Feminist Frequency (old thread. Locked)

Well, I watched and will reserve my judgement for later. However, it bothers me that she doesn't include the Paper Mario series in the video, and accuses (or paints) Miyamoto of being the sole reason for why Krystal stopped being playable (save for the very beginning of the game) when there were a whole bunch of issues in the development of Adventure like Rare becoming Microsoft's. Oh, and she completely omits the presence of Sabre◊.

No. That is not what she did. What she did, when exposed to vicious, sexist bile from the manchildren that sadly make up a large part of the gaming community online was to call them out. That is not being a damsel in distress, that is not playing the victim. And sadly this feeds into the toxic attitude that women should just shut up and take it.

She was a victim of online harassment. She called it out. That does not disqualify her from commenting on trite sexist tropes in video games. I seriously have to wonder at the people who make this kind of criticism against her, because the disingeniousness is so blatant.

edited 10th Mar '13 6:22:56 AM by billymasqets

...after linking her kickstarter on 4chan, the sexist bile man-child capitol of the known universe. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm..................

How exactly did she "call it out"? By posting it on her blog? That didn't affect the people who were trolling in any way, so I don't see how she "called them out". It did, however, ensure Anita would get a few extra dollars from donations and some interviews with mainstream publications about the abuse. That's playing a damsel in distress.

And I didn't say anything about women "sitting back and taking it". I only mentioned Anita, not women as a whole. Please don't make me out to be a strawman. I don't think anyone should take it, male or female. However, when you only benefit from the abuse, I don't think it's fair to continue calling yourself a victim. I find that insulting to victims who don't receive Anita's money, interviews or offers to give speeches.

Even if that were the case, I fail to see how it makes a difference.

Honestly, I find it insulting to other victims, the way they're now used to tear down Anita because thousands of people decided to support her. Whatever happened to her still happened, and it happens to female bloggers all the time. Many female bloggers have quit over these kinds of things, and many (male as well as female) simply don't know how bad it can get. I'm glad Anita shone a light on it. Yes, the gutless wonders who harassed her likely won't emerge from under their rocks, but increased awareness is always a good thing.

Also, you still don't appear to know what a damsel in distress is, if you think it applies to Anita Sarkeesian.

There was a whole lot of criticism laid against her and she only cherry-picked the trolls and bigots in order to make herself look like a victim. She never specifically addressed other criticisms of her work and decided instead to keep referring back to the few sexist remarks as some example of how persecuted she was. That's not to mention that pretty much everything she says in her videos could be achieved by anyone with a basic knowledge of feminist theories and access to T Vtropes. There's nothing there that warrants raising any money at all - let alone starting a kickstarter project, painting yourself as a tragic and spending thousands upon thousands of dollars on video games THEN not even putting anything out for months and months except a picture of you sitting with a stack of aforementioned video games. The first example of what that money went towards IE the first post-kickstarter video on 'tropes vs women' had no improvements, no depth and nothing to suggest that it was worth months of waiting and thousands of dollars to achieve.

A Wounded Gazelle Gambit at it's finest.

I have to say, she gets points in my book for manipulating 4 chan like that. Few have used the hatred and vitriol of that hive to their advantage so successfully.

Anita is totally a magnificent, manipulative, chessmaster. She truly has much she could teach us.

I mean, it's disappointing she's wasting her talents in internet videos instead of politics or military strategy.

edited 10th Mar '13 8:51:36 AM by unnoun

Not quite sure how you can call the trolls "gutless wonders" while Anita refuses to face criticism herself. See avorne's post.

And I find it very worrying that you single out female bloggers when everyone faces that kind of abuse. Speaking of whom, do you think those female bloggers would've quit if they had $158,000 after their abuse? Or the interviews? Or the offers to give speeches at EADice, TEDxWomen and several universities?

So as for the actual video.

I found it interesting that her main argument was that games use Damsels in Distress too much, and then explains to you what that is for like a minute. Give me some credit here, miss.

I really don't understand how or why people think she's so manipulative. It's ridiculous.

In somewhat on-topic revelations, dad does awesome thing for daughter.

you missed the interpretations of her actions above? How can that be interpreted as anything but manipulative?

At the same time, it's only the first part in a series. Maybe it'll get better and she'll show some actual research and insight later on.

OK. You can say it's not particularly insightful (I disagree but whatever). How can you say it's not RESEARCHED though? That's like what 130 clips she used in total? Most were in a montage but the point was to show how ridiculously common this trope is. None of the facts she stated were inaccurate (though the Star Fox bit was simplified I admit.)

x9 OK, I'm sorry. I thought we were talking about Anita Sarkeesian, but obviously you were talking about Straw-Anita Sarkeesian. My bad.

x7 You're not sure how I can call the trolls who harassed a woman online "gutless wonders"? Because some felt entitled to a response from her?

If you find it worrying that I single out female bloggers, then I can't help you. I've seen men harassed online, and I've seen women harassed online. I know the difference and how big it is. It's also sad to see the continuing policing of the victim. As for other victims, maybe they would, maybe they wouldn't. Here's the thing: I don't speak for them, or use them as a tool to bludgeon another victim.

Yeah, but those interpretations are just that. It's straw all the way down.

Making every one of the critics out to be strawmen doesn't help your case any more than it helps Anita's.

Pointing out how someone obscured the full picture in terms of the criticism they were receiving and how they used that obscured picture as a means of boosting sympathy is apparently straw-manning (straw-womanning?) now.

"...after linking her kickstarter on 4chan, the sexist bile man-child capitol of the known universe. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.................."

You know, even if she did engineer for herself to be victimized by the slum of the internet in the attempt to garner sympathy and funds for her project, as this seems to imply.

the mere-existence of the type of backlash or victimizing that occurred is a major red flag to something wrong with the gaming community.

Or to briefly paraphrase quite a few intellectual people "the internet should not belong to small-minded bigoted scum who are allowed to fling their filth wherever they feel.".

Except, y'know, 4chan is pretty infamous across much of the internet for its rampant jerkery and there're always going to be people like that. Having some people act like girls shouldn't play videogames, on a website specifically known for being un-PC and sexist/racist/whatever else-ist, doesn't prove all that much. It's like me going up to a member of the Westboro Baptist Church, telling them I'm a proud homosexual that hates their shitty bigotry, and then wondering why on earth they're telling me I'm going to burn in hell.

4chan is pretty much the incarnation of all of every evil, every sin, and every depravity committed by the human race. If they know you exist, you will recieve hate from them.

They are the troll capital of the internet. Phrases like "troll", "griefer", and so on have roots there. They are infamous for sexism, racism, and intolerance of all forms. And porn of course.

If someone posted a video about how video games are dumb because sexism, and promoted that video on 4chan, the results are obvious to anyone that has common sense and knows what sort of place 4chan is.

And I'm not faulting her for any of this mind. I actually want to meet her so she can give me lessons on manipulation of this level. And because she manipulated 4chan into looking worse than they normally do and earned support for herself from the sane portions of humanity. What I don't get though is how anyone doesn't see this as obvious.

edited 10th Mar '13 2:44:25 PM by unnoun

4chan might be infamous, and if the harassment were isolated to 4chan itself, then you might have a point there Avorne, but it wasn't isolated to 4-chan, so a more "apt" comparison would be you telling the Westboros that you were gay, and then afterwards they showed up to your lawn to start preaching out against you.

this is of course if we're to buy into the theory that she "invited" this onto herself, which might very well be the case, but that doesn't mean we give a free-pass for anyone who accepted the invitation to harass her.

Of course not, the abuse was horrible. I've looked at it a few times and the anti-semitic remarks are the ones that disgust me the most.

But the flipside of that is that just because we point out the horrific comments doesn't mean Anita should be given a free pass for her behaviour. If she found those comments morally wrong, she could've chosen not to approve them (she was moderating all comments at the time). And I don't think she'd have posted them on her blog.

So either she doesn't actually care about offensive insults towards her and was just preying on the sympathies of the people that do, or she really does care ... but is willing to ignore that particular principle if it'll net her a bit of cash.

She shoulda seen it coming, just like the onus is on women to protect themselves from getting raped, not on men not to rape. Because if a chick is walking alone at night in a low-cut dress, the bitch has it coming, amirite?

GTFO with this victim-blaming bullshit.

This. Accussing her of manipulating people because she actually got harrased on the internet it's completely out of base. This wasn't just a certain site that attacked her, this was from many different people in many different places, and even if that wasn't the case, that wouldn't mean that online sexual harrassing isn't a problem. And somebody else here said that Anita Sarkessian takes attention away from other victims of online harrassment that haven't received the same support she has, well guess what? You ain't doing that people, either men or women, any favors by continue to promote victim blaming.

Bloody hell, that's false equivalence at its finest.

I'm not even going to bother with a closer analogy.

No, we're accusing her of manipulating people ... because she manipulated people. We've been over why but you're still just saying it's because she was harassed.

What's the point in us even being on a discussion board if what we write isn't going to be read?

If you think she was seriously moderating all the comments on her youtube video, try counting them.

Telling 4chan to stop being sexist is like saying "Gee, I sure wish these guys would stop uploading all this porn." You just can't do it without expecting a truckload of disapointment.