@dylangw: I still feel sympathetic towards Anita Sarkeesian, only because a lot of people who hated her hated her because they refused to believe a woman actually played games, and ranted about her critique without watching any of her videos, only about what they assumed she said in them. I have no issue with people disagreeing with her now, as long as they do so respectfully, without attacking or threatening her (or anyone else) and after actually watching all of her videos.
I've watched all of her videos including her non-video game related ones; and I agreed with Patrick when he said "let's just see what she has to say first". I waited to see what she had to say and it was a lot of nonsense like her previous work. I believe lots of women play video games (they exist on this very forum) but Anita is probably not one of them; hence the video where she says "I would love to play video games but I don't want to go around shooting people and ripping off their heads and it's just gross". If she were a gamer, if she had looked into the hobby at all, wouldn't she know enough to realize that isn't an accurate reflection of games whatsoever?
Source: http://youtu.be/Afgtd8ZsXzI
It's weird to me that the people in the press who came out to support her have been silent on this news; surely they have seen this video where she says she doesn't play games? I don't care if she were male or female; It seems reasonable to question her credibility given that video. Yet they act like it never happened.
My position is that Anita doesn't speak for everyone; there is no "women's perspective"; there are as many women's perspectives as there are women. The so called 'social justice warriors' represent only themselves, and there's no reason the industry should change to suit their preferences. 'Social justice warriors' have a way of turning their personal likes and dislikes into a 'social issue' or a 'systemic problem'; when the former is replaced by the latter, then it means everything ought to change to suit them. It's the attitude of "I don't like something and things should change to suit me"; but because you can't just say "I don't like X" you have to call it a "social issue" or a "systemic problem" which makes the cause sound noble instead of entitled. If you have an idea for a game that isn't being made then by all means go make it; if there are enough people who want to pay money for it then it will succeed. This seems simple enough to me; but the problem for a lot of 'social justice warriors' is not that they don't have enough stuff to play; it's that they see a problem with the entertainment everyone else is enjoying; and it needs to be changed for their own good. It's not that Anita wants more games that appeal to her; it's that the games other people like are "problematic" and need to be changed or else society will continue to be damaged in her eyes. There is something condescending about that.
@nodima: I had no idea Jeff turned the Dsiware Wiiware releases into it's own podcast...I'd listen to that. I could listen to a whole podcast of "hello small businessman" ads as well.
@kentonclay: this video generally represents my views. It's about the damsel trope in particular but I think it can be applied to these issues generally.
Honestly it was never Garnett that made 1up Yours great; it was the other hosts like Shane Bettenhausen and John Davidson. The quality of a Garnett podcast has always depended on who was along for the ride; and the magic of 1up Yours has never been matched.
@kentonclay: I want to see more diverse characters and story-lines in games as much as anyone; but what gets created is a product of two things. 1/ the market; and 2/ people's desire to create stuff. If you have a problem with the games currently being made you have two options. 1/ buy games you want to see more of; and 2/ make your own game and see if people buy it. There's no reason why game creators should change to suit the tastes of people who want to see a particular representation of women; as long as there is a market of people who like things the way they are and there are creative people who want to continue making that content. There are plenty of things I'd like to see more of in games; but I don't think the industry should change to suit my preferences. I would love to see more female protagonists in games; I bought Beyond Good & Evil and Mirrors Edge on day one, but games with female protagonists rarely sell well as those games clearly demonstrated. If people do not want to buy games with female protagonists or designers are not inspired to create female protagonists then there's no reason the industry should change. The types of games I'd like to see more of are probably a lot like the one's Anita Sarkeesian would like to see more of; but I don't think the world should change to suit my preferences.
For instance, some people claim the recent Tomb Raider is sexist, and that is just an absolutely ridiculous claim, considering Lara seriously kicks ass in that game and is a very strong character on her own right. There's also a lot of Japanese games that get a lot of heat for being sexist, and to an extent I agree, but you got to remember that the culture in Japan is a LOT different than it is here, and that kind of media isn't 'wrong' where they live. It's not a great excuse, of course, but it has to be taken into consideration.
but isn't it kind of silly that somehow we've trained ourselves to think that gender-typical characters are sexist? In other words, if a female character is weak or sexy, she's a sexist character. In order for her to be a 'positive female character' (whatever that means) she must be strong and relatively non-titillating to the average heterosexual male. The suggestion is that if a character is physically weak and attractive to the average heterosexual male then she is a 'negative female character'. This has always struck me as odd, because there are important women in my life who are both sexy and will cower at the site of a bug; at which point I will be called upon to squash it. They have gender normative traits and hobbies; surely there are women in your life who have traits stereotypical of their gender as well. Despite this, we don't consider these real women to be 'negative female characters'. Underlying the phrase 'positive female character' is an attack on women who happen to fit gender stereotypes.
I'm sorry, did you just start your argument off with the assertion that women are, typically, sexy fragile blossoms or some shit? Do you only know just like 3 women in real life or...? Also no one considers actual women to be 'negative female characters' because they are living, breathing people instead of fictional.
I think I may have used a poor choice of words; "stereotypical" rather than "gender-typical" might have been better. There are as many types of females as there are males or other human being. This is exactly my point; there are women in the real world who are physically [or mentally] weak; and also sexy or intensely sexual. In real life, I don't consider these women to be 'negative'. Yet, in games, we've somehow managed to convince ourselves that the only 'positive female character' is one who is physically and mentally strong and devoid of sexiness or sexuality. Female characters with large breasts are called out as 'negative' yet in real life I don't consider women with small breasts to better than women with big breasts. Similarly, I don't look down on women in real life who happen to be emotional; easily scared or any characteristic that is considered sexist, misogynistic or stereotypical. If I can care for and respect women with these traits in real life, why should we have such a narrow idea of what constitutes a 'positive female character' in games? Surely characters who defy gender-stereotypes aren't the only 'positive female characters'. My contention is that if you're going to relegate a certain set of traits as 'positive' then you are by necessity relegating the opposite set of traits as 'negative'. I don't think that's fair to women who happen to have those traits.
Why do people in the same job earn more if they have a dick than if they dont? Why is it that the only profession that women earn more than men on average are the Porn industry, and strippers?
there's actually considerable research done on this; very little of the pay gap is a result of discrimination. 5-7% of the gap may be due to discrimination, but we don't know for certain. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap_in_the_United_States
The second question is simple; there is huge male demand for female porn stars and strippers, but a scarcity of women who will perform those jobs without high compensation. In contrast, there is very little female demand for male pornstars and strippers, regardless of whether men would be up for the task.
Log in to comment