YMMV Feminist Frequency Discussion

Collapse/Expand Topics

11:39:10 PM Jun 11th 2015
Removed the following entries, as the first doesn't appear to be a strawman at all and the second should probably go on the main page:
  • Strawman Has a Point:
    • The Femme Fatale episode of The Powerpuff Girls featured the main characters, (under FF's influence) refusing to clean their own rooms and giving the Death Glare to a boy roughhousing with a girl. Sarkeesian claims this depiction is disrespectful because women getting disproportionately harassed by men, and doing the lion's share of the housework are Real Life problems, and that the program is whitewashing them by presenting Townsville as unrealistically fair.
    • She makes a similar point with the Straw Feminist group on Veronica Mars as well; their initial activism is against rape and domestic violence, which are actually huge societal problems and are also common sources of activism among college-age women.
08:37:48 AM Aug 16th 2014
Is there any reason why all of the Unfortunate Implications were wiped? If it's because of citations being needed, I could find them and fix it.
08:47:02 AM Aug 16th 2014
If you can find the required citations, then by all means re-add them.
01:04:36 AM Aug 25th 2014
The Mattie Ross one should definitely be put back at least. It had multiple citations and is a case of Sarkeesian's argument being criticized on an analytical level by other feminists (as opposed to ad-hominems, or misogynistic trolls). Since I'm not a mod and can't edit, someone should probably add her commentary on Starfox Adventures and Fox replacing the male Sabre or her fundamental misunderstanding of Super Princess Peach to the Complaining about Games You Don't Play too. Another argument I've seen from other feminists is that her arguments are based too much on inductive reasoning.
02:34:03 AM Aug 25th 2014
You ought to ask here. Can't comment on the validity of these entries, though.
02:46:38 AM Sep 4th 2014
At the very least someone should edit the Internet Backdraft entry for formatting issues.
10:26:08 AM Jul 26th 2014
Did someone collapse discussion on the main page into the current Sacred Cow entry? As it is now it's an incoherent ramble full of switchbacks and needs a complete rewrite. I'd offer a suggestion for how but I have no idea what it says.
10:43:24 AM Jul 26th 2014
That entry looks like an example of Fan Dumb rather than Sacred Cow. It has very little that reads like a Sacred Cow entry, not explaining at all how nobody (for a given definition of "nobody") criticizes her. I would be inclined to ax the entry altogether.
04:46:46 PM Jul 26th 2014
I agree with the axing. To me, it reads like a thinly-veiled importation of drama.
07:05:03 PM Aug 26th 2014
I'm the one that wrote that, since there has been a degree of people who will become very hostile towards any (and I do mean ANY) type of criticism that she gets. It's a very fine line that people draw (for whatever reason, she's become quite untouchable despite some of the issues that she's had, such as the nicking of LP footage without proper credit, not being truthful about her history as a gamer, cherry picking from games without giving proper context to the scenes she picks out, and her affiliation with now toxic Zoey Quinn). This is why the Sacred Cow trope is there. I posted it here, and a mod added it.

Need to be careful about the calling of a total axe because of what I said above, since people will also judge of why you are. Are you calling for it because you honestly think it is a cluster you-know-what of information, or because you're a "white knighter" that doesn't want that information to get out? Unless you're careful about your reasons, you might get lumped into the latter.

A rewrite would be better to make the information clearer to understand how those on her side tend to treat those that even remotely challenge any of her examples, points, attitude, or brings up any of the aforementioned controversies. If it's more of Fan Dumb, then change it to Fan Dumb. But people seeing the call for the axe of the info will just create more of a firestorm to a topic and an issue about a controversial figure that already has enough of it going around. Drama isn't intended, but the issues should be at least addressed.
11:16:11 PM Jul 11th 2014
"The Femme Fatale episode of The Powerpuff Girls featured the main characters, (under FF's influence) refusing to clean their own rooms and giving the Death Glare to a boy roughhousing with a girl. Sarkeesian claims this depiction is disrespectful because women getting disproportionately harassed by men, and doing the lion's share of the housework are Real Life problems, and that the program is whitewashing them by presenting Townsville as unrealistically fair."

I can understand the part about women getting disproportionately harassed by men, and doing the lion's share of the housework are Real Life problems, but the problem I have with this statement is that it doesn't mention the part that the boy roughhousing her was an accident, they were playing catch and when the boy threw the ball too hard the girl fell down, she didn't seem hurt or bothered by it, in fact she was giggling. Also the episode clearly stated that the Professor had pretty much cleaned almost the entire house and that the only thing left was to clean the girls' room. And yet the girls respond by glaring at him when he was just asking the girls to their share of the housework like any parent would ask their kids, male or female, to do. The professor asking the girls to clean their room wouldn't be much of a problem if they were boys, so why is that situation problematic in the first place.
09:56:03 AM Jul 12th 2014
I believe Sarkeesian's point was that in Real Life when feminists talk about these things, they are real issue, while in the show, it is implied that feminists are complaining about non-issues.
03:06:16 PM Jul 12th 2014
Or maybe the show was implying that Femme Fatale's way of complaining is not the way feminists should do and that it will only hurt the cause seeing that is written by the feminist Lauren Faust. Femme Fatale seems to represent the bad apple feminist who uses the feminist issue about the lack of iconic female superheros that is not a Distaff Counterpart or female super villains as an excuse that the Powerpuff Girls should release her and that girls should look at for. She teaches the girls to find oppression in everything, taking somewhat harmless incidents out of context and thing that it was something else. Like the example in the first response above the girls berate professor asks them to clean their rooms for assuming itís a womanís place to clean. Never mind the fact that he just finished cleaning the entire house and only asked them to do their part. And then it was reveled by Ms. Keane and Bellum that Femme Fatale was a hypocrite and never looked out for other females. She robbed from a bank that was owned by a woman, broke the arm of a female police officer, and stole a girl's hairstyle. This made the girls realize that Femme Fatale is not a good person. Just because she claims to be a feminist doesn't mean she actually cares about equal rights. They take her to jail, and learn a valuable lesson about equality. Namely, just because there may still be harmful stereotypes about women, fighting back with violence and general douchebaggery only makes things worse.
07:36:01 AM Jul 14th 2014
None of which has to do with Sarkeesian's critique, which, again, is about by presenting real world issues in a frivolous context. If they wanted to show how over the top and ridiculous Femme Fatale's "feminism" was, the show needed to go further. As it stands, there's a short step from "these concerns are frivolous under these circumstances" to just plain "these concerns are frivolous."

^Not my opinion, but a presentation of my best understanding of Sarkeesian's concerns.
12:23:05 AM Jul 29th 2014
It's frivolous depending on context. If a man makes a woman do all the household chores and none for himself since it's a "woman's place to clean." Then it's serious. If a man asks a woman to just do this one chore and the woman refuses to believing that the man was belittling her, that's frivolous.
01:36:48 AM Jul 29th 2014
Methinks that this is turning into a women's issue debate. We do have a forum thread here that deals with women's issues. The discussion pages are more about the page itself than its topic.
02:46:07 AM May 1st 2014
One suggestion about an addition that I think is due:

A Don't Shoot the Message entry.

There are quite a lot of commentaries that say that, even if Sarkeesian's presentations are flawed, the message she's trying to get across is an important one that must be talked about.
02:53:14 AM May 1st 2014
You'll have to ask here, but it may be better if it's written up better,
12:39:25 AM Mar 8th 2014
06:37:25 AM Dec 14th 2013
edited by
The comment about sexualization in Bayonetta being satire seems, to me, to fall under "Complaining about feminism you don't like." Depending on what type of feminist a person is, the idea that it's satire doesn't matter in the slightest. I'd compare it to the use of blackface in Tropic Thunder. Some people said "It's okay, because it's satire" Other people took the stance that blackface is NEVER okay, even if used as satire. No one seems to claim that the later group is "missing" the satire.

Given that Sarkeesian has been heavily influenced by late second-wave feminism, including radical feminism, which takes a very strict "sexualization is never okay" stance, I don't think it's a legit criticism of the video to say she somehow missed that it was satire. Better to focus on her mistakes about the plotline and characters, rather than including an aspect that is not relevant to her analysis.
08:58:19 AM Dec 14th 2013
Actually, people do claim the latter group is missing the satire element, in Tropic Thunder. You just haven't met them or googled it enough.

And of course its okay to criticize someone for an stance stemming from their childhood. It is part of their argument especially because it's part of what makes their point of view and is thus open to counter argument and criticism.

Its not about complaining about feminism, for most, its about pointing out an oversight. Bayonetta is so saturated with ridiculous innuendo it makes actual porn look like down to earth documentaries. To not acknowledge the satirical element leaves a gaping hole in her arguments against the game even bigger than the plotline and characters.
09:44:25 AM Dec 14th 2013
edited by
Okay, yeah, I googled it again, and found some of the arguments over if the Tropic Thunder satire was missed by some critics (though many of the responses to these complaints DO fall into "Yeah, we saw it. We just think it's irrelevant").

I'm going to skip your second point, because after thinking about it, I decided it's not really relevant. Adiscussion of Sarkeesian's feminist theory vs. contrasting schools of feminist theory and criticism of framework vs. criticism of application is waaaay beyond the scope of this discussion page.

There's a massive difference between saying "She does not address the satire" and saying "she missed the satire." Within the context of the video, it's actually impossible to say for sure which it was. Even your counter here admits that we can only say it was not addressed. BUT, the example explicitly states that she missed it, which can't be proven. So even the satire aspect is kept, it needs to be rewritten. I would suggest rewording it as such (removing Word Cruft and some statements which potentially run into Rule of Cautious Editing Judgment):

Another example is the video game Bayonetta. Not only did she not address the satirical nature of the game, she gave away many hints that she was note very familiar with the game. The biggest one is when she says Bayonetta is a single mother, something that is not true. Bayonetta does play the Action Mom trope, but only metaphorically (the girl she takes care of is HERSELF from the past), while Sarkeesian portrays it in the video as if she is a literal single mom. Made even worse by stating that that's her one and only positive character trait. To be fair, she later rectified and edited the video removing the parts in which she talks about the game itself and left only her complains about the marketing campaign in Japan, which were much more legitimate.

ETA: Sorry, it wasn't taking the note markup properly, so I switched to parentheses.
12:07:57 PM Jul 19th 2013
http://victorsopinion.blogspot.be/2013/07/anitas-sources.html Seems she had some explaining to do, wouldn't ya say?
12:25:02 PM Jun 1st 2013
I don't think she doesn't understand FPS's with regard to saying you hardly see Chell in Portal. I think she's saying that she doesn't show up very much in contrast to characters like the Master Chief from Halo, who shows up in the cutscenes and trailers. I think people scan everything she puts out to try to discredit her, and people have jumped on this for no good reason. She made that comment in the context of vidding and would have been noticing the contrast in availability of third-person shot scenes. People just want to say she's not really a gamer.
09:33:15 AM Jun 1st 2013
This should be either unlocked or cleaned up, it's currently full of complaining about Sarkeesian under the guise of tropes.
01:07:28 AM Jan 21st 2013
edited by EmmaWoodhouse18
Is the lock-out of the YMMV temporary in order to clean things up, or permanent? Because the recent edits by dakinebrah made things more cluttered by re-adding old, wordy edits that had been condensed without losing the meaning. (For example, a) there don't need to be TWO examples saying "not all feminists agree that feminism means promoting non-violence" in Unfortunate Implications, and b) the Internet Backdraft example used to be one line, saying the same thing it does now, before dakinebrah restored old edits - iirc, TVT policy is to put things as one line, rather than bulleted lists, as much as possible.)
08:55:25 AM Jan 19th 2013
I feel like an overwhelming amount of the Unfortunate Implications are just examples of people giving her arguments a surface read and then rejecting them out of hand.
02:01:32 PM Apr 21st 2013
Disagreeing with Sarkeesian's viewpoints and pointing out her factual errors is part of a feminist discussion, and disagreeing with her does not automatically mean that we support or condone the disgusting harassment that she recieved. My particular complaint is her seeming support of a gender essentialist viewpoint, which takes gender binaries as a given, and tends to exclude the GLBTQ viewpoint from the discussion. There are many different kinds of feminists in the world, see here for a rundown: http://www.scribd.com/doc/114209547/Feminist-Legal-Theory-and-the-Rights-of-Women and Anita notably seems to exclude Liberal Feminism from the discussion entirely. She also seems to be of the opinion that some Tropes Are (by definition) Bad, or at the very least, that's what some of her audience is taking away from the discussion.
07:05:20 PM Mar 2nd 2014
I've not seen her videos, but going the faith that the entries present her statements and views correctly they all seem like valid criticisms of bad implications.
02:41:17 PM Mar 22nd 2014
edited by
About the thoughts that she regards female villains or antiheroes as anti-feminist, I thought it was more along the lines of them being poorly written female villains or antiheroes.

If a female character is still a villain or antiheroic, does it instantly make them anti-feminist in the long run? I think Anita was trying to say "If said characters are handled, developed and written poorly, then yes it does make them anti-feminist. But if they are still villainous or antiheroic, but are handled, developed and written well and better, it would have to depend on the character."

This is coming from the mouth, mind and keyboard of a male feminist.
12:51:46 AM Jan 3rd 2013
edited by InsanityPrelude
The Fast One removed this:

  • Hate Dumb: Some of the more extreme examples of the Internet Backdraft against her included some sexist and racist comments and a few even reaching into the realm of threats of death or rape. And by "some", we mean an onslaught of misogyny of such quantity and virulence that it made the mainstream media worldwide take notice.

That seems to have value- it's certainly verifiable. The response was pure Natter, but I don't see why we couldn't keep that part. (I'd put it back now, but I'm not looking to get banned today by edit warring with the admin.)
11:36:45 AM Jan 11th 2013
edited by EmmaWoodhouse18
Exactly. It's not like people are exaggerating; the links show that that was exactly what happened. And this page has an issue with undue weight as-is (about 2-5% of the complaints about the project were the things detailed on the page, 95-98% of it was anti-feminist trolling).

I don't want to be banned either, but I agree with it being re-added without the Natter.
11:47:55 PM Apr 21st 2013
I honestly don't know why it hasn't, myself. It should never have been deleted. Fan Dumb and Hate Dumb, Anita has both, and each seems to have the opinion that Feminism is or should be a hive mind, because it would make the movement so much easier to defend/attack.
05:19:03 PM Jul 10th 2013
Given that I'm a Something Awful user from back when they were TV Tropes' Arch-Enemy, and I have Seen Some Shit, I have a feeling I know why that part got nuked by him.
05:22:16 PM Jul 1st 2012
edited by EmmaWoodhouse18
I'm really concerned how the Rule of Cautious Editing Judgment appears to be used here to slant the page in favor of Sarkeesian's critics (at least, before I made some edits). To me, it's very offensive and potentially flame-war-inducing to characterize a litany of abuse, hateful slurs and even in some cases threats of rape and death as simply "people got mad," especially since the only people who would react angrily to death threats being called out for what they are would be blatant trolls. People with reasonable criticisms wouldn't get angry because they would know that it's not talking about them.

On the other hand, though, I had to remove a shitload of examples from Did Not Do The Research / Complaining About Shows You Don't Watch because either they blatantly didn't fit the trope (being cases where she had clearly seen the work in question, but just had a different interpretation from the troper) or where a Strawman version of her point was presented instead that fit the trope when her actual point did not. Last time I checked, Rule of Cautious Editing Judgment goes both ways - why weren't these edited out as possibly being incendiary toward people who agree with Sarkeesian?

I realize this is the YMMV page, but it still seems like it's mainly people on one side who are being allowed to air their full, uncensored opinions while another is being asked to keep it down lest we make some people too angry.
08:07:38 PM Jul 1st 2012
I agree, especially with the first part, I'm not sure how it could go against the Rule of Cautious Editing Judgment to mention the type of abuse a group received regardless of that group's political stance. And yeah, I was pretty sure that most if not all of those Did Not Do The Research /Complaining About Shows You Don't Watch were strawmanning her.
10:40:33 AM Jul 5th 2012
edited by EmmaWoodhouse18
I think there are some legitimate criticisms in there; the example of Clementine in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind stands out as one where the movie is actually deconstructing the trope but she labels it as playing the trope straight. I think she can be overly simplistic with some of her analyses. But that doesn't change the fact that a lot of the complaints here are people who are butthurt that how DARE she find some movie/show/game I like to be SEXIST, and they're scrambling to find ways that they can dismiss her point by filing it under one of those tropes.
03:16:03 PM Jul 5th 2012
I'm thinking it may be worthwhile to lock this article and let edits come through the discussion page and thread for making changes to locked pages. This creator is extremely controversial and I suspect this is not the last time we'll have problems with excessive negativity.
01:52:59 AM Jul 6th 2012
I am inclined, rather, to cut anything that even mentions the author. If someone wants to readd examples about the show, they can, but anything author-related should be killed.
07:29:47 PM Jul 7th 2012
Except the troll comments are being used to portray the entire group. Sarkeesian herself claims that the comments are troll comments, but representative of 'gaming culture'. I would say it warrants a note. Seeing as most discussion of this topic is into using very broad strokes.
09:16:34 PM Jul 11th 2012
edited by EmmaWoodhouse18
Dr. Shotgun MD, that's simply not true; the example listed a legitimate criticism (as did other parts of the article), and used the word "some" when describing who was making the death and rape threats. But just because they're not the majority or even close to it does not mean we're going to act like threatening to kill or rape someone isn't a big deal. The fact that you think that's necessary makes you the biased one.

@ccoa: Who will have editing privileges, though? I don't think it's fair that those of us regular tropers who've tried to use Rule of Cautious Editing Judgment in our edits here - which have been the majority of people editing this page - are being punished because of a few misogynistic trolls who get butthurt if you so much as acknowledge that rape and death threats are a Really Bad Thing.
07:13:18 AM Jul 12th 2012
Only mods will have editing privileges, but we would be happy to make edits on behalf of anyone, so long as it's a good edit. We even have a thread dedicated to such requests.

It wouldn't be any more work for anyone but the mods, really.
03:34:21 PM Jul 12th 2012
^Well, except for the 1) most people don't know that and b) it takes one more link (across Locked Pages) to get there [grins]
04:37:53 PM Aug 8th 2012
edited by EmmaWoodhouse18
At this point, I'm not opposed to the mods having editing privileges, because I'm getting sick of random assholes deleting everything that suggests that not all of the responses that Anita Sarkeesian has received fall under "constructive criticism." As long as there's some promise that the mods will acknowledge the more abusive, sexist, racist, etc. responses that Sarkeesian has received. I'm not suggesting the mods would necessarily stoop to this, but it's getting frustrating to see Rule of Cautious Editing Judgment - both on this page and on TV Tropes in general - get used to appease bigots simply due to worry over the fall-out, rather than simply to address more legitimate or innocuous forms of disagreement within a particular fandom as it was originally intended. Not all Flame Wars are created equal, and if only mods can edit we won't have to worry about people rage-editing because rape threats are called out as what they are rather than disguised as "criticism."
09:51:06 PM Mar 23rd 2013
edited by darkpowrjd
There's also the issue of people thinking that the constructive criticism IS Internet Backdraft. Some supporters have gone out of their way to silence critics of hers. Though her supporters should have a right to say their mind, that doesn't mean she should be a Sacred Cow. Though some believe that she disallows comments on her YouTube videos because of the Kickstarter responses, others think she is actively trying to hide that some people have legitimate complaints about what she says. Unfortunately, there's just as much Fan Dumb about her as there is Hate Dumb, though no one can separate the Backdraft from the constructive stuff. Not much fairness with the sides can happen until we acknowledge that some are believing she is the Sacred Cow.
Collapse/Expand Topics