TV Tropes Org
site search
Feminist Frequency back to reviews
Comments
Didn't like to revisit this subject because of the stuff that happened in my other review. However due to the YMMV page being locked for obvious safety reasons, I might as well post this here. This is kinda rather serious thing she has done especially since she herself was a victim of cyber bullying.

Dude Not Funny: Anita liking and posting on her blog a murder fanfic some fan made wherein Anita kills Randy Pitchford on the justification that she didn't like Aliens Colonial Marines. A Torture Porn fanfic which would technically fall in the same category of the game wherein people would punch her face.

Anita's blog comment:"Apparently this Fanfic a la carte tumblr creates short 1000 word stories based on user submissions. Someone seems to have requested a fanfic about me and while itís certainly both surreal and bizarre, I think I kinda like it."

Yeah, I don't know if doing this on a review page was appropriate, if I will get comments against me, if it will get flagged and taken out, or worse. It's one thing to steal completely free Let's Play videos to make her own videos that were funded by alot of her supporters, it's another thing to do this thing when she herself was a victim of such douchebaggery.
I'm not going to flag this, as I agree in principle with what you are saying. But don't you think it'd be more appropriate to put a post about this in the New Media section of the forums? That seems a more appropriate venue for this sort of thing than reviews.
comment #20670 Nemo 16th Aug 13
Sorry. Kinda acted on impulse due to the subject matter at hand without looking if there was a more appropriate place to state this. It's kinda really serious so I thought this might be the best place to say such things. The YMMV page has kinda been locked for apparently forever and the its discussion page has little to no activity.
comment #20684 Elfkaiser 16th Aug 13
I used to admin a Halo fanfic site. I had a couple fanfics made about me—in the sense that there were characters with my name and some basic characteristics but were complete caricatures—in which I engaged in a bloody deathmatch with the other admins. It was stupid and silly, so I didn't mind and accepted it as honoring my Internet presence, but I would be really offended if someone wrote Cupcakes about me because someone didn't like the way I conducted myself online. I consider the "Punch Anita in the Face" game equivalent to Cupcakes, but the weird Spider-Man story is just a silly cartoonish caricature akin to the fanfic casting me as a NEET loser who gets killed by another admin and with my last breath declaring my love for a video game character. It's not Torture Porn. Dude, calm down.
comment #20986 nogard8910 3rd Sep 13
I've seen these complaints and the allegations of hypocrisy floating around quite a bit (though thankfully not often in the review section, where it doesn't belong). I am astonished that I live in a world where people seriously discuss comparisons of punch-Anita-in-the-face simulators and a fanfic about Anita double teaming with superman to kill a game designer.

No, if you listen to what Anita actually says, she isn't against violence in story telling in and of its self. She is against harmful stereotypes being propagated through story narratives. Basically, there is a difference between joking about brutalizing women (which is a thing that happens all too often in fiction and real life) and when someone produces a rather unconventional story in which a comic version of a woman kills a cavalier bloke over a video game (which is altogether more uncommon).
comment #20989 maninahat 4th Sep 13
Video game designers get death threats over games. Look at the response to Mass Effect 3, Dragon Age 2, and many others. Just because it's violence against a group in a different circle, doesn't discount it. For more examples: http://www.polygon.com/2013/8/15/4622252/plague-of-game-dev-harassment-erodes-industry-spurs-support-groups
comment #20990 fenrisulfur 4th Sep 13
It's not that it is a different circle - the difference is in the intent and the execution. A casual death threat is a frightening, troubling thing. Celebrating violence against a person who is receiving death threats is a frightening, troubling thing. Creating a heavily comic scenario in which a heavily fictionalized figure is killed in a ludicrous fashion for the silliest of reasons is not really a troubling thing. Celebs needn't fear for their lives after watching themselves get killed in an episode of South Park.
comment #21001 maninahat 6th Sep 13
The punching simulator had big flashing cartoon letters, a fake falsetto voice, and used bad photo shop effects. Does adding spider man (not even in the pitchford scene) change that much? If something is to be actually comic, where is the joke? In both cases, the joke is "now they're beaten badly/dead." In South Park, as far as I know, there's actually more going on for the joke than someone being murdered.

Pichford also pissed a lot of people off with colonial marines and there was a massive backlash including people threatening his life on Twitter. They may be silly reasons, but the threats still happened.

I find both to be where someone tries to throw in ridiculous things to try covering something otherwise antagonistic.
comment #21002 fenrisulfur 6th Sep 13
"The punching simulator had big flashing cartoon letters, a fake falsetto voice, and used bad photo shop effects. Does adding spider man (not even in the pitchford scene) change that much?"

I would say it does, along with the sum of all the other things (Borderland gun throne, a husk of Duke Nukum, the presence of an enslaved Mr Burke, Anita as an action heroine) added to make the scenario as absurd as possible and divorce it from reality. Doing that takes it a few steps away from the more mean spirited punching simulator. Plus there is that whole concept of "punching up versus punching down", which plays an important role in the comedy.
comment #21003 maninahat 6th Sep 13
I think another important aspect that should be taking into account is that Anita is often accused of making too much of little things, not regarding the context or intention, etc. and that at least imo while it may not be malicious by conventional means (or at least what people who disagree with her think it's conventional) but by the logic she uses on her arguments, it is, and thus a Double Standart.
comment #21007 marcellx 6th Sep 13
Maninahat, both Sarkeesian and Pitchford have receive massive harassment and death threats over things that have pissed so many people off. As Fenrisulfur said, the poor cartoony effects would warrant it as a "joke", albeit a terrible joke, the guy who made it said that it's intent was not meant be antagonistic or threatening to Anita herself, yet she does not buy into it. I'm not defending the guy at all, but I'm pointing out what he said and how she reacted to what his intention was. The thing is that no matter what your intentions were and no matter if you try it play it comedically or not, the implications of your actions speak greater, and the implications of Anita approving and promoting the fanfic of her killing Pitchford after understandably upset over that punching simulator is hypocrisy, pure and simple, no matter how technical you want to get in defending her.
comment #21020 Rahkshi500 7th Sep 13
And let's not forget that Spiderman didn't really do anything other than carry Sarkeesian to the part where she shoots Pitchford. He just stays there in the background, not doing anything worthy of the suppose "team up", so saying that him being in there as a defensive argument falls flat on its face. Also, let's not forget that Spiderman is against killing.
comment #21021 Rahkshi500 7th Sep 13
Maninahat, both Sarkeesian and Pitchford have receive massive harassment and death threats over things that have pissed so many people off. As Fenrisulfur said, the poor cartoony effects would warrant it as a "joke",

Poor cartoony effects are often not in and of themselves a joke, unless the piece of entertainment specifically lampshades the bad cartoony effects. In this case, the game doesn't use cartoony effects so much as actual edited photographs of Anita's face. The game also starts with a three page statement that calls Anita a "con artist", criticizes her kickstarter project, and argues that equality for women requires letting people punch them in the face. This doesn't sound like a non-antagonistic joke. The humour extends only so far as "ha, it is ironic to punch feminists!"

The thing is that no matter what your intentions were and no matter if you try it play it comedically or not, the implications of your actions speak greater, and the implications of Anita approving and promoting the fanfic of her killing Pitchford after understandably upset over that punching simulator is hypocrisy, pure and simple, no matter how technical you want to get in defending her.

By this logic, there is no difference at all between laughing at a cartoon mouse hitting a cartoon cat, and laughing at a real cat being brutally kicked. After all, both features cruelty to animals, it's just that one features Jerry creating a complicated Rube Goldberg machine to drop an ironing board on Tom's head. But that's apparently just a "technicality". Details make a huge difference to the tone, meaning and reception.
comment #21126 maninahat 14th Sep 13
As for antagonism, of course it's antagonistic, because the joke is what you said in the punching game. The punchline in the fanfic is that Anita says she won't kill Pitchford, and then does because of Colonial Marines (the game he received death threats for). His death is justified and a joke because he deserved it for the game, which is also antagonistic.

Tom doesn't die after the ironing board hits him on the head. Pitchford did. If we are going with details, the fact that these things result in someone dying vs just getting up with cartoon stars is also very important here.

Also, there is a lot of debate over Tom and Jerry and whether or not they are in fact still funny. Itchy and Scratchy on the Simpsons were made to parody the level of violence in those cartoons because they were disturbing to people. The humor is inherently antagonistic. Being unrealistic does not make it any less antagonistic. Tom is trying to eat Jerry, after all.
comment #21132 fenrisulfur 14th Sep 13
@ Maninahat: So it's suddenly okay to use context to justify and defend Sarkeesian despite the fact that she said context does not matter in the bigger picture, whenever it's convenient for you? That's the pinnacle of double standards and having your cake and eating it too.
comment #21134 Rahkshi500 14th Sep 13
So it's suddenly okay to use context to justify and defend Sarkeesian despite the fact that she said context does not matter in the bigger picture, whenever it's convenient for you?

Where did Anita say that context doesn't matter at all? She mentioned that the in-story justification for why a plot element happens to be stereotypical (like why this particular princess has to be captured) don't matter in the bigger picture, because all the context here is doing is attempting to excuse the stereotype instead of the devs avoiding it in the first place. But that is different from looking at the context of things in general i.e. when context is not being used to excuse lazy writing or offensive stereotypes, but to provide perspective.

If we are going with details, the fact that these things result in someone dying vs just getting up with cartoon stars is also very important here.

It is, yes. If the story featured a more realistic fantasy in which Anita Sarkeesian stalks Pitchford until he is just outside his home, and graphically beat him with a tire iron for a protracted period of time, the tone would be somewhat different to this story, in which action Anita confronting the man on his throne, in his golden palace of videogame characters, and shoots him with a Borderlands gun. That distinction isn't so clear in the Anita game, wherein the gameplay revolves around reading criticisms of her and beating her till her face welts up (which is pretty much what she has been threatened with).
comment #21171 maninahat 18th Sep 13
And that's the irony of it all. Sarkeesian herself states in her third video that the irony that even if you make something comedic and over-the-top, you're still using something that is problematic, and that applies to this as well. So the problem still stands; it does not matter if your intent and execution is to be comical, you're still using a problematic topic(i.e. the fact that game devs receive death threats and actual serious, insidious stories of them being killed) and playing on that problem; in the end, you still have a story where a game dev is killed in cold blood over a video game, and that is disgusting.
comment #21832 Rahkshi500 31st Oct 13
< Call out Anita on hyposcircy < Try and twist to the rules to get him censored.

Don't you just love Anita's white knight brigade?

Its clear Anita's brand of feminism can't endure a discussion, any opposing voice must be silence at all costs. Quick go and bait another blatantly sexist forum so you can say all men are horrible and not worth talking to again.
comment #21893 AnsemPaul 7th Nov 13
Oh come on, she shoots him on his video game throne of villainy with a video game gun while you graphically beat her face in that game. That's kind of a difference. If she, like, burned him alive and masturbated to his screams it would be something different.

The fic is stupid crack, the game was made so whiny manchildren who can't admit that Anita has a point can let their anger out.
comment #21895 kay4today 7th Nov 13
It does not matter how "cracky" you say the fic is, it still ends with Pitchford dying horribly after he already surrendered, yet she still kills him out of spite. It's the same thing with what Sarkeesian said about the game who play damsels in distress in silly/weird/crack/over-the-top fashions, they're still using a problematic trope. That's the same irony as this fic that she approves of, you can call it cracky/weird/silly/nonsensical all you want, it's still playing a problematic issue, that game devs face death threats over a video game, and is being celebrated for it. It does not matter if you hate Pitchford or any other game dev, no one deserves to receive threats of death/rape over trivial things or matters of opinion.
comment #21899 Rahkshi500 7th Nov 13
Sexism in video games is an actual problem though. How many people have actually tried to kill a game dev because they made a shitty video game?
comment #21900 kay4today 7th Nov 13
Harassment is harassment, going by that same line of thought, how many people have actually tried to rape and or kill Anita for complaining about sexism in video games.
comment #21901 marcellx 7th Nov 13
@Rahkshi500: Sarkeesian herself states in her third video that the irony that even if you make something comedic and over-the-top, you're still using something that is problematic, and that applies to this as well. So the problem still stands; it does not matter if your intent and execution is to be comical, you're still using a problematic topic

She was talking about how lampooning a stereotype doesn't actually vindicate you when you still use stereotypes all the same. Games fall into the trap of poking fun at a negative quality whilst still employing it; it's a case of having your cheesecake and eating it too, Bayonetta being the classic example. I can't really see the Anita fic of falling into that trap of poking fun at a stereotype whilst still ultimately endorsing it. We're contrasting an issue with Lampshade Hanging and general Refuge in Audacity.
comment #21951 maninahat 10th Nov 13
In order to post comments, you need to Get Known
TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org.
Privacy Policy