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

Her latest video is fine, as far as imperfect and skindeep commentary videos on youtube can be. Not really anything special.

And there really shouldn't need to be more said about it. She's going to keep making these videos. I wish she was better at forming and backing up her arguments, and I hope she'll improve over time for the sake of the real underlying issues. But more than that, I hope people who dislike her and her videos would just calm down whenever she posts them and stop giving her more and more attention.

Let some people like her videos if they want to like her videos. If you don't like them and you know you won't like her future videos, just don't watch them. We don't need a big thread for each one.

Yeah I kinda feel the same way. Not a bad series and it actually attempts to discuss tropes in video games (which is something that should be done). However, she claims to use critical analysis but after stating a number of examples that may or may not prove her point, she gives little in terms of actual analysis. She simply states evidence and then gives a shallow (and I would argue fairly weak) argument about how cultural practices are influenced by the media we produce. I think that is why people are automatically turned off by the whole thing. Additionally, she speaks in a extremely matter-of-fact manner. Most academics (and upper-level university students) know that when you have an argument that may contain an opinion-type conclusion, you should always pad your analysis with straight, inarguable facts. While she has a ton of examples, she never explains the null-hypothesis of her thesis.

A well produced series but the promise of deep analysis that she prefaces her video with falls extremely short of anything that can be considered a well constructed argument. In other words, she discusses a topic that should be discussed but in a sub-par manner (if comparing against her promises at the start of the video).

The problem isn't really these sets of videos she's producing which are O-K for the most part if not a little over exaggerated and single minded. Rather it's when you delve into her back catalog and browse through some of her other contentions of sexist behavior in popular culture, that you begin to see how out of this world ridiculous a lot of them are. I'm not going to claim that she is doing these videos (her other work, not the Tropes series) simply for the click views as it's very possible that she truly believes a lot of what she's saying - just that it would be quite depressing if she did really believe Christmas songs are actually written with the direct intent of belittling women as opposed to just doing so in order to get a lot of views on the video.

No she really believes this. You could read her thesis in which she states that woman in media should not be strong or self confident since she really thinks these are only positive male traits for characters. She thinks woman should not fight but rather try to solve conflicts through talking. But again only female characters should be doing these because this is only a positive female trait in her world.

I'd be curious to know how many of the people defending her videos are currently college students or college-aged.

Plenty of people online have mistaken understandings of entertainment, and they don't deserve the attention these videos receive. People maintain her as an icon with their attention given to the videos. Let others check out her videos and maybe even enjoy them. People here and elsewhere don't need to make long threads arguing about her and her videos. As long as they do, they only continue to aggrandize her commentary.

This is quite a good summary of the issues I have with her video series too. One would think that a person with a masters degree would be more adept at constructing an argument but it doesn't appear to be the case.

There's no "but still" here. If you're taking away context and shaping situations to fit an agenda, you can kindly fuck off.

If we're going to research that, I'd be curious to know how many of the people attacking her and her videos are currently middle school or high school students. heh. ;)

Well, that was hard to watch.

Something close to that happens in the movie Jack Reacher--for a moment, anyway--and it is quite a good scene. And yes, subjectivity is everywhere with this issue.

Anyhow, this was my main thought after watching her latest.

Feminist organizations are largely responsible for domestic violence predominant aggressor laws, which basically say this:

http://www.stopvaw.org/determining_the_predominant_aggressor

A “predominant aggressor” is defined in the United States as the party who is the most significant or principal aggressor. Police must determine which party is the predominant aggressor in order that the true victim can effectively seek safety, and so that offenders are held accountable.

A violent assault is one act in a series of controlling and intimidating tactics used by a batterer to attain power and control over the victim. Victims may utilize violence to avert an attack from the aggressor or in self-defense. Thus, the predominant aggressor may not be the first party to use violence in the incident. Batterers may try to convince the police that the violence was mutual and that they are also a victim. If both parties are arrested and charged, there is little possibility that the batterer will be convicted. Research indicates that when mandatory arrest laws are combined with predominant aggressor policies, dual arrests are reduced to 2% of all domestic violence arrests.

In order to identify the predominant aggressor, the police must understand the dynamics of domestic violence. Police must identify which injuries are due to self-defense and which are offensive injuries. The police must also look beyond the visual evidence and consider the context of the act of violence by identifying controlling behavior in the predominant aggressor and fear in the victim. Police must be able to recognize the tactics of power and control.

To determine the predominant aggressor, police must consider:

• Offensive and defensive injuries

• The seriousness of injuries received by each party

• Threats made by a party against the other or a family member or a pet

• Whether a party acted in self-defense or in the defense of another

• The height and weight of the parties

• Which party has the potential to seriously injure the other party

• Any history of domestic violence between the parties

• Prior convictions of assault

• Orders for protection that have been filed by a party

• Whether a party has a fearful demeanor

• Whether a party has a controlling demeanor

• Witness statements

Now, while I'm sure these laws have helped many victimized women--and my mother was abused by her first husband, so believe me I do take the issue seriously--I would also guess that these laws have fucked over more than a couple of innocent men. It's actually part of that systemic gender issue problem that is so frequently talked about in these videos, but it doesn't benefit males.

Imagine this. You're eating out in a nice restaurant when you see a man and a woman start to argue. You can't quite hear what they're saying, but after a bit the woman gets up, slaps the man across his face and says "fuck you, I'm going home!" What are the chances of the police being called? What are the chances of people assuming that the guy did something wrong? What are the chances of someone in the restaurant attacking or physically restraining the women? What are the chances of someone in the restaurant checking on the guy to see if he's hurt?

Now let's reverse that situation. You're eating out in a nice restaurant when you see a man and a woman start to argue. You can't quite hear what they're saying, but after a bit the man gets up, slaps the woman across his face and says "fuck you, I'm going home!" What are the chances of the police being called? What are the chances of people assuming that the women did something wrong? What are the chances of someone in the restaurant attacking or physically restraining the man? What are the chances of someone in the restaurant checking on the women to see if she's hurt?

Here's a hint: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7lfVyyEI70

Predominant aggressor laws CLEARLY put men at a huge disadvantage when it comes to domestic violence law--although like I said, I'm sure they've helped a lot of victimized women--and they are a result of women's organizations asking for laws that help protect women from men.

With this in mind, it seems disingenuous at best for feminists to claim that female characters should be as powerful and physically capable as men, or that it's wrong to write male characters as the protectors of female characters. Good men protect women, and men generally like the idea of protecting women. That concept is all over society, but it seems to only be a problem in fiction, where in a certain respect women can be viewed as less capable than men.

Besides that, in Anita's view, strong female characters often just end up as a "man with boobs" anyway. See her video on the movie True Grit. Her real issue seems closer to the fact that violence is frequently the only way to solve problems in video games--which would give women more agency without making them violent / a "man with boobs"--but that's an altogether different issue.

Didn't watch the first one, didn't watch this one. Just bummed out that there seems to be no middle ground here (not here as in GB, just in general).

@spaceinsomniac:

This shit happens all the time. A guy I worked with a few years ago was attacked by his girlfriend who probably had at least thirty pounds on him. She came in swinging and he eventually had enough. He pushed her off. She called the cops and he got arrested.

There are quite a few other examples of this kind of bullshit I can give, like my best friend being falsely accused of rape, but I'm not interested in going into long woman-bashing rants and arguments with people here.

@truthtellah: Well I'm a stout believer of "I may not agree with what you're saying but I will defend your right to say it." If people want to discuss her it's their right. I was simply making a point that she is either very smart about the direction of her video content or she's extremely delusional and borderline manic about the issues she talks about at length, which is kind of scary.

The worst part about all of this really is that her Tropes series will probably seem very appealing to people that know next to nothing about video games. Anyone with some deeper knowledge about the titles she discusses and the game industry as a whole will see glaring omissions in her research and the completely one sided way in which these games are represented - in some cases getting completely misrepresented. So while her series is largely harmless, it does do a great disservice by painting an incomplete picture for people not familiar with gaming, who will then continue to regurgitate these one sided views onward. Especially jarring is the possibility of this material being used by actual Universities as part of curriculum.

In that context I can understand why a lot of people might be upset by the videos existing.

Wait, what? Manipulating and portraying situations in the light that suits your agenda the best is acceptable behavior now?

Edit: @theht Oh, you were already on this, sorry.

If you're making a distinction between criticizing and attacking, then probably most of them.

Well, I believe that people should have the right to complain about her, but I would suggest that it is unwise and generally counter-productive, especially on a forum such as this.

Yeah, definitely just attacking as far as majority middle school and high school. I imagine some level of the criticism is from that age group, as well, but more likely, the criticism is a lot of college-aged or somewhat older individuals. I would guess unmarried, too, but that could certainly vary. Just pure speculation.

Though, that may have more to do wth the perceived demographics of gaming forums and youtube than anything else.

Why is that exactly?

She is absolutely delusional and manic. She's the kind of person who hears the song 'I Saw Mommy Kissing Santa Claus', and instead of hearing it as a cute song about a lady showing her affection and love for her husband, interprets it as a song about an intruder who breaks into someones home and sexually abuses a child's mother. And then posts an angry video on the internet about it.

She also goes for the 'absolutely everything is sexist' approach. She's stated on her pre-kickstarter videos that women performing a job equally as well as a male in fiction is sexist, because 'the female character should be more feminine and interested in things like motherhood instead' and calls it a Mrs Male trope. But then as soon as a female character is presented as motherly, she goes for the 'why can't SHE be the one doing the work?' angle.

That's not to mention the genuinely offensive sexist viewpoints ("women who portray themselves as attractive or stylish are problematic and are just victims of men!!!") and the baffling amounts of ignoring the majority of cases... like, when a lady-turned-vampire is trying to murder you, it's offensive to show you trying to stop her, because defending yourself against a murderer supports domestic violence! But the hundreds of murderous dudes you kill with no remorse on the way to her, or games where you're trying to save the world instead of your loved one? Nah, they don't matter! It's only bad when it's a girl at the end!

Anyway, before I end up giving a laundry list of other examples of how backwards she is, I should probably stop. Just know that myself, and most other girls alongside me who take a sex-positive approach to feminism, find Anita to be completely damaging to people's perceptions of men, women, feminism, and entertainment.

It's kinda irritating how many times people online have insisted I'm 'misogynistic' for appreciating a stylish and sexy character in a game. I mean... I can't even BEGIN to explain how to point out how illogical that is. "A girl, finding female characters that look stylish and awesome to be SEXY AND APPEALING?! You must hate women you sexist!" Yeah, I don't think you understand what misogyny even is.

(Oh, and just to add to the demographics thing that's currently being discussed-- I'm under 20, unmarried, female, bi. Sure, it's not the most flattering of demographics given I get grouped into the 'angry internet kids' group, but if you look outside of generalisations about peoples ages and marital status, I still don't believe that my views are wrong.)

Yeah just because someone is young means hat you can not talk about this topic in a correct manner. Just because you are not married does mean that you can not discuss this in a normal manner... Seriously... This has nothing to do with age or your status.

Seriously every time you try to criticize her or her believes people almost always try to counter with. "pah you are young, not married or the best one. a white male. " Instead of trying to "point out" while the other persons opinion is invalid maybe you guys should try to find actual arguments about our arguments....

And if someone tries to attack her based on looks or gender etc just ignore them. It is really easy.

@sharkethic: I stated it in a previous comment above, but the general point is that people complaining about her seem to give her more attention than those promoting her.

While I may see a rare mention of her or her videos to promote them, the vast majority of content I ever see about her is complaining. And it feeds her influence. She wouldn't have ever gotten this big without people's displeasure with her, and they continue to sustain her. Giant Bomb users often get close to forgetting she even exists until her next video comes up or someone simply posts to complain that a video not being up yet means she has probably run away with the money. Her public visibility within the gaming community is regularly increased and maintained through the tireless efforts of people who dislike her and her videos.

Here is the thing. We SHOULD talk about sexism in games and how we actually can make storytelling better. But not with example Anita is providing. Anita's whole series is hurting this whole discussion drastically.

I'm actually really glad that it keeps getting brought back up, alongside the amount of people being critical towards what she is saying.

When the Kickstarter first happened, there was almost nothing but praise for what she was doing. Everyone saying that Anita was in the right, and ALL of her detractors were just "creepy rape threat youtube commenters". Amongst the more well-spoken gaming enthusiasts, there was almost nobody speaking out against her, it was either "Support women! If you don't, you're gross! Give her money because she got sexist comments on youtube!"

In the next following months waiting for her first video, the tide finally started to change when people began looking into her past videos. The more it was discussed, the more people saw that she supported gender segregation on public transport, and how often she attacked subjects with zero research ("There is nothing remotely positive about Bayonetta except she's a single mother!").

When the first video was released, the discussions seemed around 50/50 between support and criticism. Now this second video has been released, it seems more like 70% criticism, 30% support. (These are just rough numbers based on what I've read online, nothing super accurate here, but certainly an indication towards 'more criticism than support'.)

In short, the more it's brought up, and the more people look at what she's saying with an intelligent viewpoint, the more people see how wrong and offensive she is. It won't stop her, but it'll certainly make people's opinions change from "support her with all your might!" to "hang on, let's hear what she's actually saying first, and make a rational judgement for myself." When people do that, it's always a positive thing.

The arguments she gives lack context and information with the idea of only providing shocking headlines. We can have a civilized discussion about sexism in video games but not from someone who just wants attention. I cannot believe this was a kickstarter project and how long each video takes to produce.

@darji: @scarycrayons: You're free to feel and express yourself however you like about her and her videos regardless of your age, gender, or marital status. I just thought it was an interesting consideration. @starvinggamer began this line of inquiry when he wondered how many of those defending her were in college or college-aged. So, it certainly didn't begin from trying to dismiss those criticizing her. It's just thinking about the demographics of it.

Just because people on one side of something may have similarities doesn't make their points invalid. People on the other side likely have similarities, as well. And it's simply interesting to think about the factors that may contribute toward how one responds. Of course, nothing is absolute on that, as many things can inspire people to feel and speak as they do, but if someone's going to bring up their guesses regarding one side, I'd say it's fair for someone to wonder about the other side, as well. Regardless of sides on something like this, it's just light speculation surrounding what may make it all tick and somehow maintain this intriguing consistency of responses and interactions.

I would agree that focusing on her videos distracts from the real discussion. Thus why I would suggest to people who don't like her or her videos to stop focusing so much on her videos and instead spend that time and effort perhaps starting a thread really discussing the topic. Whenever it veers off into talking about her and her videos, it only aggrandizes her and derails a meaningful discussion.

Nier does an interesting deconstruction of this entire trope by having the main character be completely defined by his desire to save his daughter/sister and his dogged determination to do so is portrayed as disturbing and destructive, since a) he only makes things worse for everyone around him in the process, b) he completely neglects the girl herself and becomes a literally distant parental figure. While Yonah still kind of exists to be saved, it's presented more as a critique of the plot device, since it's literally the worst thing he could do.

Perhaps, shockingly, there is some grain of truth to the many critics who call her methods and presentation incredibly flawed, and the reason for this over-exposure of hate is this constant misunderstanding between the people that support her for her overall point and the people that are against her because of the form of her arguments.

It really boggles my mind to see a video with the ratings and comments disabled, with almost every discussion of it have a strong vein of negativity, and for it to not cross Anita's mind that "maybe she is approaching this thing the wrong way". She cherrypicks, she purposely misinterprets, she ignores basic elements of game design in her argument. In fact, oddly enough in a series titled Tropes vs Women in Gaming, she spends almost no time actually talking about games as a medium.

So yeah, people have criticisms for her. They are valid criticisms. Sure, some people are just being total assholes because this is the internet (i'll remind everyone that in the actual real world Anita has never been attacked or suffered anything close to that, thankfully). Sure, some people are trying to justify their opinions by attacking things irrelevant to Anita's point like how much money she raised. But when you get this level of genuine criticism from this amount of people this consistently, I feel like there's a point that needs to be considered about what you're doing.

Or she can just keep making videos, sticking her fingers in her ears at any critique and then going on a talk-show tour when 1 in every 100 people with criticisms says something horrible to her online. That works too, evidently.

See I do not agree because if you try to actually find a reason of why someone is saying this or debating you are hurting the discussion. For example I would bet my life that most women who play games and are gamer would mostly not agree with her viewpoints at all.

To give you one extreme example of what I find very misogynistic even its very niche and most people do not even play or know these games. Lets go to japan where you actually can find tons of hentai games which set you in a role of a rapist who rapes dozens of women for points or in which you are represented as a "hero" with good endings making all women your personal sex slaves or getting caught or killed for the bad endings. This is misogynistic on a very extreme level and not a game which features a love interested and that begs to kill you in the end. This is a way of creating empathy and emotion.

For example: If you would imagine you being in this situation. What would you do? Let her suffer for as long as possible or release her of her pain and suffering? What would you do if the hero tried everything to save the person he loves but ultimately can not save her. And even worse she would be doomed to actually destroy the world against her will and kill tons of people for the rest of eternity (To bring up the breath of Fire example) This has nothing to do with sexism or to hold women down and portrait them as a weak gender.

Didn't really care for the video but I wont comment on it (well...aside from ths comment). It's a lose-lose situation and it doesn't even matter. I think she is bringing up some good examples and some bad examples and my stance on the whole thing remains unchainged: It could be interessting. It could be important. I just don't think that she is the right person to do that. She just seems to focused on finding things that agree with her ideas, the videos would hugely benefit from a more neutral person.

@scarycrayons: Now that's an intriguing perspective. I would say that's quite mistaken, but I can absolutely understand how you might get that impression.

From my perspective, I've seen very few people who have defended her initially and then come to be a big critic. I, of course, can only go off my own experiences at various gaming forums, but I would say I have met less than a handful of people who fit in that group. Yet, I would agree that these arguments surrounding her and her videos have shifted over time toward those who dislike her and her videos. But that's not because they are somehow winning some battle of minds. Instead, it's what I was noting prior. The phenomena wherein people who dislike her and the videos she makes actually increase and maintain her public awareness within the gaming community.

Over time, while others have moved on, who do you think have stayed interested in her? Those who dislike her, not those who originally defended her. Thus, as time goes on, these discussions are including a higher and higher ratio of people who dislike her. Not because many are actually being convinced of anything, but because more and more, the only people who care about her enough to make a thread or post a comment about her are people who dislike her.

If people are being convinced somewhere, I've not seen it, but I have definitely seen discussions of her and her videos quickly just become discussion amongst those who dislike her. They're feeding these discussions of her, and if their end is to somehow make her irrelevant, they're actually one of the major forces keeping her at all relevant. I am not seeing old defenders now attacking her. Instead, I just see the same faces that have disliked her before reiterating their dislike every few weeks when someone brings her up, and those who defend her or just don't care about her have continued to move on.

Eventually, there will be another thread just like this, and every single person in it will be critical of her. Not because they somehow convinced those who defended her to become critics, but because critics are simply the only ones left who really care about her.

Geez, so I will never be able to watch this then ... great.

Is understanding not one of the main goals of conversation? The many things which may contribute to someone holding a position are rather important factors to better understanding their thinking and ultimately reaching some mutual resolution. If we only ever consider the plain surface of an argument, we miss the more human reality beneath it. I, for one, would rather consider all of the factors involved in a discussion than limit myself to just the most skindeep impression of the situation. :)

In my experience, I've seen people who have gone from passing interest and support ("Those online bullies are awful, I'm glad she's getting support from gamers"), to outright criticising her work after researching it when it kept being brought back up ("That's what she spent the money on? That's what her old videos were like? They've basically funded sexism in itself!"), and that's a good thing.

But what I really should note is that providing intelligent and reasoned debates about these things are the way to move these things forward.

That's how feminism itself works, after all, alongside any other controversial issues. The reason that women are now allowed in combat roles in the US isn't just because someone decided it. It was because it was hotly debated with reasoning, with men and women highlighting all the flaws, showcasing that laws against people's own choices is a form of sexism, and just because most women can't pass an army fitness test doesn't mean that the ones who CAN should be rejected purely on being female.

Things change from constant discussing, showing the world that there is a very real and very reasonable group of people speaking up against something that was previously just accepted as "yeah that's probably a good thing, don't let women get hurt, nobody wants that".

Yes, I know, Sarkeesian's views isn't on the level of government restrictions, but she is still something that was previously shown as popular and positive for women and feminism, when she is actually really damaging it. People need to discuss this, and the more it is discussed, the more people can see that there's a very healthy amount of criticism towards her.

If you've ever read sites like Jezebel (which I tend to refer to other sex-positive feminist friends as 'the fox news of feminism'), you can see the impact that people like Sarkeesian have. People calling for it to be shown in education as something positive. People calling everything sexist, and then blaming that supposed sexism on "all men". People who honestly think that screaming at peoples faces and shutting down discussions is a good way to further their cause. People who genuinely believe that the patriarchy is immediately responsible for anything they vaguely dislike in their lives.

If it wasn't for people like us discussing the other side of the argument, which is less knee-jerk and more based on reasoning and understanding, the only side you'd hear would be the anti-sex crowd, with these kinds of 'female characters are problematic and support domestic violence!' viewpoints being taught as fact, and news reports showing that everyone supports Sarkeesian and there aren't any detractors because "those sexist people have just moved on!". When people on the other side can keep on debating it, successfully, at least we exist as a very valid counterpoint that showcases exactly why her views are both ignorant and biased to find sexism where there is none, and people understand that there is a very vocal group of people who both disagree with her and can prove why they do.

Wait I think I do not understand this correctly I think. Did you say that by trying to include stats of what kind of people say what they think and why they would think that we can have a deeper discussion? If so yes it would be ok to include that but the moment you try to argue about someones point of view because he is a male or school kid or white you will loose this "advantage" for a much deeper and better discussion. Because then peope try to make your points invalid because you are a certain gender, race or have a certain status.

As long someone is trying to criticize and talk reasonably without attack anyone personally or tries to insult her. Every opinion should count and be considered.

PS: Hope this is understandable even with my bad English skills XD

@scarycrayons: totally agree though I do not know about Jezebel

I agree. People should have reasonable discussions regarding sexism, the industry, and storytelling within gaming. People of opposing viewpoints willing to try to reach a better understanding of where they conflict and how we can still work together to improve things for the future of gaming.

But that isn't happening. At least not with discussions centering around this person and her videos. As remains my point, she is simply a distraction, and she can easily derail any more reasonable discussion. I like her intent(take games seriously and consider the tropes within them) but don't appreciate her execution(flash with little substance, often misinformation or misunderstanding). But she's free to post flawed videos on the Internet. And people are free to ignore them.

Yet, people continue to keep her name around, as though the joy of disliking her is more fulfilling than the possibility of her fading into irrelevance. I wouldn't have even known about her latest video if I hadn't seen angry gamers mentioning it here and elsewhere. But here we are, with people arguing the same things they have the last dozen times. And rarely does it actually have anything to do with what matters.

We need to have great discussions on sexism, the industry, and storytelling within gaming. We don't need to have drawn out arguments over the merits of a youtube celebrity.

I don't think hard stats are that important on this. Just thinking about the possible factors that might play into the arguments is interesting, and by thinking about where someone might be coming from, perhaps through getting to know them better, you are likely to have a greater chance at reaching an understanding of one another.

Ultimately, we are communicating in the hopes of both being heard and possibly even influencing someone else, and when we consider the bigger picture and regard one another as individuals rather than just amorphous arguments, we will often have greater empathy regarding the true feelings and interests of someone different from ourselves.

In case it wasn't posted:

What a joke of a video

This "video game feminist" movement is really hilarious

A complete debunking of her videos:

I still don't know how I should feel about this. On one hand, I feel she's on to something and trying to incite some meaningful discussion. On the other hand, and I'm trying to think about how to say this, it feels like she's sometimes trying to add meaning and depth where it isn't intended or needed.

It feels like I'm back in a goddamn English literature class where the teacher is trying to make us extract shit from books and poems that does not even exist. This series isn't exactly the same as that obviously, but, I mean, I hear stuff like dis-empowerment and "treated as a possession" and blahblahblah and I just feel like she's reaching in a lot of cases. Or, rather, she's interpreting this one thing in one way when it can easily be interpreted as something else.

I dunno, man. I want to get behind this, but ugh...

The biggest problem I have with this video series is that comments are removed so there is literally zero discussion, making her arguments come off as 'this is how it is, here are the facts'... when that's not really the case... instead people are forced to leave comments all over the place on all kinds of sites... which I don't really think helps her cause...

@baldgye: "There is literally zero discussion." *posts in thread with almost 250 comments discussing the video*

I was talking about on the youtube page... there is plenty of discussion all over the place and plenty of youtube video reply's... but the video page is just left kinda blank with that one video in. If your going to go to the trouble of making such a thing about a subject you want people to talk about and acknowledged on some level, removing comments kind of negates that to some degree.

Yeah it would require work to remove spam/troll's and haters.. but isn't that what everyone else who posts an opinion on youtube has to do?

In regards to the video I think her problem seems to more be with poor video game writing, a problem that is probably more systemic than sexism in the video game industry. You only have to look at an given year's biggest 'AAA' games in the last ten years or so and it's some sort of shooting game where you kill the bad guys to win all the things... it's we are in the 80s action movie time period for video games.

Another problem I have is that she is pulling games that come from VASTLY different cultures and then comparing them with American culture and statistics. I don't really have that much of a problem with this, but it undermines her argument to some degree. I think that if she wanted to make this series have any real impact and actual reflect real sexism and not simply poor/lazy writing she'd be more concerning her self with behind the scenes of the game making where these decisions are made and why and then talking with men and women involved with these games.

Domestic violence is a real problem (world wide), but trying to suggest that it's limited to violence towards women is just inaccurate and trying to link video games to domestic violence is as absurd as saying playing GTA will want you to commit crime.

I don't have a problem with her or her video's and I watch them without much complaint and enjoy that this topic is being talked about and that my eyes are being opened up to another perspective on video games that I otherwise would be totally ignorant too. There is another documentary being made that I think will be balanced and more in depth and actually interviews and talks to women who work on video games and also female pro gamers.

Because she will use this in social women studies classes and that is wrong. Everything Anita provides just hurts the discussion. I totally agree. And it is not about a youtube celebrity. Anita is a perfect example of how modern feminism is dangerous for actual discussions. If you haven't done so you should watch this one 1 seminar of Dr. Hoffman i posted earlier.

...and without fail the same videos as before come out "debunking her videos".

This video was fine where I find the attitude that no one can discuss the topic more damaging. The idea that people thinking about ideas is somehow damaging the world is far fetched for women or video games let alone "women in video games".

What a lot of privilege-denying children in this thread. Pro-tip: you can point out and object to badly-skewed gender representations in the media without giving up your man card.

Also, a lot of folks don't even seem to understand what an "editorial" is; the whole point of it is to collect information that supports your argument and present it. Why get mad that she has a particular point of view? Only the most ignorant person doesn't already know how bad women's roles in games are, and Anita is merely collecting them and showing them all at once to underline this. If you don't like what you see maybe don't shoot the messenger.

Here's the money quote from the beginning of the video: "It is both possible & even necessary to simultaneously enjoy a piece of media while also being critical of its problematicorperniciousaspects".

That's what she's asking for. She's not coming to take away your games; she's not going to try to ban any representation of a weak or submissive female, she's merely asking for a broader, more full representation of people in games, in all our variety and complexity.

1. Yeah I am a white male so what? Don't I have a valid opinion like everyone else? Stop trying to discriminate me and my opinion.

2. She said analysis which will be used in class rooms of women study sessions and seminars and for that it is very bad. Every professor would normally laugh at this kind of presentation.

@geirr: @geirr: After watching those 2 videos I don't feel so crazy anymore, I thought she was talking herself into circle jerk arguments at times.