The new Tropes vs. Women in Gaming video came out...

Pseudo-empowerment sounds pseudo-intellectual.

Posting to support Anita (mostly due to the lack of bad faith among her detractors). In no way are we living in an equitable society yet.

@sergio: Hmm, I'm a little worried that anything I say will be considered an unsubstantiated leap of logic to you. Honestly, I think of this from an English teacher's perspective. I just finished my student teaching. My mentor teacher told me that she used to teach Frederick Douglas, but her black students told her, "hey, slavery isn't who we are any more." And she stopped and started teaching To Kill a Mockingbird instead. I don't think that book is without issue, but I think this is a good analogy.

Stories we read or see or play exist to draw us in. In order to want to continue reading or watching or playing them, they want us to empathize with some part of their narrative, preferably all of it. We can have anti-heroes or screwed up protagonists, but there has to be something appreciable in there or we tune out.

If I throw statistics or stories of systematic sexism in the real world, I won't have proved causation. That's not my point. My point is ethical. It's theoretical. it's based on my understanding of agency and humanism, based in Gewirthian ethics.

Humans are purposive agents. We do x for the purpose of y. If we accept that about ourselves, then we have to accept it about every other human. If we accept that all humans are agents, and we accept also that each agent has a generic right to freedom (free-will, the ability to choose) and well-being (not just surviving but living comfortably), then all actions we take must treat others in this way. If we act as if someone else is not an agent, then we contradict our own agency. If we reduce others to nonpurposive objects, we ourselves must not deserve freedom or well-being.

So, any treatment of a person in a story as a non-agent, as an object, is unethical according to the above presentation of ethics. If you accept that making a woman a symbol, a motivating death, exist to have boobs, or exist to be saved is an act of objectification, then you agree that this depiction of women is unethical.

That's my logic.

@lively: Yeah, my ideas about fiction, not being a fiction writer but just an English teacher, aren't necessarily gold standard. I tried to say that if you do have bad things from reality in your storytelling then you have to deal with it. So, if you have a racist character, you better have someone call him out. Eventually, if you do that enough, it becomes pointless to even have the character act that way. People are allowed to pounce. The problem with giving any example is that it brings in unrelated but important real-world debates. They distract from the original debate, and it is easy to fall into. I think it's better than avoiding all such examples, though.

This woman ain't ever gonna be able to enjoy a video game. She's asking for something she'll never get the way she imagines it.

But maybe the new Tomb Raider was what she wanted. Something like that just more often. It was a good game, just not something I would say having an empowered protagonist female with a story reinforcing that made any difference to me or was any better than some of the games she had a gripe with.

Did you even watch the video?

I also mentioned that it was the tone and emotional investment evident in the responses, not just the quantity. That's a subjective interpretation obviously, you may not agree with mine.

I really don't think Sarkeesian has actually meaningfully attacked videogames other than a one off quip about Miyamoto. If anything she has been much more positive about them, than I would have expected given the premise of her series. I suspect that some bog slame still could be coming when she finally hopefully gets to some actual analysis instead of clip reels. We'll see.

I know she has done more than 2 videos, but I didn't think they were about video games or were funded by the Kickstarter.

The fact she has a podium is irrelevant. Bigger, far more accomplished people (and on much larger podiums than Youtube) than her have been saying similar things for over a decade and frankly many times just in a more dismissive manner if not worse. Phds, industry vets, Parent activists, you name it. They perpetuated their opinions are facts/objective truth too. This is not new at all.

So what if she has the freedom to present things in whatever light she sees fit. Everyone else does too. Why does that matter?

What is new and what is different is the level of rage against this particular person. It's off the charts how much people dislike this woman. People care this time for a reason, I suspect that reason is fear.

Watched half of it. Thought it was stupid. What of it?

Just a quick thing. If people can't handle someone saying something negative about a passion of their's then they have bigger issues then whatever negative thing was said. Seriously dudes, if this is your rationale, take some time to gather yourselves together. That's insane and incredibly childish.

You're comment gives the impression that you didn't listen to a word she said.

@jasonr86: I just really disagree with her opinions.

I'm not completely sure you understand what her opinions actually are.

We need more fighting games because women have equal footing just like that footage of Elizabeth vs Yu in Persona 4 Arena. There is a joke in there and I am being nitpicky about the video. Ah screw it.

@kierkegaard: I disagree with the premise that because someone needs to be saved or avenged, it automatically makes them an object. The problem I have is that instead of trying to empathize with a character and think that they would do anything for the person they love, we are supposed to assume that they are doing it because it's their possession. Just because there isn't a 10 hour prologue showing their relationship before she's kidnapped/killed doesn't mean the woman is an object.

I've been playing Fire Emblem: Awakening, with a female protagonist. Not to give too much of a spoiler, there is a scene with Emmeryn that uses the Damsel in Distress and Heroic Sacrifice tropes, although I'm sure it would be argued that she's a Disposable Woman. If one were to simply see her in a super-cut of tropes without context or knowledge of the game, that might make one think that she has no agency, and I would disagree with that because I know the context. Her depiction is not unethical.

Without any context, I can't really agree that anything nefarious is going on in each clip used in her video since I haven't played them all. And I can't take her word for it because I've seen posts in other forum threads regarding specific games where people point out that this simplified approach misrepresents a game being used as an example, e.g. in one, both male and female characters are trying to save the damsel.

i think anita has good intentions and is supporting an important cause i just don't really like the way she is going about doing it. i don't think those two things are at odds.

lots of tension in this thread and it seems like if you don't support this series people can be quick to deem you a chauvinist jerk. of course the other side is going ham as well.

Well, if you build up the complex life of a character for 10 hours, but then lock her in a cage and tell your hero to go save her, you've removed her agency, right? She's imprisoned--she can't make purposeful decisions. Same thing if you kill her--she no longer has agency because she's dead, yo.

You say this protagonist in Fire Emblem has agency. Why? What about her story means that despite the events you described, she is still able to make purposeful choices in her life?

Like Anita said with the Psychonauts example--building up a character with personality and backstory and humor is great, but when you take it away by locking them into a chair in need of rescue, you've just eliminated all that stuff from before. It's that alteration from fully fleshed out person into controlled, locked up, or dead person that is disturbing. That it's a trend almost entirely made up of female victims is where the sexism comes in.

That's an easy one. Fantasy can be whatever the writer wants it to be. If that means saving the world, or destroying the world, it's up to the writer to decide. Not every game should fit a stereotype and I find it ironic that you think every game should basically be, like what, Star Trek? That's what comes to mind when I think about your suggestion here. Using real-world problems as part of the story is legitimate, I don't know why you question its validity. After all, everything written is based on our perception of reality. These clichés that Anita brings up are not harmful, not to say all clichés aren't regressive; covetous Jew, Jim Crow are examples of ones that are harmful. Princess Peach, whose character is based around being kidnapped by Bowser and saved by Mario? That is in no way misogynistic.

The guy who said it's all about money when it comes to these freaks butting into the industry was bang on the money. Primarily the reason they get involved, from my view, is because there's power to be had and after years of deriding the games industry, of course people with huge egos won't simply recede that they were wrong now that games have become mainstream. No, the reason they hated games is clearly because they're misogynistic! I say this because there's about as much actual evidence of any misogyny in games as there is evidence that Jack Thompson was right about Grand Theft Auto training the Taliban or whatever the fuck it was that guy ranted and raved about.

Well, all that shows to me is it is a flawed test. Because Star Trek Into Darkness had a strong female presence.

It isn't that the "save the innocent" theme is a bad design goal for any game. The problem is that it is the same "bro-dude guy saves the girl" if it is there at all where more often than not it is eschewed for the "bro-dude guy saves the world".

Why isn't there a game where main character (male or female) is saving a bunch of kids? Or puppies? Or anything else? The last game I could think of that has anything remotely different is Far Cry 3. That isn't to say I don't love a game like Tomb Raider or Uncharted but this is one of the reasons why the genre is getting stale leaning on the same tropes over and over and over again.

@danmcn12: I was totally not going to post at all in this thread, but I just had to say that the latest Star Trek did not have what I would call a strong female presence. With both of the main female characters their most defining characteristic is their relationship to men in their lives, whether it is men they are romantically involved with or father figures. They both are given brief moments to shine, but are both put into situations not soon after where they need saving by the guys. Carol Marcus, for being a new character that even gets her own version of the movie poster, is woefully under used (which is a problem with some male characters in the movie as well, poor Bones) and Uhuru is mostly defined by being "Spock's girlfriend" who has one cool moment that turns into a sloppy action sequence about midway through. I wanted more of bad ass Uhura using her communication skills, not pining for Spock, which she did with most of her screen time, unfortunately.

But that movie had tons of other problems, and I would say that the writers of that screenplay had problems writing both good male and female characters in general, not just female characters. Their focus seemed to be on a very specific relationship, which is fine I guess. Of course, that leaves the other characters, especially the females, as more window dressing with maybe 5 good character minutes between them. Oh, and lets not forget the totally useless underwear showing scene that I have found no one able to defend as a good character moment.

But that has nothing to do with video games. :) Just wanted to chime in as someone who saw the movie and felt it a bit lacking.

A WWII POW doesn't have agency by your definition. That doesn't make them objects. Now if you want to say they have agency by the way they interact with one another, their captors, and their environment, that's fine. The problem is that most games will focus on the protagonist that the player controls, and we're not going to spend much time from that perspective, if any. Some stories outside of games do have sections devoted to the victims struggles, but that's due to how the narrative of books and movies work compared to games. I feel even if there were cut scenes showing her in captivity, you'd still argue the point because we don't control her as the player. I think you're hung up more on that the person is a woman than "the loss of agency" itself.

In Fire Emblem, she is the one that makes the choice to not give in to the villain and sacrifices herself, becoming a martyr for your cause. If this were a man, we wouldn't bat an eye because it falls under Heroic Sacrifice, which we've seen before. But somehow because she's a woman, we're not allowed to give her that? That's sexist, because we are no longer treating a male and female NPC equally if they made the same choice. Another character was a Damsel in Distress that you rescue. She had agency prior to her capture because she caught the villains in the act and decided to follow them in order to keep them from getting away. She aids in her escape. And afterwards, joins your army where she continues to have character development. Even during the small period of her capture, she retained agency.

Now I agree that these might be exceptions to the rule, but that's because I know the context and that part of the game's story. We don't get that from Anita's work, and she says we don't even need that to make the decision she wants us to make.

I don't agree that you've eliminated everything from before their capture. I think that's a sad world-view you and Anita have that a prisoner is no longer a living person. That the trend is made up mostly by women, not all, is because historically boys and men are the ones who are making and playing these games. That's not sexist, but catering to the market buying these games. You can argue that perhaps we should have more variety in how these stories with prisoners play out, but labeling them sexist, and in some of Anita's cases, misogynist, devalues the terms for some.

To me, that sounds more like an issue with the films characters rather then anything demeaning towards women. They were across the board fairly flat and generally caricatures of the original Star Trek ones. That's because it a high octane action blockbuster and not because it was some misogynistic movie. If having two of the few heroes be females and being active in a movie that is geared heavily towards males doesn't constitute a strong female presence it will be near impossible to do so.

@danmcn12: Which is what I tried to say, perhaps not as eloquently as I would have liked. The more pressing problem with that movie is that the secondary characters (which is the category that both Carol and Uhura fall in to) are so weak and given so few moments when compared to the main characters, the villain - Kirk - Spock triangle. That's a failure of writing all of the characters, whether male or female, and I don't think it points to anything pernicious or degrading to women, as Anita may say.

However, the thing that I have learned after two of the reboot movies is that Uhura and Spock's relationship says nothing about Uhura as a character. It's only real purpose is to show us something about Spock, his ability or inability to show emotions. And that's a real shame. It's too bad that one of the important characters (if you go by promotional materials, posters etc) is reduced to being a device, for lack of a better term, to show us the depth and character growth of her significant other. I had very high hopes going into both movies that that would not be the case, and yet it is.

Again, I don't necessarily think it points to any veiled misogyny of the writers, just a lack of creativity. Bringing it back around to games, I feel like that is the real problem concerning portrayals of women in games. A lack of real honest to goodness creativity. It's easy to make a female a damsel in distress, people have been writing those situations for years, centuries even. That doesn't mean it's not stale and that also doesn't mean that it doesn't perpetuate outdated ways of thinking. It also shows a lack of creativity for male characters as well. Just because writers keep writing it doesn't make it good or that we, as consumers, should tolerate lazy tropes.

Last night I played a mission in the new Romulus Expansion for Star Trek Online (crap, Star Trek keeps coming back into this conversation somehow) and I really enjoyed it because I got into an "in distress" situation. With MMOs and games where I can choose my gender, I always ALWAYS play a female avatar, so I suppose it turned into a "damsel in distress" situation since I was a damsel, for lack of a better term! But, because the mission was made to be played as a male or female character, I was able to execute my own means of escape and get back to my crew on my own. It was really very interesting and timely, considering what we are talking about.

I still haven't had a chance to really sit down and "chew" on this video, so I will end my discussion there for now.

On a somewhat sobering side not, this case has been in the top story in my local news for weeks and will be for quite some time. I bring it up not to say that repeated exposure to these tropes in movies, games, or literature has caused this (I actually think it may have more to do with some of the more over the top "hero worship" that occurs in the news media) but I know that it makes me think about a lot of different things, including just what messages pop up in different forms of media and how people process them. This cuts a lot of different ways obviously and the blame falls squarely on the perpetrator, not on the ideas they may have internalized from a Disney movie or Nintendo game, so I don't want anyone to think I am pointing to this and going "See, aha! This proves that the damsel in distress trope harms actual real women!" I just find my mind being drawn to it and wondering how someone gets to the point where they believe that that is actually a good idea.

Couple comments based on this page.

The idea that the imprisonment or loss of agency of a character is unethical based on the gender of the character is irrevocably sexist. Furthermore, it instills an idea that all art that includes negative character traits is necessarily unethical, even when those negative traits are completely consistent with characterization. Look at Persona 4; almost more than their positive traits, you can define those characters by their negative traits. Is Yukiko 'an unethical depiction of women' because she's passive and co-dependent on her best friend? Is Chie unethical because she's bossy and domineering? Is Rise kind of slutty because the writers think women are slutty, or is she kind of slutty because that's who that character is? Is Yosuke a sexist depiction of straight teen boys because he's homophobic or is that the truth of that character? We hear about how we need 'better female characters' but the solutions proposed only serve to make interesting male characters and feminist Mary Sues.

Speaking of 'if you have a racist character, someone has to call him on it', actually, no you don't. Seeing heel characters get their comeuppance certainly pleases any audience's sense of justice, there are no mandatory story beats. Furthermore, I hate this idea that whatever the story is, it ultimately reflects the writers' politics or agenda. I specifically write characters who have opinions or traits that run counter to my ideals, and rather than just use them as a target, to characterize and understand why they are the way they are. The 'they wrote this character so that's what they think' actually contributes to the kind of character stagnation you see; would you try to write an original female character if you knew someone was going to scrutinize it for any negative traits, and then accuse you of being a sexist because of it? If Lara Croft is Larry Croft, no one reacts to the gruesome deaths or scrutinizes his clothing. Hell, I don't think people would even have reacted to attempted sexual assault, provided it was a male perpetrator and a male victim. We certainly appear to think prison rape is fucking hysterical.

Lastly, just a comment on Star Trek; yeah that movie does not have good female characters. They fail the Bechdel test, as the main inspiration for either them is a man in both cases; Uhura's boyfriend and Whatsherface's father. While watching it I actually thought of that, I wondered if my girlfriend would be able to connect to it at all, since its primarily about the actions of four men. Turns out it worked just fine, because she's less interested in the sex of the character and more interested in their characterization. A small sample size, but it simultaneously argues against the publisher's ideas that "men won't play games that star women" and also feminists idea that "women are kept out of games because there are less female protagonists". Maybe it's not always true. I prefer a good character over a male or female character. Maybe that's not how it is.

I'm still super interested in seeing what Anita Sarkeesian defines as a good feminist character. She doesn't seem to like any characterization that she attributes to 'feminine traits', and she doesn't like it when 'masculine traits' are found in women. I'm not sure there's anything she does like, it seems that no character can remain good if men are interested in it.

The thing to remember about the Bechdel test is that failing it doesn't mean you've made a bad movie, and passing doesn't mean you've made a good one. It's just one interesting, fairly simple measure of female presence in your fiction, and while it doesn't brand any single entity as sexist or misogynist, when you look at the number of mainstream movies that fail it, it highlights the general trend of reducing females to isolated, supporting roles.

Not specifically targeted at you, but I wonder why damsel in distress or any similar trope analysis focuses on the negative aspect as if it's the behavior one should take away from it in their everyday life. An example would be Anita mischaracterizing violence in a game against a woman as if we are being desensitized to it, or we'll ignore it in real life as if it is normal behavior? Why don't we look at something like damsel in distress and take away the idea that if we see someone in trouble, we should help that person out? It reminds me of the terrible kidnappings in Cleveland. Any sane person would cheer the neighbors who helped the women escape and not identify with the nut job who kidnapped them.

@brodehouse: You make some fair points. I think other primary examples of where an authors personal views have absolutely no bearing on the quality of their stories are found in the pulp writers of the 1930's. I love both HP Lovecraft, and Robert E. Howard. Both men were essentially anti-semites, and racist(Lovecraft especially). Lovecraft, when he wrote "Shadow over Innsmouth", was basically writing a very thinly veiled allegory against racial mixing.

I still love the story and the author; even though I understand the disagreeable context to why he was writing it.

The only requirement for a writer's expression isn't the audience, or some nebulous ethical standard. Its to themselves.

Agreed.

And really, the amount of people and pieces of art that are actually misogynistic to the true meaning of the world are extremely small. There are plenty of people and products that are exploitative, or shallow, or sexist... there are comparatively fewer that actually advocate the hatred and subhuman status of women.

Because Worth Reading isn't the place for this, I picked a random spot in the video to use as an example and then this happened:

"Just because a particular event might make sense within the internal logic of a fictional narrative, that doesn't in and of itself justify its use. Games don't exist in a vacuum and therefore can't be divorced from the larger cultural context of the real world. It's especially troubling in light of the serious, real life, epidemic of violence against women facing the female population on this planet.

[facts about female abuse in the real world]

Given the reality of that larger cultural context, it should go without saying that it's dangerously irresponsible to be creating games in which players are encouraged and even required to perform violence against women in order to save them."

Comparing ridiculous in-game situations with serious real world violence would be trivializing, so she just decides to dismiss the in-game context altogether (without stating why this in-game context is irrelevant). Utilizing these now baseless examples of violence against women in video games, she proposes that there is a causal link between this contexual video game violence and real world violence. Except without any good reason for ignoring in-game context, shooting an alien in a video game could be compared to shooting a baby in real life.

So keeping the context, she's suggesting that by regretfully killing a woman because she doesn't want to become a literal monster (the Pandora's Tower example), you're operating on level similar to that of an abusive husband justifying beating his wife senseless because she didn't do his laundry, and after playing the former would be more open to the latter. An utterly absurd connection to make.

@theht: Yea, before that part, I would nod my head at some part, shake my head and roll my eyes at other parts, then she dropped that out there and I stopped taking her seriously.

Tropes vs. Women (the title) is a Straw Man Argument and she then supports her arguments with confirmation bias and stacking the deck fallacies. I expected more from someone with a Master's degree.

While I think her videos actually hurt feminism, but at least they have us talking.

Except we're talking about her and her videos.

Regardless of the perceived quality of the content she creates, I sort of love Anita Sarkeesian because of the improbable amount of butthurt she seems to cause you dorks. Stay classy, Internet.

@ravenlight: I just love this straw man argument that has been created because some users don't want to listen to the arguments but still want to feel good about themselves. It's as if there's a thread running counter to this one where none of the posts exist, yet everyone intrinsically knows that they're wrong and whoever posts them is bad.

She went after games with poor stories that use this trope, 95% of the games she brought up are often considered poor or mediocre at best. I really don't see a problem with giving a character motivation in saving their "daughter" or a "daughter" of some kind. God forbid that was the entire point of the movie Taken. And how she uses Wreck-It Ralph as the example of a woman loosing the man, its a fucking kids film, it was intended for comedic effect, it would've still been "funny" with the woman being eaten but whatever. I just feel that she hasn't given a true, true valid point. Sure this trope gives the character motivation BUT does it give the player motivation is what she should be arguing for. She brought up Alan Wake, I could careless about his wife, I wanted to know what was going on in the universe and how it was all going to relate, I wasn't at the edge of my seat waiting for the conclusion of Alan saving his wife. Few games have I ever had the desire to know what happens between the protag and his trope of a female compadre. Bio Infinite and I do think Elizabeth transcends this trope.

Oh and nice and timely Bionic Commando reference about HIS WIFE BEING HIS ARM! Haven't heard that a fucking thousand times...

@ravenlight said:

feel better now, champ?

@quististrepe: Great bump. You really nailed it. Score one for the internet, bro! High five!

Jesus, this is still going?

Lack of reading comprehension noted. Last post was 18 hours ago, that's not really thread bumping.

So the basis for all disagreement boils down to being afraid. If one dislikes a certain movie actor or a co-worker is that also because you fear him or her?

I dont think that most of us who disagree with Sarkeesian are afraid of her. I for one fully support equal rights for men and women. Women still get paid less than men in equal positions and it is shameful that this kind of a practice is still allowed to go on in todays society.

I just dont think that Sarkeesian is actually bringing anything new or revolutionary to the discussion. The tropes against women are not limited to video games. You can find the same tropes used in movies and on tv.

I just dont get what Sarkeesian is trying to actually prove. What is this series of youtube videos supposed to change? It just seems to be a way for Sarkeesian to earn a living and gain publicity on her way to bigger and better things.

technically it's a bump. necroposting, i believe, is what you're referring to.

That was where I lost it as well. I want to see better writing for EVERYBODY in video games, and women would certainly be included in that group, but that part in the video was just too much. Saying:

Games don't exist in a vacuum and therefore can't be divorced from the larger cultural context of the real world. It's especially troubling in light of the serious, real life, epidemic of violence against women facing the female population on this planet.

Is just as ridiculous as saying:

Games don't exist in a vacuum and therefore can't be divorced from the larger cultural context of the real world. It's especially troubling in light of the serious, real life, epidemic of violence facing the population on this planet.

To suggest that video games are too violent, which I think is really her primary issue with video games in the first place. All I did was remove two references to a specific gender, and that's exactly what she is saying.

As I've said before, she feels that aggression is not a female trait, which essentially leaves only female protagonists from non-violent games as positive female characters. Further evidence of this can be seen in her selection of a Mirror's Edge themed picture to thank those who donated to her kickstarter.

Mirror's Edge features a female protagonist who can shoot her enemies, physically fight her enemies, or simply run from her enemies. The shooting doesn't feel fun at all, as it's pretty much intended to be that way. It's not meant to be Call of Duty or Halo. If an enemy has a gun, you can disarm them. Fights happen with fists, are typically brief, and it's suggested that enemies are knocked down / out so you can continue running for your life. There's no twisting of the neck, or anything else that would suggest a possible death. Finally, there is an achievement for completing the game without ever once shooting an enemy.

In fact, arguably the most effective way you can play Mirror's Edge is to run from every hostile encounter, never touch a gun except to remove it from the hands of an attacker, and only briefly use physical violence when there's no other option.

I actually really enjoyed Mirror's Edge, and I personally wouldn't mind seeing fewer violent games being made myself. I don't have an issue with violent games, though. And I certainly wouldn't say that violent video games are "especially troubling" due to the violence that happens in real life. Again, that's ridiculous.

No, of course not. I was speculating a motive about this particular reaction why people might be so upset by something they really should not be. That's why I specified "this time" instead of saying something like "everytime" or "all disagreement".

You're absolutely right she is saying nothing new or revolutionary at all (at least she hasn't yet), which is part of what I was getting at. The disagreement is not surprising, the virulence to something so mundane is. People really hate this woman, really hate her. Is her clip reels worth what a gazillion pages of comments on every video game forum? Or Sabotaging her Wikipedia? Or creating a browser game where you can beat her up? Or even just posting an update every time she practically sneezes by her critics?

That sort of stuff is not normal disagreement duder. That's all out desperation with a strong emotional investment to see her suffer.

All I can figure her critics are assuming one of two things or both

1) there is truth to what she is saying and they don't want to acknowledge it

2) and/or They are deeply afraid this will make developers change video games in ways they don't like.

Then the level of their dislike for her and/or her video series makes sense.

Really no one would be paying attention to her at all if her critics weren't constantly reminding us about how bad she is. Her critics are doing a better job of proving her point for her than she likely ever will.

The idea that "some people are just too upset about this, which totally proves her point" it's a complete fallacy. If you disagree, tell me if you feel the same after watching this. Wow, they seem really mad. I guess that means that everything that other group believes must be true!

If you want an equivalent for the opposite side of the argument, look no further than "She got how much money from people? She didn't need that much money! This is all a scam!" Both have been trotted out in nearly endless amounts since this started, both are old news, and both are worthless to the topic at hand.

Also, "her critics" are not a fucking hive-mind. People need to stop lumping "her critics" together, as it's also doing absolutely nothing to further the discussion. Either debate the real issues here, or just don't post.

That goes for the same for those dropping in with stupid "is this still going on?" posts, and those who keep posting the same damn response videos that were made as responses to her first video. Stop that.

The post directly above yours--mine, for what it's worth--at least attempts to tread some new ground here. Feel free to reply to it if you'd like. But please, don't continue to regurgitate the same crappy debate points that have been heard thousands of times since this whole thing started.

I think the problem is also that Anita is using a lot of her old stuff for her new videos. For example the already made a refrigerators ep for comics which actually was much better than the stuff she has done before. This is a point I could even agree with.

But her best video is that one XD

NOT SAFE `FOR WORK!!! CONTAINS NUDITY!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=yL0aGv45vGM

WOW just wow^^

I'd post a LINK to that second video--and also give people a warning--as that video features nudity, and people can straight up be fired for viewing something like that from their work PC.

But yeah, "Why can't shady internet sites turn down advertisers who have naked women in their ads, so I can can illegally download my Joss Whedon shows in peace!" does sound pretty absurd.

Note: that's not an actual quote, but it's the gist of what she's saying.

This whole thing has gotten me really down on video games.

Sexism or no, we all seem to agree that video games mostly have shit narratives written exclusively for a shit audience.

Oh yeah totally forgot about the harsh US laws regarding nudity. THX for the advice^^

It is not even about the piracy stuff but for me more about the 13% of woman contributing to Wikipedia thing^^

I'm not sure I'd agree with harsh laws--maybe regarding television--but most workplaces here do have a no tolerance policy for nudity appearing on your computer. I think the reason is because--ironically enough, for this thread--viewing pornography at work, aside from being unproductive, can lead to a hostile work environment. Rather than deal with an endless stream of "oh, I didn't think of this as something that would be offensive" defenses, most companies just forbid any sort of nudity altogether.

My issue is that she seems to have consistently levelled criticism against video games, yet this is a problem which pervades almost all media. In fact, given the relative youth of video games a media type, we've come a long way in such a short time. I think it's perhaps disingenuous to criticise the video game industry when this is a much wider problem.