I think the main problems right now are:
- Even though people do understand that such issues in games should be brought up, they wish that it wasn't HER that brings them up because of the constant baggage she continues to get and completely ignores constantly (as described below).
- The whole issue of knicking others' let's play footage without giving credit to them is still out there and prevalent, and she has yet to even address that the issue even exists.
- Her points fall completely apart when she cherry picks everything and uses either examples that are completely out of context, interprets them her own way and describes her views as fact, or misinterprets the games she brings up entirely. If you saw the full context of some of the games she uses as examples to prove her point, you'd wonder if those were the right examples to bring up in the discussion.
- Her more prevalent backers seem willing to let her get away with absolute murder, and bad mouth anyone that even remotely calls her out on anything. There is a difference between vitriol and civil discourse, but it seems as though those backers either fail to see the difference, or try to equate the two in order to silence any criticisms about her, as if to say she is the only one they accept as qualified enough to bring up these topics. They've completely ignored the Santa Monica 2010 speech, they ignore the cherry picking, they ignore the let's play footage plagiarism (for lack of a better term), etc.
- It seems that she, too, has been now viewed as some sort of douchebag (again, for lack of a better term) when dealing with criticisms, as seen when she responds (rather rarely, I might add) to the two people she did on her Kickstarter page. The CNN International interview is a firm example. She doesn't expect anyone to question her at all, and when someone does, she's rather smug and holier than thou about it.
- Her most staunch backers are extremely touchy when it comes to criticisms about her. There can't be any form of civil discourse about these things if it is never allowed to happen. Vitriol from the side that despises her is clearly documented, but when someone uses civil discourse to bring up any of the above points, it's equated as vitriol, and the other side seems willing to do anything and everything to silence that, too, to the point where the one that would've acted civilly is forced to "take the next step" to talk over the nastiness and vicious trolling, which only leads to more issues. Again, they do think these problems are important to bring up and they feel they should be, but they have a problem with the messenger that brought it up. Thing is, no one can actually say that without being viewed as misogynistic, sexist, concern troll (how is that even a viable phrase, I wonder), etc.
With this video here, I have to say that she has a problem identifying set pieces in games. Many of the games she covered were either set in a particular time frame where such behaviors were normal (not condoned, but normal nonetheless), or set in a particular world where that is usually going to be the norm. With GTA, yes, there is a particular element of sexually objectifying women. However, first, think about the world that the characters and the game are set in: the underworld of illegal, organized crime and the rise of someone to the top of a syndicate. We have been privy to believe that such an element is part of that culture. Of course, your moral compass may vary about that sort of thing, but the bottom line is that it's a facet of the way that world is usually perceived when you talk about a male being a central character of a game like that.
Also, especially in open world or sandbox games, you are aiming to create a living, breathing world that at least corresponds to the setting you're trying to create. This means creating people within that world that are simply extras in the game: people that you'd just pass by without a second thought. These would include females that dress conservatively, and those that don't mind exposing themselves more freely, and decide to live free as a direct result. Because of this, part of the consequence of creating a living, breathing world that corresponds to the setting you're creating is that if that setting is something in which you'd expect that world to include, which in many times does include a strip club/brothel/whatever you choose to call it. Again, it's not something that you would be comfortable with personally, but therein lies another key aspect: immersion. Creating that very world is supposed to not only get you to believe that you are actually IN the world, but also to create the feeling of they type of character you're playing, and the type of life you are leading.
Also, in many of the games she covers, she liked to bring up "failure states" and "mechanics" (which I'm pretty sure she knicked from TotalBiscuit, too, since she didn't start using these terms until this video, and he uses those terms a hell of a lot), as if the game should automatically flash a game over screen the second you kill a woman. The first issue is something I'll address in a second, but the other thing is that she fails to bring up morality mechanics in some of these games. If you do something wrong in these games that is frowned upon, then you are viewed as a dastardly person, and if you keep doing those acts, then people are going to have a rather negative reaction to you if you attempt to approach them while viewed as such, such as in Fallout: New Vegas where the townspeople will attempt to shoot you dead. She actually uses footage clips from games in which a woman is killed, and when she is, you either get a dialogue box saying that something has changed from your immediate action, or cops have been alerted to your deeds, and are actively pursuing you. In cases where you're the criminal, she also makes reference to how just outrunning the cops is enough to get away with it, when she is actually condemning one of the key aspects of those games: getting away from the cops. These are games, too, in which the developers have constantly stated that just because they create games with these particular elements in them, it doesn't mean they are actively condoning these lifestyles, and their main purpose is to create a story and a world in which deals with the criminal underworld that goes on.
But that first issue I said I would get to is actually something that has stuck me as constantly troublesome in her videos, and especially this one. That is that, in her mind, she believes that the game should create a different set of rules just for the females in these games. Never mind the fact that they are a fair part of the setting and the game world, as well, but this goes somewhat back to a point I made earlier to individuality having zero discussion in any of these points. It seems as though she has a mind set of what would make a true female, and she believes that anyone that dares to change that one set image is automatically disregarded as being a sex object for a man's enjoyment and nothing more. Never does she bring up that women are just as free as men are to dress how they want, act how they want, and be who they want. Again, moral compasses may vary, but isn't that exactly the point here? That your moral compass might not be the same as someone else? And isn't that the whole idea behind being an individual and a free person? If you're not breaking any laws, and it's your own choice to pursue a particular lifestyle, then isn't that something that you would expect for someone to respect of you instead of being all up in your face about it?
But this is exactly what Anita continues to condemn, and it's a pattern in most of her videos. No woman is allowed to choose to dress sexy, or choose to want to be looked at, or choose to just have a good time, and men are never able to still respect females as human beings if those women actually chooses to use the freedoms that they, too, obtain by being human beings (never mind that she doesn't think serious homosexual relationships do not exist in many of these games, as we've seen that become a growing trend). To her, if you're a male, and you see a female showing off any skin (much less wearing a halter top, short skirts and sandals), then you're automatically going to think with your penis instead of your brain. And if you're a woman who chooses to show off skin, then you're viewed as nothing more than a sex object to her that would've never been able to choose that outfit on your own (a male made you put that on, or you believe you're nothing more than a sex object). Yes, I know what will be said: that she didn't come out and say this outright. But watch all of her videos side by side, as tedious as it may be, and try to tell me that pattern isn't prevalent and isn't implied in a strong way.
I'm sure many are familiar with Maxim magazine, and even though I am taken aback sometimes with them stereotyping what some men might be interested in, one thing has been made abundantly clear to the women they do photo shoots for: every woman that has ever done a photo shoot for them has always said that the guys that do those shoots are very respectful and are very kind to the women that they shoot, and keep in mind the types of poses and clothing on the females you usually see in said photo shoots for that magazine. That should tell you something about how men really are towards women. Of course, you're always going to have the bad guys in the bunch, but such is the way life is, and you cannot let the bad apples spoil the entire bunch. Keep in mind, too, that the woman in question doesn't necessarily have to do the shoot, and choose to go elsewhere (these are pretty famous women that, if treated badly, can choose to go elsewhere and not be hurt by it, at least not for very long).
The underlining factor here is that we should be used to the constant misinformation, conformation bias, and lack of proper research that we usually see in her videos. It's been something that she's done ever since she started on the videos. Problem is that these are things that neither she nor her hardcore supporters will never answer, nor will they even let it be brought up. They continue to believe that if she doesn't bring up these issues, then no one will, and any sort of civil discourse against how she brings up the argument is equated with vitriol, and is treated as such, trying to shut down any civil criticisms about what type of person she is, or if she's actually played these games, or if she's intentionally cherry picking with whatever epithet they try to use to stop such criticisms from being recognized as valid (thereby people never being able to identify themselves as either feminists or for proper representation of females in games without completely siding with how Anita describes where the problems lie). This is while she continues to berate anyone who dares to challenge her beliefs, and paints this image of what a woman that would be acceptable to her would look like, and stereotype how men would react to a scantily clad woman.
Then again, I doubt her hardcore supporters will care. As long as she's igniting the discussion, it's good in their eyes, regardless how vicious, toxic, and volatile said discussion becomes because of how she's conducted herself and how others have supported her throughout this course.
EDIT: Forgot to mention that I have to call her out on one other point: Duke Nukem 3D's stripper joint scene is viewed on another TV Trope page: Epileptic Flashing Lights. There's a lot of strobe going on in the scenes she uses, to the point where whoever listed the game on that trope page called it out. Though I didn't think it was troubling, there's a reason why games warn about photo sensitivity. I don't want to sound overly sensitive about it, but it does seem awful to me that she warns about the graphic nudity and sexual situations and no warning about the DN3D scenes having those seizure-inducing lights included. Just something I thought should be addressed here.
Log in to comment