New Tropes VS Women & the Importance of Basic Respect

@video_game_king: yes, to the first point. I think that's a reason why people find her videos so dry. She has to provide the definitions and theories for you, so that when she shows the clips and describes the actions, you as a viewer know what she's trying to say and how it fits in with her thesis.

Also, it's true that applicability is important, and wasn't something I touched on in my post. That's more because, from viewing her videos, I feel that Anita may think her tool set can be applied to many, if not all, media that people interact with.

I actually still wish I had my literary criticism textbook. It was very impressive and covered a multitude of theories, and I must admit that being over ten years removed from the class my descriptions of what I did and my memories may be more hazy. My professor was also very odd, so I think that I may have spent more time trying to understand why he was showing us Buffy the Vampire Slayer episodes in one lecture. To tell you the truth, i honestly can't remember what he was trying to illustrate, and that's my most memorable moment from that course. :/

I admit I haven't played as many of the games she lists in her videos, so I find myself disagreeing with her opinions on some of the games I've played and agreeing with others I may not have played, only to find someone later who has played those games that can fill in those gaps, and I find myself frustrated by her analysis even more. I don't know if it's her critical tools that says she should ignore context in her analysis , but I'm grateful towards other people, including yourself, who have more knowledge about the games themselves than she does.

I wish there actually were game journalists who would critique her work. I don't mean hit pieces that would take her down a peg, but actually analyzing her examples with context in mind to see whether or not they do fit into the thesis she's trying to construct. Unfortunately, it's usually just a post introducing the latest video, which I'll expect to see in Patrick's "Worth Reading" this weekend. They give more time and effort talking about a perceived social injustice, like the race or gender of a character. I think Polygon had three or four different articles/videos on the whole AC: Unity co-op deal.

I miss old GiantBomb

What was old Giantbomb and why do you miss it?

@jadegl: I Guess it makes a bit more since if she is approaching it like that. However the way she rigidly applies theories from very narrow selection without fully understanding the subject, leads to that the message comes of as strange and fake sounding. Like if somebody reads VHS-manual and starts to criticize fruit section of the local supermarket based on that. "Apples do not receive the tape properly, even if you have pushed power-button from in your remote. This tells you that tape might be of a wrong format, damaged or the apples have already been loaded with a tape..." It is at best very pseudo academic and it would not fly at my uni or most likely with any.

@jadegl: Great read and post! I think that is what rubs me the wrong way when it comes to her videos and points. Her core issues are pretty solid but the context and research don't always hold up for me. This video i think got away from her because open world games and NPC behavior is hard to nail down with them being sandboxes that the player interacts with.

@truthtellah: As many have said i do believe the agenda side of her videos, even if it is a completely noble agenda often steers the research & information side of things to the sidelines. This can create misinformation that paints things in the wrong light. I also feel the tone of her videos feel combative versus constructive. I feel Extra Credit and the Idea channel in general have a good feel to them and are on point most times when covering game topics. Moving pass that i just think we need more thoughtfulness when creating women characters. I don't think we need to do away with strip clubs in open world games or sexy women characters. It just would be nice to have more of a reason for them aside from sexy time or eye candy.

GTA 5 for example could have used some of that creative dynamic side missions for some of the purely eye candy parts. Having worth wild missions that would open up these characters and make them more than a pimp, hooker, and stripper which applies to both men and women. Also GTA 5 could have used some more interesting female leads, or could have done more with some of the smaller female characters. When the writing and depth for men and women improves, i think these problems will become smaller and smaller.

This is exactly what she wants, more people talking about her and her videos. Stop paying her attention and everyone will be happy

Ho-ha! Here's the problem; too many toasters.

Also... Just so everyone knows: the points of these videos are to point out systemic issues and their implementation. It isn't actually about defining games as good or bad (and certainly not about defining these uses of the tropes to be the worst) - it's actually about using them as a more general narrative of what they represent: context is actually irrelevant. I know that probably seems incredibly counter-intuitive: context must be relevant - but seriously, the whole point is that any idea can be effectively defined within a narrative, and it is subjective for each person whether it is a suitable explanation - but this isn't about specific games, it's about the ideas themselves.

As always, be prepared to leave with mixed feelings: disagreeing strongly with parts, neutral with others, and agreeing with some too - as human beings, we have the capacity to think complexly while also holding two conflicting ideas at once.

For instance, I find grabbing pedestrians (usually women with umbrellas - since they have the most unique walk-animation) in Sleeping Dogs and then sticking them in the boot of a car and driving off with unidentifiable Asian-inspired radio music in the background absolutely hilarious as well as deeply disturbing. Accepting the significance of actions, ideas and implementation does not preclude the enjoyment of them.

That is complete bullshit. Exactly the sort of dreck I encountered in art school art theory courses. All that is produced when writing this way is a circular blather piece that is about an imaginary hypothetical with no basis in reality, divorced from all reason and accountability. It's junk.

Moreover, Anita herself has never suggested anything of the sort. I'm not entirely sure that the world 'subjective' is even a part of her vocabulary.

Context is extremely important, and taking things wildly out of context to support an argument is something that should never be tolerated.

@video_game_king: I disagree with your assertion that basic respect neuters discussion. Basic respect is the difference between constructive conversations on these forums versus conversations that never get anywhere due to bickering and personal attacks.

@jadegl: Excellent post. And good pull on the Witcher 1 card thing. I completely forgot about that. Your angle on Mass Effect was also great since it really shins a light on how important presentation. On paper, that moment in that game is actually kind a of an interesting piece of commentary, put the implementation is just kind of uncomfortable.

I guess I'm not surprised but a little saddened by the general absence by some people to even participate in a discussion or open themselves up to understand, or try to understand, someone else's viewpoint even for a moment.

It's shocking the lack of respect so many people have for anyone else who doesn't, instantly, believe what they believe. The world is filled with diverse and opposing viewpoints to your own, so don't go around just attacking other viewpoints different from your own.

As for the video, and the series in general, I think up until a year or so ago we would never be having these kind of discussions at all on the internet. I'm glad we're finally opening up the lines of communication and I hope soon we can see this angry and sometimes violent response at least subsiding some.

Remember that that's someone else you're talking to on the other end of the internet.

Do you mean she never suggested the subjective bit or the ignoring context bit? I don't remember her mentioning anything about the former, but she definitely mentioned the latter. I'm not about to subject myself to her older videos to point out where she says it, but people are welcome to sit through them again if they want to check it out for themselves.

I don't know if you're talking about Anita or people who disagree with her, because many of the people who actually participate in discussions about this subject are the latter, while she does not. Outside of the internet trolls who attack her personally and not her work, people do try to view things with an open mind and still disagree with parts of her work. People who disagree can empathize, and it's BS when someone brings it up as if that's the reason they can't agree with someone else. It's starting to become a fallacy.

I wish she would create some videos as reactions or as part of a larger conversation but you can't blame her for looking at internet comments and just deciding to never engage directly.

The subjective bit. The ignoring context bit just weakens her argument, even if she does admit to it. But it only weakens her argument to those who already understand the context. To everyone else, they have no idea what is a good example of her topic, and what is being taken wildly out of context.

Mentioning female NPC "sex objects" running away from the player when they are threatened with violence, and not explaining that male characters will often do the exact same thing is creating a lie. That isn't far removed from when Fox News used the Mass Effect sex scenes to paint the picture that Bioware was practically creating a porn game. At least the Fox News host eventually admitted that she had no idea what she was talking about, and also eventually agreed that the scenes in question were actually quite mild.

Ironically, at a couple of points in this video, the woman opposed to Mass Effect sounds a lot like Anita Sarkeesian:

Saying--and I'm paraphrasing here--"some of these scenes are explained by gameplay or story, but it's still problematic that they exist" or whatever Anita has said, is still being extremely disingenuous in her argument. It's a lot like making a giant list of examples to prove your point, and then saying "now some of these examples are complete lies, but that's okay because they could have happened."

What bothers me most is how needless it is. So what if her video would be 20 minutes instead of 30? There's enough actual examples of her criticism that she shouldn't have to resort to taking anything out of context.

And of course I've never heard her mention subjectivity. Saying "I'm not really right or wrong about a lot of this, and it's all a matter of opinion what someone personally feels is sexist" would dramatically weaken any feminist argument, just as a similar statement would weaken an argument concerning just about any topic.

The ideas of subjectivity and context are indeed important with videos of this kind, but considering it's a discussion of Sarkeesian's personal views on the creation of the videos and once again more about her than any video or games, it is off track from the actual topic of the thread.

With all due respect, I hope you all might take this argument to a PM instead so that things are not derailed and others can continue focusing on the video and thread topic. Thanks!

With all due respect, the next time you don't want people to talk about Anita Sarkeesian, please don't make a thread about Anita Sarkeesian.

It's like trying to make a thread about the general topic of racism by putting "Donald Sterling" in the thread title, embedding a video of Donald Sterling's racist comments, and then asking people to not talk about Donald Sterling.

Sorry, but that's not going to happen.

[edit] I'm not going to be replying to the post below me, because this conversation IS derailing the thread, but you can't expect to have a conversation about a specific person's opinion, and have everyone agree not to talk about that person.

I don't mean to be rude, but I will bluntly say that you're expecting enough out of of sexism threads to just ask for a civil debate. Telling people what they can or cannot talk about in those threads seems like an exorcise in futility, and all the more so when you specifically bring up the subject of what you don't want people to talk about in the very first post of the thread.

I don't want to have to get moderators involved, but I would ask you to reconsider being rude to me and purposefully derailing yet another thread involving her and this topic.

I imagine the other duders involved can respect those members who are trying to make some kind of effort to contribute, and I hope you might consider showing that same respect by moving this to a PM or your own thread.

Her personal views are reflected in the content she produces. How she constructs those arguments, whether or not they are valid, if there are problems with some examples she uses as the basis of her argument, are perfectly on topic if you have chosen to include her latest video in the OP. Unless he has edited out a personal attack, and comparing her to Fox News isn't a personal attack, then I don't see any derailment going on here.

I think it's acceptable to talk about her since she created the content. However if someone thinks that by discussing her it detracts from her arguments or effects the discussion they're mistaken.

You can have someone speaking out against "Y" and that person can turn out to be a terrible person. This however doesn't change their arguments or the content of the discussion. Unless I guess they're argument was something crazy like "I'm a great person therefore "Y" is wrong."

Also along with this. Criticizing the quality of video editing (as horrifying to some of us film enthusiasts this may be) has nothing to do with a topic.

The video itself is part of the topic, not her. Many other members have seemed to understand that. If other aspects of her work might inform this topic, I can see including that, but only talking about hypotheticals regarding her intent with her video series doesn't have to do with objectification of female characters within videogames. All it does is shift the topic toward her alone.

If you want to tie it back into the actual point and what I and others are talking about(as some have), that's cool, but if you want to change the topic from objectification and basic respect to just her, I hope you will take that conversation elsewhere. It's hard enough to discuss this topic when people are actually on topic, but it's even more difficult when people just want to discuss the person and not the content. You know full well this isn't easy; so please don't contribute to making it even harder for me and others.

The problem with this is that she will essentially be in an echo chamber where she not only avoids the internet trolls but also any detractors who may make valid points. Those that rally to her provide no constructive criticism whatsoever. This results in her making the same mistakes in each subsequent video instead of improving on those problematic areas.

I don't expect her to respect the opinions of her detractors, but she definitely doesn't show the most basic respect (that some have mentioned) for her audience when she chooses not to engage at all. I don't think she cares though. As you've said, some people don't want to understand anyone else's viewpoints

I agree an echo chamber is extremely dangerous for an ideology. You should never bathe in your own ideas without letting in criticism. However don't ignore that someone like her (among others) receive rape and death threats for even stating their position. Which is a terrifying experience, even if you know they probably won't make good on it. It only takes one fanatic to end your life.

I agree that it would probably be quite nice(and informative) if the maker of the video was willing to engage publicly with others with different perspectives from herself, but while it would be nice to see, it doesn't change the topic she covers in the video. She could be an evil vampire from space and still be capable of providing some decent points or examples on a topic. I'm sure being an alien might raise some questions about her intent(heh), but it wouldn't change the content itself.

The topic is still ultimately bigger than she is, and the video is only one part of that discussion. Let's not lose sight of the forest for the trees.

I don't ignore that, and I definitely don't condone it. She doesn't need to rely on Youtube comments, that's already a cesspool. She could just as easily engage people on any other moderated forum or comment section. I would personally prefer if a journalist would actually seriously critique her work, then maybe she could comment on some of the areas in her work that could use improvements.

Maybe we could strategically direct Patrick toward her. Perhaps frame it as critically discussing areas for improvement that might make her points and examples more effective. While she can obviously not please all critics, some critical analysis couldn't hurt her in refining the video series. She has improved a bit video to video, but someone with an eye like Patrick's could make them even better. He has been rather good at considering criticism and making the most of it.

And Patrick could discuss the Internet backlash with her. Would make quite the article and Interview Dumptruck if he could make it happen.

Because the one person who is most qualified to criticize a feminist is another feminist? That's exactly how to save her from the possibility of an echo chamber, right?

Also, I hope you realize that you're doing exactly what you asked me not to, and responding to posts that are specifically written about her. Not very easy to ignore them, is it?

I think it may be relevant to talk about how she could partake in a nice discussion on the topic. That's also part of this. I believe someone like Patrick is good at giving serious criticism while keeping it civil.

And someone being feminist doesn't mean they can't disagree with how others may present their points. Many people in this thread have voiced criticism of her while still expressing concern for the topic of female representation in gaming.

I would consider myself a feminist, as I believe the pursuit of greater equality for women is important, along with being a general humanist, but I still don't agree with her on everything. Self-criticism from a person and within a group can be of significant value. We don't need a Crossfire kind of situation where only extremes are pitted against each other. I think Patrick is easily enough of his own man to have a decent critical back and forth with her. :)

(Edit: And I'm trying to compromise on the topic and you're still giving me a hard time. heh. Try to work with me here, SI.)

Patrick has had plenty of opportunities to specifically criticize her work, but hasn't expressed interest in doing so. As far as I'm aware, the closest a real gaming journalist has come is the typical "I don't agree with everything she says, but..." that is more of a defense than a critique.

And I consider myself to be one of those people. Concerned for the topic, that is, not feminist. Still, if you're talking about actual criticism, that isn't two people who agree on most topics, and one giving pointers to the other on how to strengthen their argument, while no one is allowed to actually challenge that argument.

Imagine for a moment a political figure that you almost completely disagreed with. Now imagine that he or she has a history of not acknowledging their critics. Then they gather together with a similarly minded individual and discuss how they can make their argument stronger, and then they call THAT responding to criticism. Sound right to you?

I wasn't aware you were compromising. I just thought that you were naturally replying to posts in the thread, and didn't realize you were doing what you asked me not to. But yes, I will stop giving you a hard time about it. That's a reasonable request, and I'm sorry for coming across as aggressive.

I think any reasonable criticism of her approach or examples would naturally open the door for her improving her videos. I don't really know how critical of her you think someone needs to be to qualify for offering her genuine criticism. Would someone calling themselves a feminist be enough to disqualify them?

Considering her already general hesitance, I imagine someone more moderate who can articulate some common complaints and corrections would work better than just placing her in a room with someone that doesn't appreciate any part of what she does. That is, if the point is to possibly have the criticisms get across and then even discuss them, I think a trained journalist who can present such arguments forcefully but professionally could probably do the best job.

Like choosing a good interviewer who isn't afraid to ask more difficult questions.

It kind of reminds me of when one of the Tropes vs Women videos brought up Spelunky, and the creator of Spelunky wrote a response explaining the reasoning behind their choices and how it was hopefully not a bad use of the damsel in distress trope. He acknowledged the point of her mention while still refuting that it was harmful. Then Sarkeesian told him how much she has enjoyed playing Spelunky despite the trope, and they went about their days.

Through engaging it as an opportunity to explain and not an attack, he effectively presented a counter argument which Sarkeesian seemed to appreciate. We can't guarantee that she will ever change due to input, as that's up to her, but we can at least give input and criticism a better chance at getting her consideration.

I think feminism is cool and should be supported. I think rape culture is real and is fucked up. Sexism does exist on a massive level, especially in gaming culture and it freaks me out how people can allow it to happen.

As for the video I think it's pretty repetitive and isn't the best way to convey the information. She has her moments but I always feel like I'm watching the same video with the same tropes but slight variations on the words. Instead of "women are trophies" it's "women are objects" or "women being sexualized are rewards... like trophies or objects". Still I think Anita get's too much shit for the videos. Over all they have are bringing some real shit to light that is subconsciously ingrained in our society. I've seen it first hand and sexism in person is REAAAAAL CREEPY. Fuck that noise.

That's true; though, wouldn't you say that many of these tropes do have their roots in the same core issues? So, it's only natural that they might be relatively interconnected. Different tropes as part of larger themes to how discrimination impacts many parts of our thinking. The point being that, the video series as a whole would show a multifaceted view of the branches which extend from pervasive prejudice.

In this case, while objectification of female characters is relatively common throughout different mediums, videogames do pose an interesting challenge in this regard. In most games, all characters are to some extent objects subject to the interactions of the player, and so, it can bring special attention to poorly written characters which fit with objectified writing. When you are naturally inclined to view a NPC as a virtual object to interact with more than a representation of a real person, it's made even more difficult to avoid some level of objectification. It takes more effort than unfortunately happens in many cases, and as with instances of games inserting unnecessary brothels and street walkers or sexual conquest minigames, that only compounds on the inherent challenges.

Game developers seem to be figuring out more ways to encourage many players to choose treating female characters well, but it's early yet. It's just one of many things we can continue to try to improve, and fortunately, I think the lessons learned can even apply beyond female characters to wider game design. All gamers can benefit from this kind of criticism and the discussion spurred by it.

@truthtellah: Yeah I guess it would carry over some of the same basic ideas. I guess I'm just saying from a critical perspective it felt like it was too much of the same. Though this one had some fresh topics I approximate she brought up. Either way this discussion is necessary in advancing the medium and our culture.

Mhm. It may be off to a bit of a rocky start these last few years, but the discussion will continue to have a greater impact. Hopefully we'll keep getting better at considering and expressing such criticism as gamers. More people engaging in the discussion will only make it more effective and wide-reaching.

I believe respect is a two way street, you got to give it to get it. While I do respect Anita's point of view and her right to expess it, I find myself wondering at times whether she is truly genuine with her motives all in all. I'll also admit that I do believe the issues of race, gender, etc portrayal in the media need to be adressed, but it shouldn't be done in a manner that seemingly berates a particular group of people in the process.

But it's all good in the end. She can make those videos and while I don't agree with her approach to the subject matter, I respect her right to do so.

Doesn't that make respect impossible?

I just wanted to chime back in with these thoughts that I had as I was thinking about the video and the responses I've seen in the thread.

One thing that this video did, for me at least, was make me think about how I treat NPCs in games. I've come to some conclusions. First, I technically "objectify" everyone in a game. It may not be sexual objectification, but in most games I don't feel any type of connection to these background characters. Some games are better at making you care about a non-player character, but for the most part, I find myself gauging my involvement with them based on what they can give me and how they can help me. I've murdered NPCs to get their loot and I've performed tasks for them to get achievements or trophies. That is my relationship with them.

Second, some games handle these issues better than others, but this could also be my personality type bleeding through and may not have the same effect on other people playing the game. In the first Mass Effect, I pursued a romance with Kaidan. I sent Ashley to her death without so much as a thought because I wanted to save my love interest. This led to an awkward love scene and an in-game achievement. In the second game, I was faced with a new problem. As a completionist, I could easily be swayed to romance another character to get the new romance achievement, or I could stay loyal to my partner from the first game. I stayed loyal. What had started as a game play reward in the first game was something just a little bit more in the second game. I felt genuinely invested and I wanted to see what would happen if I abstained. It helped that the game dangled an email carrot in my face from Kaidan saying that there may be a chance down the line for us. So I went into the Omega Relay without getting any love from anyone. And I was okay with that. When the third game cam out, I continued my relationship with Kaidan as best as I could. We yelled at each other, we pointed guns at each other, but in the end it worked out for that short time I had left. I enjoyed the hell out of that arc with Shepard and Kaidan. It was worth forgoing achievement points to see it through. The funny thing is, my husband played through all the games as well and got all three romance achievements. He wooed Liara, then Miranda, then Liara again. While I scratched my head and wondered how he could do it, his response was actually quite simple. He was facing certain death in the second game, and there would be no coming back for a lot of his crew. When faced with that, a person would find comfort in those final moments. These interactions may be different, but I think they show that, for me at least, Bioware is a company that can get you to invest more heavily into their NPCs and can make your relationships with them amount to more than a transaction.

Third, I realized that my relationship with male NPCs is more transactional than with female NPCs. As a woman, I ignore strip clubs, prostitutes and the like when I play. I find myself more sympathetic to a female NPC, usually, than a male one. Because male NPCs are so blank, which she kind of alluded to in her piece, I feel less shame when I kill them. If a woman is screaming and running, I feel bad trying to hurt them. When I play open world games, I rarely kill civilian NPCs. I avoid it because I tend to play really good characters. I want to help everyone, not hurt them. And I feel much worse if they are doing the programmed response of cowering, screaming, begging, etc. Male NPCs usually will stand up for themselves more, and then I honestly don't feel as bad. It's kind of like this scene from South Park. I can rationalize my actions in a way if someone decides to stand up for themselves instead of running. I will feel bad if I make men in games cower or run too. It's more the action of what the person is doing, I suppose, than the gender of the person doing it.

This would be a good example of someone effectively presenting a counter argument, if it ever actually happened. Unfortunately, it didn't.

When he was confronted with the claims in the TvW: Damsels series, Derek Yu agreed that the trope was problematic, that he as a man wasn't equipped to fully understand that, and that he's happy to change his game so as to not offend anyone. I'm not saying that his reaction wasn't valid, he can hold any opinion he wants, but I honestly can't imagine a response that could fall more in line with Anita's rhetoric. You can watch him discuss it in this section of an interview with Destructoid.

Jonathan Holmes: But you're open to the idea that maybe you were accidentally, misogynistic?

Derek Yu: Sure!

On twitter, he never refuted the accusations made or explained the trope in his game as being a separate example, he wholeheartedly agreed with all of them and defended them to people criticising the FemFreq video. And by doing so, was summarily praised for his agreement by even prominent game journalists like Leigh Alexander and devs like Zoe Quinn.

Precisely the 'echo chamber' effect that folks here are concerned prevents actual discussion.

There may be another example of another dev or writer actually voicing disagreements with one of these video's claims. This is just absolutely not it.

@jadegl: Agreed, BioWare sets up characters very well.

My girlfriend is actually the same as you. She kills guys in games without mercy but is empathetic towards girls almost always. Even if they are the bad guy who killed tons of people, she lets them go when given the choice, whereas she straight up murders any guy who so much as crossed a red light; sort of speak. She admits to just not care for men in games, but she has no idea why.

I don't blame her for not responding and I think she just wants to point out the tropes in hopes of someone recognizing them or becoming more sensitive to them, and hopefully fixing them. Maybe her examples aren't ideal but her point has some truth to it.

Some of this some down to basic respect. Respect we should just give a human being. Some people say all respect is earned and while some respect is we honestly treat some people, especially women, incredibly poorly especially on the internet.

So I don't imagine we'll see a true discussion from her but I do wish we could have them in the comments (kinda like this one!). But when you see death and rape threats mixed with people cursing and seething with anger mixed with the occasional good comment you tend to just give up and walk away.

@video_game_king: Nah. It means you give some respect up front, and based on actions people lose it or gain more from your perspective. At least that was how I was raised, and I like to think if show some respect up front to people you meet there's a fifty percent chance that you've made an ally.

But I can totally see it from your side as well if that is the way you view the world.

I bolded the most relevant line up there, because it's the thing that explains, in essence, the reason for these videos--or at least what I find useful about the videos. It's not to assign a value judgment to all the examples it shows (tropes are as good or bad as the quality of writing supporting it), but a useful tool for saying "here are some women being treated as objects in games. This is in a lot of games. Maybe that says something that is not great about our culture, and maybe this contributes to toxic ideas continuing to persist--you know, the way that society tends to reinforce its values in popular culture. Wouldn't it be neat if we tried new, less boring, sexist, tired-ass stuff?" Most of the time, the sheer volume of examples in a given episode stuns me, and sometimes I'll see a game put up as an example and think "huh. I played this game, and thought this was perfectly okay" but then there are so many other examples that when you put that moment in context of this wider collection, I think "yeah I suppose that is kind of fucked up! Even in this good thing that I enjoy, there are problematic elements and I should be aware of that. Why, I'll wager if I happened to be a woman subject to the sort of shit that women are confronted with, this sure would be like some kind of shitty frosting on a shitty cake, and might even damage my enjoyment of this game! That is unfortunate. I should maybe hold the creators of this entertainment to a higher standard so that other people do not have these moments of feeling decidedly unwelcome in this, a culture that started out as a place for people who felt like outcasts to not feel like outcasts."

Does this, however, make me a piece of shit for not noticing this sooner? Am I a bad person because I enjoyed a game with problematic things in it?

Well, no. The videos are not attacking me, they're not even really attacking the creators of the games, and it is Perfectly Okay to like a thing which has elements which are not necessarily the most forward thinking. Hey, everyone likes rescuing folks, right? I enjoy being a Bad Enough Dude To Save The President. I enjoy Captain Kirk-ing my way across the cosmos and into the beds of exotic alien species, and I think it is hilarious that my version of Commander Shepard spends more time in the strip clubs than she should. But by being aware of problematic stuff, I can consciously avoid internalizing it--because yes, we all like to wave the VIDEO GAMES DON'T CAUSE VIOLENCE flag, but everyone is influenced by culture, whether they are aware of it or not. Like Tim at Eurogamer said, I'm sexist, but I'm less sexist than I was, and I'm continuing to become less sexist (the same could be said about being racist. Of course I'm racist! I live in a racist-ass country, whose laws and structure ensured that I was able to basically be a huge bum for years before finding a good job. I'm less racist than I was, and I will continue to be less racist until I die, at which point I will finally stop being racist).

The pushback that these videos invariably attract is, at its core, people who don't like being told the thing they like has some problems--real problems that contribute, in however a small or large way, to other human beings being treated poorly. That's not a great thing to hear! I don't like hearing it either, but it's true. If we want to become better people--really, truly better people--we have to face these uncomfortable things, and accept them, and work to fix them. You're not going to patch out the prostitutes in GTA--but when the next GTA is announced, are you going to ask Rockstar if say, maybe they could have women in there who aren't either prostitutes or stereotypical nagging wife/whore types? Because hey, that's not going to just make someone who has not seen herself ever represented in a good way happier, it's going to be a better-written experience for everyone.

Well, as long as we're talking about preventing echo chambers and all, this is how the other side seems to view it:

Of course, I present this video with the same standard "criticism" that professional journalists give to Anita Sarkessian's work:

"I don't agree with everything she says, but..."

Seriously though, your girlfriend is not alone in punishing women less harshly than men. It happens all the time, and I'm not aware of feminists doing anything to stop it. To quote an older post of mine:

First search result for "gender and criminal sentencing"

http://www.law.umich.edu/newsandinfo/features/Pages/starr_gender_disparities.aspx

If you're a criminal defendant, it may help—a lot—to be a woman. At least, that's what Prof. Sonja Starr's research on federal criminal cases suggests. Prof. Starr's recent paper, "Estimating Gender Disparities in Federal Criminal Cases," looks closely at a large dataset of federal cases, and reveals some significant findings. After controlling for the arrest offense, criminal history, and other prior characteristics, "men receive 63% longer sentences on average than women do," and "[w]omen are…twice as likely to avoid incarceration if convicted." This gender gap is about six times as large as the racial disparity that Prof. Starr found in another recent paper.

There are other studies that have shown gender disparity in criminal cases, but not as pronounced as Prof. Starr's findings. This is because she is looking at "a larger swath of the criminal justice process" in her analysis, she said. The paper states, "Existing studies have typically focused on single stages of the criminal process in isolation"—in particular, the judge's final sentencing decision. These studies compare actual sentencing outcomes after controlling for therecommended sentence associated with the defendant's ultimate conviction. The problem with this, Starr explains, is that "the key control variable is itself the result of a host of discretionary decisions made earlier in the justice process"—including prosecutors' charging and plea-bargaining decisions. Starr's research incorporates disparities found at those earlier stages, and finds that "more disparity is introduced at each phase of the justice process."

So yeah. That seems about right. Ask a politically active feminist about this, and I imagine they would tell you that it's one more injustice created by the system of patriarchy. Then they'd do absolutely fuck all to attempt to change these outcomes.

Yes, that was quite bitter and negative, but please note that I don't think all feminists feel that way, just the most politically and socially active ones. The ones who could actually stand a chance of changing something. The one's who have brought about things like title IX, predominate aggressor laws, and so on.

But I'll certainly admit that I could be wrong. If anyone can provide a link to any example of feminists actively fighting the gender bias in criminal sentencing, please provide a link. I'd be happy to be wrong about this, but I wasn't able to find anything with a quick search.

That was my older post, and I'm still waiting for someone to take me up on my challenge.

Society tells us that men are more likely to stand up for themselves by fighting their own fight, and women are more likely to run and tell someone else. Women are almost never shamed for running away from confrontation, but that's not always true for men. I think that's where the true sexism comes in, but is it sexism or is it accurate observation? Should we be programming everyone to run away if they're attacked, or should everyone stay and fight, or should a statistically accurate ratio of men to women stay and fight, or should an even mixture of both women and men fight or flee?

But even if a game is made with men and women being given an equal chance of fighting or running, we're still talking about a random number generator that determines the outcome, so wouldn't people with a heavy interest in the topic likely just see what they want to see, and assume that one outcome is happening more often because of sexism?

It's an interesting subject that you raised. I know I've seen men run in games, and I know I've seen women who stay and fight, but I'm not sure which games featured both, and I could only guess whether or not each had an equal chance of happening regardless of gender.

@spaceinsomniac: I don't work like that. 'Feminist' is just a word. Anyone can say they identify as such. Check this out: I'm a feminist. Also, I want all women to die.

It doesn't matter what the word means. At least not anymore. A lot of people who claim to be feminists don't seem to strife towards equality (which is what I understand to be the true goal of feminism) they just attack anything where any women has any negative impact surrounding her. Regardless the reason why. Those are the people that piss me off to no end, but it would be foolish of me to say I hate feminists. It's just people giving it a bad name, as always.

I'm all for equality, but I just don't see any difference between men and women. At least not where I live. I kind of don't see the point behind feminism anymore to be honest. On what level are women still unequal to men? I can't think of any.

MAN! I wish I could get people to post huge walls of text and lengthy dissertations about Doom 2's super shotgun. Which is the greatest weapon to ever grace video games.

@finaldasa: I could take exactly what you said, change a few words, and its just as true

I guess I'm not surprised but a little saddened by the general absence of Anita to even participate in a discussion or open herself up to understand, or try to understand, someone else's viewpoint even for a moment.

It's shocking the lack of respect so many people have for anyone else who doesn't, instantly, believe what they believe. The world is filled with diverse and opposing viewpoints to your own, so don't go around just attacking other viewpoints different from your own.

As for the video, and the series in general, I think up until a year or so ago we would never be having these kind of discussions at all on the internet. I'm glad we're finally opening up the lines of communication and I hope soon we can see this angry and sometimes violent response at least subsiding some.

Remember that that's someone else you're talking to on the other end of the internet.

My absolute biggest criticism of Anita is that she doesn't respect opposing viewpoints. In her videos, if you aren't on her side, you support patriarchy, rape culture, and violence against women WITHOUT EXCEPTION. She has never stated that she makes any effort to understand the other side of the issue, or to engage with the reasonable dissent and criticisms leveled against her. She can't hide behind a wall of "well YouTube commenters made death threats so I can't engage!" There have been MANY measured criticisms against her videos that she flat out refuses to acknowledge. She is doing nothing to further the discussion other than completely poisoning the well and ensuring that the issue remains polarizing and difficult to engage with. Anita doesn't say things like "I wish Ubisoft had more female representation in their games", she says things like "The developers at Ubisoft are misogynistic and support rape culture and violence against women by allowing you to kill female NPCs." She throws serious accusations of sexism and misogyny around so loosely that you begin to wonder if she understands the implications of those words. Its not that different from someone insulting her for her position.