The big Phil Fish, Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian discussion thread

johnny_ultimate

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Well it's a hell of a lot better and says a lot more than Anita has managed in her videos. It seems to deal with the effects of sexism in games rather than just pointing out examples and equating them to fancy academic buzzwords. She also references to research in the area or similar areas and just uses simple logic in other areas whereas Anita sometimes is desperately trying to back up her assumptions by misrepresenting the material she is working with.

No, I don't think its any better. She does misrepresent materials (especially the 'end of gamer' discussions, which are address vastly more complex than she acknowledges). She uses empty rhetoric, propaganda speak, condescension and insults to preach to the converted, the 'oppressed' and get them on her side. She skirts and briefly references worthwhile issues without directly addressing them in any depth. She uses wild generalisations and assumptions based on shallow observations. She uses strawmen arguments, distorting and changing many of the core topics being discussed (the discussion is far deeper than 'are games/gamers misogynist', which she barely addresses at all).

She has some completely valid points and efficiently cites some worthwhile research. It's refreshing to see an alternative perspective. Let that not disguise the fact that she is also guilty of using a plethora of weak, shallow and manipulative debate tactics - the very same tactics others have been crucified for utilising, and even some extra ones. IMO We had a far more engaged and convincing critique of Sarkeesian's work in this very thread last night frankly, I'm increasingly convinced YouTube videos are far from the ideal medium for discussing these issues.

kunst nugget

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

No, I don't think its any better. She does misrepresent materials (especially the 'end of gamer' discussions, which are address vastly more complex than she acknowledges). She uses empty rhetoric, propaganda speak, condescension and insults to preach to the converted, the 'oppressed' and get them on her side. She skirts and briefly references worthwhile issues without directly addressing them in any depth. She uses wild generalisations and assumptions based on shallow observations. She uses strawmen arguments, distorting and changing many of the core topics being discussed (the discussion is far deeper than 'are games/gamers misogynist', which she barely addresses at all).

She has some completely valid points and efficiently cites some worthwhile research. It's refreshing to see an alternative perspective. Let that not disguise the fact that she is also guilty of using a plethora of weak, shallow and manipulative debate tactics - the very same tactics others have been crucified for utilising, and even some extra ones. IMO We had a far more engaged and convincing critique of Sarkeesian's work in this very thread last night frankly, I'm increasingly convinced YouTube videos are far from the ideal medium for discussing these issues.

I think it would be great if one of the gaming websites had a roundtable debate with some informed heads bashing out the subject of sexism in the industry and printed the full transcript. I think the problem with Op Ed pieces is the cherry-picking and misrepresentation we have seen in every article and video that has been posted so far whereas a debate would create a more interesting and dynamic back and forth on the subject. Probably wishful thinking that any of them would approach it like that.

K.O.Kiki

"End of Gamer"?

Pretty sure I'm still here.
*pinches self*
Yep.

Timmyctc

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

"End of Gamer"?

Pretty sure I'm still here.
*pinches self*
Yep.

But apparently the OED definition of gamer is wrong and majority of 'Gamers' are a breed of hardcore treehouse boys club misogynists. Or some such.

Guyanachronism

Two decent articles on Cracked.com about it. One a polemic from Mark Hill the other from Zoe Quinn about her experience:

4 ways gamers still suck at dealing with women
5 Things I learnt as the internets most hated person

Although Hill claims it's predominantly against women, Quinn write it isn't but more likely if you're a woman to be threats of sexualised violence.

Timmyctc

If you omit the last panel from this comic. Its pretty good. :pac: Typical oul Reddit post. They're almost onto something then throw a curveball at you.
http://imgur.com/aGVaza7

Read the Quinn piece. She slates 4chan as a site. I think its really /v/ she has her beef with. But tbh. If this comic's last panel shows anything its that reddit is prolly a worse group of people. I hate when people think 4chan is the worst place on the internet.

Guyanachronism

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

No, I don't think its any better. She does misrepresent materials (especially the 'end of gamer' discussions, which are address vastly more complex than she acknowledges). She uses empty rhetoric, propaganda speak, condescension and insults to preach to the converted, the 'oppressed' and get them on her side. She skirts and briefly references worthwhile issues without directly addressing them in any depth. She uses wild generalisations and assumptions based on shallow observations. She uses strawmen arguments, distorting and changing many of the core topics being discussed (the discussion is far deeper than 'are games/gamers misogynist', which she barely addresses at all).

She has some completely valid points and efficiently cites some worthwhile research. It's refreshing to see an alternative perspective. Let that not disguise the fact that she is also guilty of using a plethora of weak, shallow and manipulative debate tactics - the very same tactics others have been crucified for utilising, and even some extra ones. IMO We had a far more engaged and convincing critique of Sarkeesian's work in this very thread last night frankly, I'm increasingly convinced YouTube videos are far from the ideal medium for discussing these issues.

It is a really poor video. She compares the whole video game industry to Comsopolitian and the View (womens chat show). Which is ridiculous because one is a show, the other a magazine while video games are a medium. If all TV catered to women, she might have a legitimate comparison but that's not the case.

It's so condescending "hipsters with a degree in cultural studies degrees". There must be better criticism of FemFrequency than that. I think it's one of the things that may annoy a lot of people is that Sarkeesian has a very academic style, good structure to her arguments. She is very sociology grad in her style, a normative analysis of women in video games rather than critical. Which it seems a lot of people have a hard time getting past. She hasn't proposed much in detail about how to improve games (it's coming later I gather) instead just analysing what she sees from feminist perspective. A lot of the time she is calling on people just to be more critical of what they consume than fundamentally changing hence the "its possible to be critical of something but still enjoy it".

I think video games are going through growing pains, from mindless entertainment to accepted art form. If it will be anything like cinema that mindless entertainment is still going to be a big part of it, but women, LGBT and other minorities will find niches that will occasionally break into the mainstream.

Guyanachronism

Timmyctc wrote: »

If you omit the last panel from this comic. Its pretty good. :pac: Typical oul Reddit post. They're almost onto something then throw a curveball at you.
http://imgur.com/aGVaza7

Read the Quinn piece. She slates 4chan as a site. I think its really /v/ she has her beef with. But tbh. If this comic's last panel shows anything its that reddit is prolly a worse group of people. I hate when people think 4chan is the worst place on the internet.

pfft they're just cherrypicking, to take a page from critics playbook.

kunst nugget

Guyanachronism wrote: »

It is a really poor video. She compares the whole video game industry to Comsopolitian and the View (womens chat show). Which is ridiculous because one is a show, the other a magazine while video games are a medium. If all TV catered to women, she might have a legitimate comparison but that's not the case.

But it's not true all games are specifically made to cater for men either. Sure, a lot of games are male centric but if the stat in that video is right that men outweigh women 7 to 1 in terms of people playing 20 plus hours of games a week I can understand developers being slightly lazy in terms of storytelling.

Guyanachronism wrote: »

It's so condescending "hipsters with a degree in cultural studies degrees". There must be better criticism of FemFrequency than that. I think it's one of the things that may annoy a lot of people is that Sarkeesian has a very academic style, good structure to her arguments. She is very sociology grad in her style, a normative analysis of women in video games rather than critical. Which it seems a lot of people have a hard time getting past. She hasn't proposed much in detail about how to improve games (it's coming later I gather) instead just analysing what she sees from feminist perspective. A lot of the time she is calling on people just to be more critical of what they consume than fundamentally changing hence the "its possible to be critical of something but still enjoy it".

I found the hipsters with cultural studies degree line funny and I can't see the problem of calling out someone like that. Better than calling them whores tbh. You know, let I've said already, I think there's room for discussions about games like Sarkeesian is trying to have but I think she isn't doing a good job on it - Clockwork Owl's dissection of her videos was a pretty convincing argument on why she needs to sort out her research and stop misrepresenting games. I think Johnny Ultimate is right that Youtube videos are not the platform for serious discussion on any of these issues.

Eric Cartman

I think if everyone just ignored Anita Sarkeesian and all her proven lies that game devs / players / reviewers would all be a lot happier and the world could return to normal.

johnny_ultimate

kunst nugget wrote: »

Sure, a lot of games are male centric but if the stat in that video is right that men outweigh women 7 to 1 in terms of people playing 20 plus hours of games a week I can understand developers being slightly lazy in terms of storytelling.

If we take that statistic as an example, it in my mind triggers a whole host of other curious questions - primarily, why is this discrepancy the case? Gender divides in the most general sense of the can often be broken down by biological and social influences. The social construction of gender identity is where things get incredibly complicated. Socialisation has just as much a role in the development of separate male and female preferences, and we can also see how different cultures treat gender in completely different ways. Is the fact that many women don't play AAA, competitive games a 'social construct' which could be reversed? What are the underlying causes of this division? Are we dealing with a self-fulfilling prophecy where the belief that developers are making games for a primarily male audience further limiting the types of content in mainstream titles, reinforcing widespread perceptions in the process? These are complex questions that will not (can not?) be satisfyingly explored through YouTube videos, but demand deeper academic research and critical commentary.

I think you're right that a round table discussion - even in video form - would be a more productive and practical way to discuss some of the points that have been raised. Making individual videos is a cumbersome, time-consuming exercise if you want to offer robust and comprehensive responses. At least with an actual debate clarifications and rebuttals could be swift and efficient, and if this was an 'in person' discussion the ability to either directly insult an individual or misrepresent a person's viewpoint would be very limited.

As an aside, the one thing that I have found disappointing about this whole affair is the manner in which criticism of the content as opposed to researching the social context and consequences has been dismissed as a worthless approach (generally, not just in the case of Sarkeesian who has always struggled to find a balance between the categories). They are simply very different but equally important schools of thought, and most of the best cultural criticism is based heavily on subjective aesthetic, formal and narrative criticism of the work. There will always be some degree of crossover, but to me the development of an in-depth critical vocabulary to discuss games is going to be utterly dependent on writers performing thorough mechanical, thematic and stylistic dissections of the games themselves, and that is not going to require them offering up scientific studies to support their individuals readings. At the very least, I would hope this approach is respected (and vice versa), even if individuals favour a more sociological approach.

COYVB

Why do most women not like classic Arnie movies? Why do most women not like football? Why do most men not read Cosmo?

It's only in the recent history of gaming that even "regular" men started getting into it. Remember, even 15 years ago it still carried a certain sigma to it. Mainstream gaming is a very new thing, which males adopted faster because men, for the most part, were the only ones doing it prior to that, so it's obvious that there was going to be a major influence driving it to their friends.

If I ask a woman of my generation why she doesn't game, the answer has nothing to do with sexual equality or misrepresentation within the genre, it's either because "they're too complicated/time consuming now" or because "it's a silly waste of time".

For the vast majority of gamng history simply women had no interest in it, like most men. That doesn't change overnight

Clockwork Owl

My poor fella is probably sick to death of my ponderous Sarkeesian-themed soliloquising by now.

Re: The Secret Of Monkey Island - I think I took her dismissal of Elaine's escape as a ‘true subversion’ as an extension of her dismissal of 'ironic' trope usage. I was also confused by her inclusion of Braid as a subversion of the Damsel in Distress trope as,

despite Tim's eventual role as the aggressor rather than the rescuer, that does not make the Princess any less 'damselled'. She is still ultimately saved from a male character by a male character, rather than freeing herself under her own agency. While we can applaud the Princess' resourcefulness in halting Tim's pursuit, this makes her no different to many of the 'Damsels' Sarkeesian criticises, who may attempt to free themselves but cannot be truly liberated except through the actions of a male character.

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I do think it is fair to point out representational concerns in the background, even if excellent work is being done in the foreground - especially in the context of exploring women as 'background objects'.

The 'Women As Background Objects' videos are actually the most contentious for me. Many of her examples demonstrate gross objectification and sexualisation of empty female figures in gaming: Mortal Kombat, Sleeping Dogs and Mass Effect 2, to name but a few. These female bodies are clearly intended to be eye candy for the presumed straight male player, reducing a woman to pornography personified. The Witcher quite literally makes women into erotic collectibles. Sigh.

As with many things, however, Sarkeesian has a habit of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I understand her point of view: she does not want the dignity of women traded for the player’s sexual thrills and takes a dim view of eroticising women as a shortcut to scene-setting. With that said, I believe her criticism of ‘tragic’ depictions of prostitution in ‘Women as Background Decoration: Part 2’ (Dishonored, Watchdogs, Far Cry 3) really is splitting hairs, particularly on the back of her insistence in the previous installment that gamers are always discouraged from caring for or empathising with objectified female figures. Sarkeesian belittles this as simply showing ‘misery as miserable and exploitation as exploitative, doing nothing to change perpetual patterns of victimhood’; this implies that, purely because a theme has been depicted poorly in the past, it should not be depicted at all. I deeply disagree with this and feel that it serves only to marginalise sexual exploitation, ‘allowing’ its depiction only when it is the central theme to the game. Sarkeesian seems reluctant to admit it, but some games handle gender issues even-handedly and should not be expected to demonstrate bias in favour of women to apologise for sexism in other games. In Far Cry 3, for example, male-on-male violence (both physical and sexual) is far more commonplace than male-on-female violence. Male civilians are routinely kidnapped and executed with little to no resistance, and male NPCs run the gamut from aggressive psychopaths, torturers and rapists to alcoholics and drug addicts. Badtown - the only location containing prostitute NPCs - is intended to show a society at its worst, and I fail to see why women should be privileged through their exclusion. By deciding that the inclusion of a single brothel or prostitute defines a game as automatically misogynistic, we are refused the chance to make our own judgements on taste and value.

On the topic of the Factual Feminist video, I don’t feel that it breaks new ground. Sarkeesian demands gender inclusivity on the basis of a 50/50 gamer gender demographic, but these statistics have always openly included mobile gaming and social media. When it comes to console or PC gaming, there are far fewer studies; a 2013 Nintendo study claimed that 38% of XBox users were female but, considering the console’s multi-purpose nature, this is not as enlightening as we might like. Sarkeesian never includes mobile apps in her critique because those games are optimised for a mixed audience, so it feels more than a little disingenuous to use weighted statistics to demand equal representation in console and PC games. With that said, the assertion that the conversation is worthless because sexist tropes aren’t proven to affect real-world behaviour is deeply patronising to those of us (*ahem*) who enjoy participating in these debates. It implies a false dichotomy: either you accept that ‘boys will be boys’ or you demand censorship as an intolerant member of the ‘gender police’. From my perspective, I obviously hope that society become more aware of sexism in gaming and increasingly vote with their feet, discouraging developers from using sexist tropes in their games, but implying that I’m a hysterical radfem for taking interest in the conversation is hardly a positive way to engage in a debate.

And don’t get me started on the Cosmo/Oprah argument. Really? Come on now.

COYVB

Clockwork Owl wrote: »

And don’t get me started on the Cosmo/Oprah argument. Really? Come on now.

Why discount it? They're shows by women for women about things women like. A heck of a lot of games are by men for men about things men like. I don't see why this is such a bug bear for people.

If we're going to go down a route, as used by people in this thread, of games being art, then who are people to tell the artists that their art is wrong? They're portraying their ideas, telling their stories and creating their universes.

Couple that with the fact that those involved in the bulk of the key decisions in major games are of an older generation, and you're going to get old generation thinking and mentality. That's not a gaming issue, that's a societal issue.

The vast majority of games are dumb, or contain dumb things. Putting scantily clad women in as background imagery makes no sense. Nobody in their right mind actually finds that stuff titillating, so why are they there? It's because, at a boardroom level, there's still an entrenched belief on behalf of men in suits that sex sells, ergo you should sexualise everything.

Like I said earlier, this is an industry that women, collectively speaking, had practically no interest in until very recently. Where's the female perspective going to come from among a global group of game developers almost entirely made up of men because when those developers were growing up, it was a pastime with great stigma attached, that was almost entirely practiced by males.

The change will come, but it won't come until the ever increasing numbers of women interested in gaming find their way into the industry and make their mark. Semi-naked women in a Duke Nukem game won't stop that from happening. Abusive idiots online (who, as I've pointed out before, will abuse EVERYONE with whatever little knowledge they have about them, it's not a gender thing) won't stop that from happening.

One thing that might stop it from happening is trying to prematurely force it.

Let the dinosaurs become extinct. Let the younger developers who WANT to tell stories about damsels in distress tell them, let the people who WANT to play games that are entirely focused on men play them.

Cosmo, Oprah, Mills & Boon etc. are discounted here despite being the very same thing, they're aimed at women, and that doesn't seem to be an issue because there are alternatives for men. Nobody, male or otherwise, has an issue with them existing because they're not the bulk of the market. That doesn't make them more or less sexist though, that just makes them things for women. Gaming is the same.

The logic I've been getting from some is that, individually, damsel in distress games, or games with women as objects, are just equatable to an isolated book, magazine, movie or TV show for women, but they suddenly become sexist when there are a lot of them; Hitman becomes sexist, not because of Hitman, but because of the industry. That doesn't make sense.

COYVB

I always took equality to mean allowing everyone the same opportunities, without gender being considered. Wanting men to stop doing things men like in an entertainment medium that's completely open to anyone making the games they like, if they are willing to go to the effort to learn how to do it is not, for my money, in line with equality. It's the opposite.

If women were being prevented from playing or making games, then I'd be very vocal in my support of the cause.

I just don't think that picking products that are clearly aimed at males and then shouting "THIS IS NOT INCLUSIVE OF WOMEN" is constructive.

But maybe I'M the sexist here, somehow.

johnny_ultimate

COYVB wrote: »

Why do most women not like classic Arnie movies? Why do most women not like football? Why do most men not read Cosmo?

Because of socialisation. Marketing. Social and peer influence / pressure. Commercial targeting. Corporate influence. Biological factors. The marginalisation of alternate perspectives. Education. Political norms. Class structures. A plethora of deep-rooted cultural and social determiners that highlight the 'boys will be boys' and 'girls will be girls' argument as profoundly limited. This isn't 'just the way it is', full stop, and always will be. It's the way it is because it has been shaped that way passively and actively, factors that are in constant flux. They're always worth looking at critically, figuring out how this vast cultural landscape of ours works, and the ways in which is evolving and shifting.

COYVB

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Because of socialisation. Marketing. Social and peer influence / pressure. Commercial targeting. Corporate influence. Biological factors. The marginalisation of alternate perspectives. Education. Political norms. A plethora of deep-rooted cultural and social determiners that highlight the 'boys will be boys' and 'girls will be girls' argument as profoundly limited. This isn't 'just the way it is', full stop, and always will be. It's the way it is because it has been shaped that way passively and actively, factors that are in constant flux. They're always worth looking at critically, figuring out how this vast cultural landscape of ours works, and the ways in which is evolving and shifting.

Or, because testosterone filled men like seeing things blow up?

kunst nugget

COYVB wrote: »

Hitman becomes sexist, not because of Hitman, but because of the industry. That doesn't make sense.

Nah, Hitman: Absolution was the one game, for me, where the portrayal of women stuck out like a sore thumb and majorly detracted from the game and spoilt the overall experience for me.

Clockwork Owl

COYVB wrote: »

Why discount it? They're shows by women for women about things women like. A heck of a lot of games are by men for men about things men like.

I see three main problems with the Factual Feminist’s argument that feminist critique of video games is akin to men trying to bring down Cosmopolitan or The Oprah Show.

Quantity of Gendered Product in the Market
Sarkeesian does not criticise one, two or even ten video games for poor representation and stereotyping of women. The volume of examples used in her work - even when we discount clips that are false or misleading - is staggering, and demonstrates that poor representation of women is endemic within a substantial portion of the video game industry as a whole. Cosmopolitan and The Oprah Show exist within a broader media market (magazine publication and TV) that already caters to and represents men.

The Frequency of Representation vs. Stereotyping
I’ve never watched The Oprah Show, but I did read Cosmopolitan for a good few years. The magazine does write about matters that interest women, but this does not exclude men from representation. Not only has Cosmopolitan featured male journalists, male celebrities and male fashion designers, they also feature ACTUAL men. They go out into the street and ask men questions. They run features about couples, including equal-length interviews for both partners. Even the infamous sex tips place as much importance in the man’s sexual pleasure as our own, because they stress that the equal enjoyment and participation of both partners is tantamount to a healthy sex life. Cosmopolitan may contain sexualised or negative portrayals of singular men, but these are displayed alongside more positive representation of the gender as a whole.

The Tone and Content of Gendered Stereotyping
Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, representation of men in Cosmopolitan is not as regressive as the tropes we are seeing commonly used in video games. Their Prostate Cancer Awareness campaign had a single nearly-naked male celebrity per issue, but this always included a paragraph of text - who this person was, how they felt about the shoot and what experience they had with prostate and testicular cancer. When women are sexualised in video games, they are rarely if ever offered the same chance at displaying their personality as well as their excellent set of knockers. They are diminished and objectified, put back in their box as sexually subservient creatures, performing on the whims of men. This begs the question: when does it become unacceptable to treat someone badly, simply because you’re enjoying it?

If the Factual Feminist really wanted to turn the tables, she’d be speaking about a world in which television shows are primarily about women and stories about women. She’d be speaking about television shows that regularly settle for lazy stereotypes of men as abusive, aggressive and incapable of controlling their violent behaviour, if they are represented at all. She’d be speaking about the few central male characters being constantly reduced to their sexuality, displayed near-naked when surrounded by far more reasonably dressed women, or inevitably playing second fiddle to a more intelligent woman. Men could hope for equal representation at best - the occasional show with a competent male protagonist - but would more commonly be the dim boyfriend, the outright misogynist, the stupid brute or some other brand of unimportant background character. Sure, but that’s all fine - how many men watch TV anyway?

If men were to criticise that TV industry, I'd think they were quite bloody right.

kunst nugget

Clockwork Owl wrote: »

I see three main problems with the Factual Feminist’s argument that feminist critique of video games is akin to men trying to bring down Cosmopolitan or The Oprah Show.

Quantity of Gendered Product in the Market
Sarkeesian does not criticise one, two or even ten video games for poor representation and stereotyping of women. The volume of examples used in her work - even when we discount clips that are false or misleading - is staggering, and demonstrates that poor representation of women is endemic within a substantial portion of the video game industry as a whole. Cosmopolitan and The Oprah Show exist within a broader media market (magazine publication and TV) that already caters to and represents men.

Out of curiosity, do you think we should see games that are specifically gendered? Is the only way to move forward to create separate content for both genders. Do you think this would be enough to appeal to women and would it be a progressive or regressive step?

kunst nugget

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

If we take that statistic as an example, it in my mind triggers a whole host of other curious questions - primarily, why is this discrepancy the case? Gender divides in the most general sense of the can often be broken down by biological and social influences. The social construction of gender identity is where things get incredibly complicated. Socialisation has just as much a role in the development of separate male and female preferences, and we can also see how different cultures treat gender in completely different ways. Is the fact that many women don't play AAA, competitive games a 'social construct' which could be reversed? What are the underlying causes of this division? Are we dealing with a self-fulfilling prophecy where the belief that developers are making games for a primarily male audience further limiting the types of content in mainstream titles, reinforcing widespread perceptions in the process? These are complex questions that will not (can not?) be satisfyingly explored through YouTube videos, but demand deeper academic research and critical commentary.

Is it a social construct or is is simply down to the fact that less women are willing to spend 20+ hours in front of a screen playing video games? Are the competitive nature of games something that appeal more to men than women? Do we try to force women to play 20+ hours of games every week to address the balance? Would a triple A that had the characteristics that Sarkeesian espouses for female protagonists have any hope of ever selling enough to justify releasing it? I honest don't have the answers and I have serious doubts am going to get much clarification from any of the Youtube videos either.

Tiddlypeeps

Clockwork Owl wrote: »

I see three main problems with the Factual Feminist’s argument that feminist critique of video games is akin to men trying to bring down Cosmopolitan or The Oprah Show.

Quantity of Gendered Product in the Market
Sarkeesian does not criticise one, two or even ten video games for poor representation and stereotyping of women. The volume of examples used in her work - even when we discount clips that are false or misleading - is staggering, and demonstrates that poor representation of women is endemic within a substantial portion of the video game industry as a whole. Cosmopolitan and The Oprah Show exist within a broader media market (magazine publication and TV) that already caters to and represents men.

The Frequency of Representation vs. Stereotyping
I’ve never watched The Oprah Show, but I did read Cosmopolitan for a good few years. The magazine does write about matters that interest women, but this does not exclude men from representation. Not only has Cosmopolitan featured male journalists, male celebrities and male fashion designers, they also feature ACTUAL men. They go out into the street and ask men questions. They run features about couples, including equal-length interviews for both partners. Even the infamous sex tips place as much importance in the man’s sexual pleasure as our own, because they stress that the equal enjoyment and participation of both partners is tantamount to a healthy sex life. Cosmopolitan may contain sexualised or negative portrayals of singular men, but these are displayed alongside more positive representation of the gender as a whole.

The Tone and Content of Gendered Stereotyping
Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, representation of men in Cosmopolitan is not as regressive as the tropes we are seeing commonly used in video games. Their Prostate Cancer Awareness campaign had a single nearly-naked male celebrity per issue, but this always included a paragraph of text - who this person was, how they felt about the shoot and what experience they had with prostate and testicular cancer. When women are sexualised in video games, they are rarely if ever offered the same chance at displaying their personality as well as their excellent set of knockers. They are diminished and objectified, put back in their box as sexually subservient creatures, performing on the whims of men. This begs the question: when does it become unacceptable to treat someone badly, simply because you’re enjoying it?

If the Factual Feminist really wanted to turn the tables, she’d be speaking about a world in which television shows are primarily about women and stories about women. She’d be speaking about television shows that regularly settle for lazy stereotypes of men as abusive, aggressive and incapable of controlling their violent behaviour, if they are represented at all. She’d be speaking about the few central male characters being constantly reduced to their sexuality, displayed near-naked when surrounded by far more reasonably dressed women, or inevitably playing second fiddle to a more intelligent woman. Men could hope for equal representation at best - the occasional show with a competent male protagonist - but would more commonly be the dim boyfriend, the outright misogynist, the stupid brute or some other brand of unimportant background character. Sure, but that’s all fine - how many men watch TV anyway?

If men were to criticise that TV industry, I'd think they were quite bloody right.

You're entire argument ignores the fact that console/PC games are just part of a wider games industry. Mobile and social media games make up a huge chunk of the games industry. You can't just claim womens TV/magazines are just part of a wider set of media and ignore the fact that console/PC games are just part of a wider set of media.

Also Cosmo and a lot of those womens chat shows are disgusting, they very often portray men in a very poor light. Ignoring that because they sometimes portray them in a good light is as bad a dismissing any sexism in games because women are sometimes portrayed in a good light.

Tiddlypeeps

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Thanks for the in-depth response first of all, will respond to what I can Apologies for the wall of text to follow

Sorry for taking so long to get back to this, haven't had a chance.

In that entire post you ignore all of the points about why you originally replied to me in the first place. That Anita does regularly imply that gamers and developers are sexist, at least the straight males ones anyway, albeit in a very passive aggressive manner. You said I was making wild implications and then completely ignored any points I made to back up my assertion.

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

This section is indeed in the context of a more general point about how games work, and then segues not all that cleanly onto the specifically female character point. The argument's transition is awkward and unconvincing, but in the wider context of the argument she's making there is a point - even acknowledging that all the NPCs in Hitman (and other games) are there to be 'played with' and 'experimented with', there does tend to be significant variances in the way males and females are portrayed. Could you see, for example, the same sequence playing out in a male strip joint? It would actually be pretty startling considering how rare that type of imagery is in games - but male strippers aren't actually a rare presence in both other forms of media and IRL. In many games, though, it's only ever heavily sexualised females that exist for violent experimentation. There are male NPCs too, absolutely susceptible to the same level of player violence if they so choose - it's the type of representation that is different

I don't think I made my point on this clear. It's irrelevant that she is talking about games in general and not just hitman, it's the fact that she uses a deliberately contrived scenario from hitman to illustrate this that bothers me.

Again I'll state I am not claiming this trope does not exist, I am simply claiming that Anita misrepresents games to make it appear to be a bigger issue than it is. She deliberately sensationalises the issue and misleads people in a way that is in no way helpful to the discussion at hand.

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Just to clarify she hasn't ignored all the strong female characters, and has actually reserved one of the future videos to talk about them One thing worth remembering is that, as of yet, the series is incomplete - while certainly individual points are worthy of critique, we do sort of have to wait until the end to see what exactly has and has not been ignored. She has already referenced positive examples and subversions of tropes at the end of a couple of the videos, and it's something that will hopefully be expanded on before the series finishes.

This is not a response to the point I quoted.

She states:

"Women are constantly represented as primarily for sex. Men may be sexual too but they can also be anything else. They’re not defined by or reduced to their sexuality and their sexuality is not thought of as something existing chiefly for the pleasure of others. Which means the fundamentally dominant position of men in our culture is not in anyway challenged or diminished by their rare male depiction as a sex worker."

This point ignores all of the strong female characters that exist. If she later acknowledges those strong female characters then that will only contradict this point.

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I've always felt her attempts to reference existing research and real-world consequences has been a weak point throughout the series so far - I don't necessarily always disagree with the general statement, but she struggles to expand upon them thoroughly. She's gone for a strange compromise of occasional academic reference, and other times making statements without much context. TBH, I don't think a YouTube video is an efficient way of referencing academic texts and research, and Sarkeesian stumbles when trying to transition to that area - I think her arguments are much stronger when they're based on content analysis with illustrative clips.

Youtube video may not be the best platform for this type of discussion, but that is irrelevant because that is the platform she has chosen. She makes statements about how harmful these tropes are to society and fails completely to back up those claims. The evidence simply does not exist to back up those claims so the chosen platform is irrelevant, if you have evidence to the contrary I'd be totally open to having my view changed.

You seem to brush this aside as not a big deal, but this is absolutely key to Anita's entire series. If she was simply pointing out lazy storytelling in the hopes that it will improve in the future then it would be fine, but she is not. She is claiming these tropes have a serious effect on the people that play them, even if they don't think it will.

You say the factual feminist needs to have played lots of games before she can talk about them, but this makes no sense because she is not pointing out flaws in games. She is simply stating that no evidence exists that these games have a harmful effect on people so there is no reason to believe they do.

I'm all for games upping the anty and telling better stories with deeper characters and discussions about that are not what causes people to get their knickers in a twist. It's people like Anita telling them that playing the games that currently exist makes them sexist that gets them riled up, especially when she uses zero evidence, sensationalism and misrepresentation to get that point across.

Potatoeman

Is tomb raider sexist as it depicts violence against men by a woman and does not have a male playable character?

K.O.Kiki

Exposed: The secret mailing list of the gaming journalism elite

I imagine some sites are in total meltdown.

gizmo

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

Exposed: The secret mailing list of the gaming journalism elite

I imagine some sites are in total meltdown.

On the contrary, I imagine they'll continue to happily ignore the hyperbolic nonsense spewed by Yiannopoulos. Scott Nichols, a freelancer writer for a number of publications, talked about it on his Ask.fm session yesterday. Essentially it's a Google Group where a number of journalists talk about happenings in the industry, share contact info to various studios and publishers etc...
It doesn't sound like some massive conspiracy hive-mind or anything of the sort.

I mean look at how he frames the article. Jason Schreier "defending" Nathan Grayson is seen as some sort of bad thing despite the fact he's merely pointing out the factual inaccuracies of the original claim that the latter reviewed Depression Quest. Ben Kuchera's contributions to the debate being referred to as pressuring other journalists and editors despite the fact that he's just pointing out, correctly given the date of the posting, that most of the commentary is unfounded abuse being directed at Quinn and is unworthy of a reasonable platform. Hell, even the initially linked suggestion that there be a public letter of support be drafted was evidently ignored by other posters.

I wonder what he'll say about The Chaos Engine when he's eventually told about it.

Clockwork Owl

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

You're entire argument ignores the fact that console/PC games are just part of a wider games industry. Mobile and social media games make up a huge chunk of the games industry. You can't just claim womens TV/magazines are just part of a wider set of media and ignore the fact that console/PC games are just part of a wider set of media.

I actually mentioned mobile and social gaming in my previous post so, rest assured, I didn't forget about those. I just don't consider them on-topic. That's not a value judgement: I'm not going to claim that console/PC gamers are somehow better than mobile/social gamers. I just think there's a difference between someone investing time and money in a serious hobby and someone who whips out Words With Friends for ten minutes on the bus.

Anyway, mobile gaming is not to the gaming industry what Cosmo is to the magazine industry. While the goal - to entertain the customer - is the same, mobile games are specifically designed to be accessed quickly, efficiently and in short bouts to utilise spare time. Their design is completely different. Their appeal is completely different. They don't have time to characterise anyone or develop a meaningful plot line because that is not their purpose. If you want to draw comparisons, mobile gaming is to the gaming industry what news apps are to the magazine industry - quick, simple but ultimately shallow. Cosmo magazine is to the magazine industry what racing games, sports games, FPS and RPGs are to the gaming industry - different genres within an overarching framework.

Tiddlypeeps

Clockwork Owl wrote: »

I actually mentioned mobile and social gaming in my previous post so, rest assured, I didn't forget about those. I just don't consider them on-topic. That's not a value judgement: I'm not going to claim that console/PC gamers are somehow better than mobile/social gamers. I just think there's a difference between someone investing time and money in a serious hobby and someone who whips out Words With Friends for ten minutes on the bus.

Anyway, mobile gaming is not to the gaming industry what Cosmo is to the magazine industry. While the goal - to entertain the customer - is the same, mobile games are specifically designed to be accessed quickly, efficiently and in short bouts to utilise spare time. Their design is completely different. Their appeal is completely different. They don't have time to characterise anyone or develop a meaningful plot line because that is not their purpose. If you want to draw comparisons, mobile gaming is to the gaming industry what news apps are to the magazine industry - quick, simple but ultimately shallow. Cosmo magazine is to the magazine industry what racing games, sports games, FPS and RPGs are to the gaming industry - different genres within an overarching framework.

I still don't get the distinction. We aren't talking about just Cosmo, we are talking about womens magazines and womens day time chat shows, that's a whole lot bigger than just Cosmo and is exactly what the factual feminist referred to. This is a very large chunk of the TV/magazine industry as a whole.

Keep in mind also that there are plenty of casual games on PC/console, so we aren't even just talking about the PC/console market as whole, we are talking about a specific subset with in that.

So why is it not ok to compare them?

BlitzKrieg

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

Exposed: The secret mailing list of the gaming journalism elite

I imagine some sites are in total meltdown.

Yes look at corruption in games journalism! They are talking to each other.

Bless Milo Yiannopoulos for being a champion of fair and just games reporting and bringing this corruption to us, perhaps some legal action might be possible now?


what do you mean the person writing the article is actually being investigated?

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/mar/01/the-kernel


So which one is the corrupt one again?

kunst nugget

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Yes look at corruption in games journalism! They are talking to each other.

Bless Milo Yiannopoulos for being a champion of fair and just games reporting and bringing this corruption to us, perhaps some legal action might be possible now?


what do you mean the person writing the article is actually being investigated?

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/mar/01/the-kernel


So which one is the corrupt one again?

Ha!

My favourite part is this:

"The Kernel had the opportunity to write about real issues in the London tech scene, which is one of the most vibrant and exciting technology development spaces globally," commented Steve Karmeinsky, an entrepreneur and angel investor who has frequently been the target of sniping by Yiannopoulos. "Unfortunately, rather than that, it morphed into a celebrity/gossip magazine; rather than being the Economist of the sector, it was very much the 'National Enquirer'. Further, it became just a mouthpiece for Milo Yiannopoulos to write nice things about his friends."