Let’s Talk Feminism and Anita Sarkeesian

There is a lot of talk in gaming news about feminism. This term is somewhat ambiguous. It is a group of people that are thrown into a box. However, like most boxes that we shove people into, one size does not fit all. Over the next few paragraphs I’m going to be break down the two major side of feminism (gender vs equality), and address some troubling point that gender feminist are doing to the gaming industry.

When someone like Anita Sarkeesian says she is a feminist, it is true, to a certain extent. Feminism is not cut and dry. There is more than just one type of feminism. A more accurate description of Anita would be that she is a third-wave feminist. What does that mean? “Third-wave feminists believed there needed to be further changes in stereotypes, media portrayals, and language to define women. “Third-wave ideology focuses on a more post-structuralist interpretation of gender and sexuality. In "Deconstructing Equality-versus-Difference: Or, the Uses of Poststructuralist Theory for Feminism," Joan W. Scott describes how language has been used as a way to understand the world, however, "post-structuralists insist that words and texts have no fixed or intrinsic meanings, that there is no transparent or self-evident relationship between them and either ideas or things, no basic or ultimate correspondence between language and the world"[4] Thus, while language has been used to create binaries (such as male/female), post-structuralists see these binaries as artificial constructs created to maintain the power of dominant groups” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-wave_feminism .

Another type of feminism is the equality feminism, a term coined by Dr. Christina Sommers in her book, Who Stole Feminism. Equality feminism is related to first-wave feminism, which is individual feminism. “Sommers contends that ‘Most American women subscribe philosophically to the older 'First Wave' kind of feminism whose main goal is equity, especially in politics and education’. However, Sommers also argues that equity feminism is a minority position in academia, formalized feminist theory, and the organized feminist movement as a whole, who tend to embrace gender feminism.” – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equity_and_gender_feminism

Gender feminist view themselves as victims. ‘Sommers argues that gender feminism characterizes most of the body of modern feminist theory, and is the prevailing ideology in academia. She argues that while the feminists she designates as gender feminists advocate preferential treatment and portray ‘all women as victims’, equity feminism provides a viable alternative form of feminism to those who object to elements of gender feminist ideology.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equity_and_gender_feminism. A perfect example of this is when Anita is showing Hitman Absolution. In her gameplay clip, Agent 47 is recklessly killing these stripers, and she is stating that the women are objects and being acted upon. However, equality feminist would point out that these women are equal with the men. You can murder and drag them anyway you want and that is equality. Both the dead men and women are objects. They are both handled the same way. See the difference? "2013: when the gender of the mangled corpse trumps the fact that IT'S A MANGLED CORPSE. #youvecomealongwaybaby" Ryan Davis https://twitter.com/taswell/status/291303440196464640

"My complaint with feminist research is not so much that the authors make mistakes; it is that the mistakes are impervious to reasoned criticism. They do not get corrected. The authors are passionately committed to the proposition that American women are oppressed and under siege. The scholars seize and hold on for dear life to any piece of data that appears to corroborate their dire worldview. At the same time, any critic who attempts to correct the false assumptions is dismissed as a backlasher and an anti-feminist crank." - http://chronicle.com/article/Persistent-Myths-in-Feminis/46965#sthash.bOuVjvr6.dpuf People like Anita cherry pick their arguments for a confirmation bias of her straw man argument of tropes vs. women. Crying wolf, false assertions, and hyperbole undermine feminism, and that is just what she is doing.

Why do these reckless claims have so much appeal and staying power? For one thing, there is a lot of statistical illiteracy among journalists, feminist academics and political leaders. There is also an admirable human tendency to be protective of women—stories of female exploitation are readily believed, and vocal skeptics risk appearing indifferent to women’s suffering. Finally, armies of advocates depend on “killer stats” to galvanize their cause. But killer stats obliterate distinctions between more and less serious problems and send scarce resources in the wrong directions. They also promote bigotry. The idea that American men are annually enslaving more than 100,000 girls, sending millions of women to emergency rooms, sustaining a rape culture and cheating women out of their rightful salary creates rancor in true believers and disdain in those who would otherwise be sympathetic allies.

My advice to women’s advocates: Take back the truth - https://time.com/3222543/5-feminist-myths-that-will-not-die/

Why is this important? Because when we talk about equality (again a vague term) they are not the same idea. Equality feminism wants women to have greater voice. I think we can all agree that is a good thing because women are awesome. We should want more women in all aspects of gaming. We should want women represented in academia, science, and politics. We should want women to choose for themselves what is best for them and remove any barrier that hampers them from doing what they want.

I guess my point is I fall into the equality feminist group. I want my wife and daughter to be able to choose for themselves what is best for them rather than some cabal of women deciding what is best or is not best for them. If my wife wants to play Hitman Absolution that is her choice, not mine, not Anita’s, but hers. Let people create what they want, and if you do not like it, then let someone else enjoy it.

Women are damn awesome. Let us not limit who and what they are able to do with themselves.

I think this would be more honestly titled "Let's talk about Sommer's MRA affiliated definition of feminism", "Here's what Sommers thinks about 3rd wave feminism" or "Let's attack third wave feminism while throwing out tired cliches about playing the victim card" but whatever. Have fun.

Also it's gross that you're using an RD quote as support when he can't speak for himself.

Ohhh, so now we don't like Anita Sarkeesian because she's undermining feminism! Got it.

When the time comes, can someone please let me know what next week's reason will be for disliking her? I'm doing my best to keep up here.

The l4w don't go around here, l4wd0g.

@l4wd0g:

Well researched and thoughtfully done sir! I disagree, respectfully.

Third-wave, post-structural feminism need not be a victim game. The fact that Anita exists clearly proves it's about speaking and acting out, being a forceful subject, rather than it is simply whining. She's doing something. She's deconstructing and criticizing, not complaining.

Indeed, as I read her arguments, they lie not in fallacies, but in deconstruction of harmful norms. The strippers being dragged around illustrated, as well as much of that video, the disturbing possibility space. While those deaths are not necessary for progression, events like the horrific brutalization of female prostitutes in Red Dead are unavoidable and recurring. The argument that games using abuse against women as a gritty afterthought is wrong--that argument works. Her evidence works.

Here's the problem: "Let people create what they want, and if you do not like it, then let someone else enjoy it."

Right there, you are equating criticism to censorship. That's incorrect. Any art can and must be criticized for it to be legitimate art--it's how the whole thing works. Anita claims encouraging, forcing, or even allowing players to live in a space built around the brutalization of background women is wrong and developers should stop it. That's not censorship! Censorship would be her becoming elected into office, fighting for a law blocking any such depiction, and winning. Censorship is forced action. Anita is asking for thoughtfulness and intent.

Because that's the thing--too much of this is unintentional. Developers were and are unaware of the implications of what they make. Becoming educated about what messages and ideals your art generates is a necessity in being an artist.

One of the best examples: Look at Saints Row. She uses 1 and 2 as examples in the video because they required you to deliver "hoes" like cattle. But 3 and 4 aren't in there. Why? Because Volition figured it out. They went for equality and fairness and humor without abuse in 3 and 4. They went feminist. Those games are better than 1 and 2! There is no danger here.

Equity in pay and opportunity is fantastic. Keep working toward that. But do not accept thoughtless art for the sake of freedom. Fight the carelessness.

Choosing to discard his opinion based on something irrelevant because it doesn't line up with your own views. I'm not sure if this post was serious, or intended to exemplify some of the behaviors he was talking about. Good job either way, I guess.

Emphasis mine. Using that quote is manipulative, especially considering this community.

This part. Please, for the love of God, people complaining about censorship need to read this part. Criticism is an important and valuable part of art. Censorship is when a governing body declares that some ideas cannot be expressed and if expressed, will be punished.

I agree with you duder. When viewed the same way as race it becomes very similar in tone. Are women treated the same as men? No. Even if the numbers are fabricated and need to be criticized and scrutinized the fact of the matter is that women still do not have the same opportunities as men do in this world. The average salary of a woman in the same position with the same qualifications as a man is lower. Now there is debate as to how much lower that is and while we should not inflate that number and should report it as accurately as possible the fact that it exists is still a problem. We have come a long way in improving the rights of woman but we still have a long way to go.

However, even though I treat women the same as men and think all men should I don't necessarily view them the same as men, and I don't think that is a bad thing. Biologically, psychologically, and sociologically there are differences between women and men. It's because of these differences that I enjoy getting the perspective of women on gaming. It's because of these differences that I enjoy talking to women about politics or ethics or even relationships. Our viewpoints in life are informed by a myriad of factors and one of those is gender. Having more women in our industry benefits men because they can offer us a different perspective and challenge some of our pre-conceived notions.

Its a strange dichotomy but the world is a beautiful place not because everyone is the same but because we are different. Whether it is because of our race, age, or gender we all see the world differently and contribute to it in different yet meaningful ways. The fight should not be to view women as the same as men but to treat them the same way.

How is it irrelevant that this isn't a discussion of feminism, it's a hit piece on third wave feminism solely from the perspective of Sommer's?

Best. Post. EVER.

Modern feminism, much like the modern civil rights movement, trades on the idea of perpetual victimhood. It's mutated from the pursuit of equality to the pursuit of special privilege, which does more harm to the groups they claim to protect than good. It engenders animosity toward people who would otherwise be completely sympathetic with the cause of equal rights.

We see it now in the proliferation of far-right ideology, in the further popularization of Rush Limbaugh's repugnant term "feminazi," People are distancing themselves from feminizm period because the modern academic definition is more in line with misandry than traditional feminism. It's getting to the point where even other women are distancing themselves.

I have seen some of her videos, is like that thing of violence in video games cause real life violence type of narrative right? but with misogyny and rape, at least that is what i get from it, which have no real data to back it up. Anyways talking about this feminism thing, from a prospective of someone that was born and currently live in a south american country, we really don't have that type of movement here, we have law, and its clear that equality is present for both genders in all aspects of life.

So i'm curios, why so many definitions, movements and groups on this subject ? is that necessary? just asking.

Wait. Let me get this straight, because people are angry it means feminism is the problem?

I was going to reply about how I thought the OP is some dumb shit, but I feel like this guy agreeing with the OP says more than I ever could.

This. So in addition to "not being a real gamer" she's also "not a real feminist." Pretty soon the internet super sleuths will uncover that she's actually a lizard-man trying to distract us from learning the dark and secret truth about our society. Who says Anita's analysis even needs to fall within the definition of "feminist" in order to be valid? There are multiple splinters of any given analytical theory that academics regularly apply to a given subject irrespective of whether it's the "right" theory. Her arguments are well-made, her evidence picked to support them. The criticism that "she's cherry-picking games and ideas to support her argument!!!" is the essence of an argumentative essay. Of course she's choosing what to highlight and omit, that's the point. Any academic paper does the same thing.

Yo dawg, I'm gonna need you to point out where Anita Sarkeesian says words to the effect of "Hitman Absolution should be banned". In fact let me go right ahead & directly quote Anita from one of her own videos, Women as Background Dressing: Part 1, "As always please keep in mind that it is entirely possible to be critical of some aspects of a piece of media while still finding other parts valuable or enjoyable."

Also "When someone like Anita Sarkeesian says she is a feminist, it is true, to a certain extent." is pretty misleading. Just because you happen to not like third wave feminism doesn't mean it is true "to a certain extent". It's true that Anita Sarkeesian is a feminist. Period. Case closed.

Otherwise, I essentially agree with Kierkegaard's critique of your interpretation of events. Especially regarding you confusing criticism (legitimate or not) with attempts at censorship.

Not sure who you are agreeing with? There is no fight to view women the same as men. Inherent differences are inherent. There is a fight to remove blatant and dangerous stereotypes in games if not used for some useful purpose.

Oh it does not! Do not blame ignorance and bigotry on those it's aimed at--Feminazi is not proof feminism is polarizing. It's proof Limbaugh has a sexist agenda.

Criticizing art for dangerous portrayals, choices, stereotypes, and norms is not perpetual victimhood. It's trying to make fewer people feel attacked and belittled in the world. It's trying to end victimhood itself.

Your perspective requires a cynical approach where social justice is about keeping people mistreated so the movement can stagnate and complain. That's incredible. And it's wrong. No real movement is about keeping things the same. That would be asinine.

@yukoasho: None of that is true. Modern feminism has given us the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, expansion of contraceptive care and abortion rights, rape prevention on college campuses, maternity and paternity leave. I suspect you have a very skewed view of what feminism is in the real world. People on the internet tend to see the far fringes of the movement and teenagers on tumblr who are exploring their political identities.

Glad the dudes who never heard the word "feminism" until it was applied to video games are here to take back the movement. Thank god.

This may well be true, I will admit. Being on the internet probably hurts more than helps our view on the world. It's actually kind of like gaming journalism's trend toward the negative. I wonder if the real issue isn't a corruption of feminism so much as the lunatic fringe being given far, FAR more attention than they would have pre-Internet.

That would actually be a very interesting study, seeing what a group of people heavily involved in social media think of political issues VS people who aren't as "connected."

You know who generally gives radical feminism the most attention? People looking for reasons to shit on feminism. Look at the tumblr in action subreddit, look at any MRA site, look at conservative news sites, etc. Hell look at stuff like the 4chan FreeBleeding hoax that everyone with an axe to grind about feminism ate up even though it was obvious nonsense.

What's a battle?

Yeah, pretty much. "Feminists sure do complain a lot. You know, just like the damn blacks."

There's so much encrypted horseshit in all of these "critiques" of the practice of analyzing gender representation in media, but when decoded, it's clearly people trying to discourage everyone from trying to have a serious conversation about media in relation to social issues. This will of course result in the preservation of a status quo which is unsatisfactory to a lot of people. The OP is just a call for everyone who wants to see video games change to turn off their brains and shut up, cloaked in an insincere concern for how critical media analysis from a woman's perspective might undermine feminism's efficacy in achieving equal rights by scaring people away. I think people call that "concern trolling."

...good thing that Sarkeesian woman is just a gal with a camera and some video editing software, and not a dictator or psychic mutant or something - you know, someone with the actual power to force their will onto others.

@l4wd0g: I thought the whole point was that women where the background decorations. I agree that the dead body gender doesn't matter, but the fact that it was strip club with female strippers. At least I think, correct me if I'm wrong I've have never played the Hitman games.

"Let people create what they want, except for YouTube videos that differ with my point of view, they should shut up!"

They are, and that is the point. There also isn't an easy solution besides not doing it, you can't just also have dude strippers or have it in a dude strip club cause there isn't the history of objectifying dudes in that way.

I've come around on Anita to some extent, but I don't get that "I don't like games, I'm not a fan of games" (paraphrasing) video. Someone please explain it to me.

I think it's really uncool to use Ryan's tweet like that. Shame on you, @l4wd0g. He'd probably be mortified to be erroneously attached to a post like this.

People around here should know better. I'd use some far stronger language about how this makes me feel, but that would probably be well against the rules.

The problem is that, whether true or not, it's becoming the perception that the gaming media is colluding with radicals like her, and when people in the gaming media act like @chrissedoff and use any opportunity to frame people pointing out a problem with this sort of "activisim" as misogynistic or racist or what have you, that the discussion goes away from legitimate issues (lack of female employment, online harassment, things like that) into this stupid, tribal "us VS them" nonsense, with the "them" group growing until only the truest of believers are left in the "us category, and fuckall gets solved.

Anita Sarkeesian is far from radical, also let's not pretend a lot of peoples problems with this "activism" aren't actually misogynistic and racially motivated. We can see that in a lot of the threats put out, the videos that sparked this (5 guys), where the youtuber spits out "SHE FUCKED FIVE GUYS" many times throughout with the most venom he can muster, and even in articles like http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/09/01/Lying-Greedy-Promiscuous-Feminist-Bullies-are-Tearing-the-Video-Game-Industry-Apart are being held up by the pro-gamergate community. The slut shaming in the title is misogyny 101.

You're making the same mistake she does - equating the worst of the fandom to the entirety thereof...

And yes, when the focus shifts from equality to special treatment, that is radicalism. The "social justice warriors" aren't doing anything to help the causes they tell us they care about us.

I love how you criticize people for trying to frame the debate in their favor, literally in the same sentence that you yourself try to frame the debate in your favor, well done.

You've literally defined women and minorities criticizing how they're portrayed in media that they mostly don't control as "pursuit of special privilege." Drop the siege mentality and engage with the conversation by addressing critique on its merits. Declaring there to be no room for critique from a gender or racial perspective because it reminds us of our differences is not a rational position; it's just scolding people for not accepting and internalizing dominant tropes and shutting up.

...and less than one page in we've got arguing, borderline personal attacks, dismissing entire groups as "social justice warriors", using an old Tweet of Ryan's out of context, amid a host of other problems. That's about enough for tonight.