when talking about online harassment either. I don't think the money angle is relevant at all - I think you're viewing things the wrong way around: All the Kickstarter made possible is the donation of money to a cause AS something relevant to that cause was busy happening.
Another thing to look out for that I see cropping up again and again in this thread is the idea of a "balanced argument" somehow not being possible. I'm sorry (yet again) but that's a complete fallacy. Not only is it not Sarkeesian's responsibility to ensure "balance", seeing as she can handle her sites and comment systems any way she likes, but she's not stopping debate and discussion elsewhere. There's no Spectre of Sarkeesian appearing here and preventing this debate and/or deleting posts. Just because people are used to saying whatever they want doesn't mean that when a private site moderates them saying things that it's suddenly akin to government censorship in any way, shape or form. That is a mind-numbingly false assumption and one we, as internet citizens, need to work hard to stay away from.
Plus, and this is the kicker, it's extremely hard for people not used to hearing balanced discussion to detect when something is actually balanced. That means that, in the field of gender representation and discussion, every male is listening and participating from a perspective of privilege (that's just a fact, not an accusation) which means that the expected norm of discourse is not a balanced discussion and anything that is not the expected norm will be treated as unfair to the norm. So how, pray tell, are we supposed to tell when the balance has shifted towards true balance? I'd argue that when people feel uncomfortable and can't really justify that feeling, we're at least moving in the right direction... Please, be careful that your discomfort is not stemming from this type of cognitive dissonance, because your core arguments contradict each other quite severely and I really don't think you mean to blame Sarkeesian for the way she was (and often continues to be) treated.
I would hate for debate like this to become a bad thing on this forum, which is why I've tried to keep everything civil and have tried to uphold the idea of learning from what others are saying. Note that I'm not attacking you here either, I'm simply trying to understand why you seem so upset over this. Also, I strongly disagree with the comment you linked in the OP, which is why I engaged in the first place - coming out of this discussion with a better understanding of what it is that people liked in that comment will help me demolish it even better the next time someone points it out to me ;)
...
But hey, let's ignore the gender dialectic for a second in this particular case and be totally cynical. At worst, as you allege, a clever internet marketer has seen an opportunity and jumped on the chance to monetise it. By asking for a small amount of money, they were able to rile up a ton of discussion about a poorly understood issue and generate large donations for a cause that they're now FORCED to tour the world and talk about, to people who really need to hear messages about that cause... That's pretty evil. I mean, it's not like the cause is actually bringing new perspectives to light and being thought about in new ways by people on both sides of the issue now. So the only impact this evil mastermind has had has been to enrich themselves while leaving the rest of the world poorer and mired in a large wave of discussion and debate. Sickening ;)
If we assume that Sarkeesian is truly an evil mastermind, what is the actual downside that you're annoyed about? If this stuff is being discussed, surely that's a good thing? If it's the mode of discussion you're worried about, note what I wrote above about privileged perspective biases. If you see ways for the conversation to be better, surely that can be achieved easier now than it would have been before, right? And if Sarkeesian really is such an evil mastermind manipulator, surely she could have come up with a way to make a lot more money with a lot less personal risk and emotional trauma?
P.S. Please drop the "asking for money to buy games" argument. It's extremely flimsy for a number of reasons: Firstly, what's WRONG with asking for money to buy games? Secondly, the reviewing professions you mention are paid for their work and somewhere along the line, the content they review is paid for by people other than themselves. And thirdly, I brought up both of these objections to this argument many posts ago and the argument hasn't changed in the slightest to address them. That means it's probably not a solid argument and borders more on dogma.
P.P.S. And don't say you're simply behaving the way Sarkeesian is - you're not. The points you want Sarkeesian to engage on have been discussed at length already and most are merely being brought up to try and "beat" her, much like many points in religious discussions. You're also already engaged in discussion on this topic, not broadcasting a message to an audience across the planet. I mean, sure, you could decide to never respond to this thread again, but I hope you at least read this (far too long) reply and try to understand why people might be confused and possibly upset about what you seem to be saying.
Agh, damnit. I'll apologies again for using the term "brought it on herself", I didn't mean that she deserves it, only she knows very well that her points draw fire, and she doesn't avoid it. And I don't think that this can be likened to the short skirt thing, that's a crass comparison to make, as a deliberately constructed controversy cannot be likened to fashion, unless said miniskirt wearer intentionally provoke sexual incidents intentionally. Note that I didn't say miniskirt wearers equal people who provoke sexual incidents. I'm distinctly separating the two.
I don't see that the two however are mutually exclusive. A war journalist shot in reporting isn't alright, a boxer who dies from a low blow isn't alright. They're tragic events. Sarkeesian getting harassed isn't alright.
Next, I've specifically noted that it can be said that its not her responsibility to ensure a balanced view. I personally find that it is the responsibility of those with a platform to use it in a balanced and responsible way, and that includes addressing the concerns of the opposing voice. The "great power and great responsibility" line, while a comic book cliche, isn't false to me. She undoubtedly has a powerful platform, and she has ignored all other voices on that platform. Other possibly valid voices, that may help "the discourse", but she doesn't care, because they don't agree. That I find troubling.
Now I've already said that she doesn't have to take my view, does that mean she's right and I'm wrong? Can't I hold my view? Is it a view intrinsically bad for humanity? To say the opposite should be true is to say that no one should take responsibility for what they say and the questions and reactions that arise from what is being said, cos it's not their responsibility to.
Again, I'm not saying answer everything, but just a reasonable response to some things.
And again we go back to "the discourse" when I wasn't talking about it. I can agree that when listening to views not traditionally held by the listener that may make him/her uncomfortable, but that has nothing to do with anything I said. Are you saying that:
1. her views are actually balanced and that people just aren't comfortable with what she says because it's not the norm, and therefore she doesn't have to answer to those questions because her views are intrinsically balanced?
2. Her views are intrinsically balanced and that my discomfort with her balanced views stem from my "place of privilege", and my own issues, and therefore I have no right to question her?
Cos in fact I'm talking about 3. I find the disregard for opposing views to result in unbalance due to it not taking into consideration the possibility of fallacy or engagement with the possibility of education.
So to be honest I'm not sure how your version of balance relates to the balance I've talking about all along. And to answer your question of how my version of true balance will come about within the context I was talking about - when she accepts and discusses opposing views, with the outcome of either debunking misconceptions against her work, or admitting that there are or the possibility of fallacies in the theory or method (which can only make it better), or understanding why some of the work may need more work.
Equating my opinion of the way she could communicate to achieve better understanding between people, to how I encourage her mistreatment seems pretty irrelevant, and it keeps coming up. Why?
So, because some cool positive debates have come up, I'm not allowed to critique her methods? So I can't be looking at the means and the ends separate from each other? And let's be honest, the debate we are having right now (or at least I opened up) has nothing to do with actual feminist views and issues. It's unfortunate that everyone has assumed that because I put critique and Sarkeesian in the same sentence that I'm a misogynist, and if that's the kind of views she has championed, then maybe, just maybe, the approach could be critiqued. But somehow she's not fair game, somehow she's beyond reproach, much like all the people who happily label me this and that without so much as an acknowledgement or apology for having done so.
The whole "surely she can find better ways to make money" argument is baseless and I'm not even going to entertain that. What her intellect allows her to do isn't part of my issue I take with her.
And if a better way to discuss the issue does come about, it's not really because of her. Thats like saying we have to thank Bush for being a douche so that Obama can get elected. I'm not Obama and neither is she Bush, but your point of we have bad behaviour to thank so that we can get better behaviour is in that spirit.
The asking money for games point came with the leveraging controversy for gains point. she's effectively bottled self-proclaimed feminism and sold it. Its distasteful to me. Journalists make a living off advertising, as did she before the kickstarter, she never really needed the money, cos she was making money. That's of course debatable, but the fact is she was playing games and making videos before she got funded, so what's really changed? 300 more games they she couldn't have gotten any other way, that she would probably realistically play an hour each of? (look at the timeline proposed, plus editing filming and time to live) Anything that couldn't be found by Internet research? The sceptic in me says she probably owned half of those before the funding, but again, I'm going to say thst's moot without historical evidence.
Call it dogma, call it opinion, call it what you will.
Not sure what you mean by the last point because I'd never claimed any of that stuff, way to go putting more words in my mouth, but sure if I stop engaging thst's because I'm tired and bored of restating my views and denying stuff I haven't said, not because I have some kind of delusions of grandeur about my opinion being more than my own.
I really don't feel like keeping this up endlessly, and goading me to come back by saying if I don't I'm a worse human being is pretty... Meh. I do prefer that there has been less lambasting and title-giving, though, and I again apologies for not picking my words more carefully.
and... Remember what this is, an Internet argument.
At no point have I argued that any position is above reproach or debate, I simply believe that it's a good idea to let people actually complete a work before critiquing it. None of us has any idea what the final FF videos will be like, can we maybe judge them when they're done and stop demanding that the person making them both make them faster AND spend less of their time making them to answer critics that are often very difficult to distinguish from haters? This is such a strange position to hold... It feels like you're assuming a ton of things here that you have absolutely no data to support, based off nothing more than a negative prejudgement of Sarkeesian:
-What is wrong with "selling feminism" if people want it? If you feel that people are paying too much for what Sarkeesian is producing, why not produce your own material in the same market?
-How is asking for donations to produce an actual product, "selling feminism"?
-How do you know that her previous FF videos produced any money from advertising - given youtube earning rates and the views her videos received, I find that a doubtful prospect.
-How can you say she never needed the money? What drives that sentiment?
-In her Kickstarter appeal video, Sarkeesian explained what the difference was between the tropes in games videos and her existing FF videos - as I remember it she was talking about a comprehensive review of common tropes across a wide variety of games, not the single game analyses she had done on the fly up until that point. I remember her talking about editing time and filming costs, so more than likely her video recording method changed from how she'd recorded stuff before. How is increased quality and scope a bad thing and what, again, is wrong with asking people if they're willing to pay for something like that - clearly people were!
The only motivations you seem to allow Sarkeesian are greed and selfishness. You may not be a mysogynist yourself, which I believe, but you're awfully close to repeating mysogynist arguments. If you don't see why those arguments are mysogynistic, I really hope there are better explainers than me floating around the internet. Apologies, I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth at all, just trying to head off a possible thing you could have said to nuke the discussion, that's all. In fact, I don't think anyone's been trying to put words in your mouth at all so far, I know that all I've been doing is trying to echo back what it is that it SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE SAYING. Some of those things you seem to be saying are really confusing! It's heartening when you say "Oh, I didn't mean X or Y" because that would have been a dick thing to believe, so clearly there's just a bunch of misunderstandings here, right? This will probably come down to 1 or 2 hasty judgements from you, me or someone else, but understanding what those were is something that I personally enjoy figuring out, so I have a lot of patience for back-and-forth discussions as long as nobody's getting upset.
Personally, I think it's great that Sarkeesian hasn't shied away from the "fire" that her points are drawing. She, and many others, should continue to make similar points until they no longer draw idiotic and asinine "fire". I think that more gamers need to be aware of that kind of shitty behavior so that we can try to stop it when it happens.
This article is pretty damn cogent.