Anita Sarkeesian posts latest "Tropes vs Women" video

James O'Malley Gaming, Video games
Share

Feminist Frequency has just posted up its latest instalment of its ‘controversial’ YouTube series Tropes vs Women, looking at the issue of how women are frequently used as background decoration in videogames.

tropesvswomen.png

You can watch the video below, which takes a look at some of the terrible ways in which a wide range of popular titles treat women with contempt. One has to wonder if Ubisoft will be tuning in?

The series is presented by Anita Sarkeesian, who is viewed in some quarters as controversial because idiots don’t like hearing harsh truths about the depressingly sexist nature of the videogames industry.

James O’Malley
For latest tech stories go to TechDigest.tv

22 comments

  • But the uppermost cheap fifa 14 coins in our minds is the final destination. On a certain day at a fifa 14 coins certain hour, we will pull into the station. Bands will be playing and flags cheap fifa 14 coins waving.

  • “The series is presented by Anita Sarkeesian, who is viewed in some quarters as controversial because idiots don’t like hearing harsh truths”

    Did you actually watch the video and find nothing wrong with her calling sex workers “prostituted women”? Or you like to call sex workers “idiots”?

  • “The series is presented by Anita Sarkeesian, who is viewed in some quarters as controversial because idiots don't like hearing harsh truths”Did you actually watch the video and find nothing wrong with her calling sex workers “prostituted women”? Or you like to call sex workers “idiots”?

  • “who is viewed in some quarters as controversial because idiots don’t
    like hearing harsh truths about the depressingly sexist nature of the
    videogames industry.”
    That’s some top notch journalism! You tell ’em!

  • “who is viewed in some quarters as controversial because idiots don't like hearing harsh truths about the depressingly sexist nature of the videogames industry.”That's some top notch journalism! You tell 'em!

  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAHt7RG67Ok

    Jordanowen42 deals with her point for point. Its long but the irrationality of mrs sarkeesian just boggles the mind.

    As usual Sarkeesian relies on cherry picking examples and taking things out of context, or simply dismissing context as being important. Her arguments don’t have substance and are mostly just baseless statements made hoping her audience lacks the background knowledge see that she’s just misleading them.

    In any case its mostly a huge rant condemning male sexuality, and just taking small things and going off the deep end, ignoring all reason. If a game character only serves a certain purpose, that’s fine, not all characters matter, the store keeper selling you guns or potions, tend not to be fleshed out and no one cares. Its your story not theirs.

    Cherry picking every example of a “hooker” type character in a game is like some man bro dude making a video cherry picking every example of a male thug in a game to claim that all games are sexist. Not all characters are supposed to be fully fleshed out, and male sexuality isn’t something to demonize like that. Anita sarkeesian herself spackles on the makeup for these videos, she should ask herself why if men and women are the same. Female sexuality is a type of power and currency and as such it allows for different types of characters in such worlds. If you are going through a dark slum or red light district, of course there are going to be female prostitutes, its a reflection of the world. But she seems to think the world is a reflection of video games, which is absurd.

    In any case her type of thinking applied to violence means that violent video games lead to violence in real life. I’d like her to make a video trying to prove that point so she can at least have a consistent position. Because as it is, she’s carrying the torch of past moralist hysteria mongers who claimed that rock and roll, comic books, video nasties(horror movies) etc were corrupting the youth. All based their concern on the idea that everyone else was too dumb to separate fantasy from reality, and needed to be protected from themselves…

    As said Jordanowen42 on yotube already has a video out taking her on point for point.

    And as said below, this woman has been debunked and discredited over and over to a point where one has to question why she still has relevance, and perhaps discuss the real issue, why women like her seem to be immune to criticism.

    Other youtubers like thunderf00t, aurini, internet aristocrat, dangerous analysis and many others have taken her down point for point in the past, and of course revealed what we always suspected, this woman doesn’t even like video games, and apparently even a video confession apparently wasn’t enough to get her defenders to wake up.

  • Anita is seen as controversial because she stole fan made content without giving credit, said she hates video games and didn’t play them in a lecture she was giving (so either she was lying then, or she was lying later when she says she played since a young age), and in some cases based on her criticism it seems she has not actually played the games she used the “Let’s Play” footage from (created by other players).

    But since she is the holy cow of feminism, she cannot be criticised.

    The sad thing is, many of her messages are important and relevant, but the way she went about sending them is so poorly done it damages the message. Yes the computer game industry is sexist, yes there needs to be more primary female led stories. But asking a con-artist and intellectual property thief to be your advocate is foolish.

    • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqJCCnued6c

      yep.

      Truth is they won’t deal with any real issues, She doesn’t want a genuine discussion because she can’t actually defend her points. She’s so prone to distortion and fallacious argument that she has to do this play the victim card, its her only protection because her arguments can’t stand on their own merit.

      I mean seriously why not ask why all the faceless mooks in games are men, we kill thousand of them in games. No one bats an eye, but imagine if she were consistent and fought to change those mooks to women, yea I’m sure it doesn’t even cross her mind. And even if it did, she wouldn’t bring it up, because the distaste for doing such a thing would be deeply revealing about the differences between men and women not just in culture but biologically.

      Just ask any women if she would really like it if Titanic had ended with rose sacrificing herself so jack could live. Even the most strident feminist would not enjoy that. But they won’t address why this is so, they don’t dare.

    • i can’t believe so many supposedly rationally-minded people are still pretending that THIS is what most people have against anita sarkeesian, or that it’s because she asked for money on kickstarter. the only reason ANYONE knows about this “con-artist” nonsense is precisely BECAUSE women in gaming spaces are not trusted and therefore have hordes of shook dudes desperately seeking for means to discredit her. your poor excuse for “critical thinking” is NOT helping and i have little reason to believe you actually have any real interest in what you call her “important” and “relevant” messages.

  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?…Jordanowen42 deals with her point for point. Its long but the irrationality of mrs sarkeesian just boggles the mind.As usual Sarkeesian relies on cherry picking examples and taking things out of context, or simply dismissing context as being important. Her arguments don't have substance and are mostly just baseless statements made hoping her audience lacks the background knowledge see that she's just misleading them.In any case its mostly a huge rant condemning male sexuality, and just taking small things and going off the deep end, ignoring all reason. If a game character only serves a certain purpose, that's fine, not all characters matter, the store keeper selling you guns or potions, tend not to be fleshed out and no one cares. Its your story not theirs.Cherry picking every example of a “hooker” type character in a game is like some man bro dude making a video cherry picking every example of a male thug in a game to claim that all games are sexist. Not all characters are supposed to be fully fleshed out, and male sexuality isn’t something to demonize like that. Anita sarkeesian herself spackles on the makeup for these videos, she should ask herself why if men and women are the same. Female sexuality is a type of power and currency and as such it allows for different types of characters in such worlds. If you are going through a dark slum or red light district, of course there are going to be female prostitutes, its a reflection of the world. But she seems to think the world is a reflection of video games, which is absurd.In any case her type of thinking applied to violence means that violent video games lead to violence in real life. I’d like her to make a video trying to prove that point so she can at least have a consistent position. Because as it is, she’s carrying the torch of past moralist hysteria mongers who claimed that rock and roll, comic books, video nasties(horror movies) etc were corrupting the youth. All based their concern on the idea that everyone else was too dumb to separate fantasy from reality, and needed to be protected from themselves…As said Jordanowen42 on yotube already has a video out taking her on point for point.And as said below, this woman has been debunked and discredited over and over to a point where one has to question why she still has relevance, and perhaps discuss the real issue, why women like her seem to be immune to criticism.Other youtubers like thunderf00t, aurini, internet aristocrat, dangerous analysis and many others have taken her down point for point in the past, and of course revealed what we always suspected, this woman doesn't even like video games, and apparently even a video confession apparently wasn't enough to get her defenders to wake up.

  • Anita is seen as controversial because she stole fan made content without giving credit, said she hates video games and didn't play them in a lecture she was giving (so either she was lying then, or she was lying later when she says she played since a young age), and in some cases based on her criticism it seems she has not actually played the games she used the “Let's Play” footage from (created by other players).But since she is the holy cow of feminism, she cannot be criticised.The sad thing is, many of her messages are important and relevant, but the way she went about sending them is so poorly done it damages the message. Yes the computer game industry is sexist, yes there needs to be more primary female led stories. But asking a con-artist and intellectual property thief to be your advocate is foolish.

    • https://www.youtube.com/watch?…yep.Truth is they won't deal with any real issues, She doesn't want a genuine discussion because she can't actually defend her points. She's so prone to distortion and fallacious argument that she has to do this play the victim card, its her only protection because her arguments can't stand on their own merit.I mean seriously why not ask why all the faceless mooks in games are men, we kill thousand of them in games. No one bats an eye, but imagine if she were consistent and fought to change those mooks to women, yea I'm sure it doesn't even cross her mind. And even if it did, she wouldn't bring it up, because the distaste for doing such a thing would be deeply revealing about the differences between men and women not just in culture but biologically.Just ask any women if she would really like it if Titanic had ended with rose sacrificing herself so jack could live. Even the most strident feminist would not enjoy that. But they won't address why this is so, they don't dare.

    • i can't believe so many supposedly rationally-minded people are still pretending that THIS is what most people have against anita sarkeesian, or that it's because she asked for money on kickstarter. the only reason ANYONE knows about this “con-artist” nonsense is precisely BECAUSE women in gaming spaces are not trusted and therefore have hordes of shook dudes desperately seeking for means to discredit her. your poor excuse for “critical thinking” is NOT helping and i have little reason to believe you actually have any real interest in what you call her “important” and “relevant” messages.

  • Using Nussbaum’s objectification model is brilliant, although I would have liked to have seen more of her original framework included such as the denial of autonomy and the denial of subjectivity in female sexworker NPCs. Also, I want to respond to your Anita’s very last bit on the ill effects consuming violent and misogynistic media may have on men.

    I agree that women are often denied personhood or non-sexual existence, where their sexuality defines their character wholly, but I disagree that men are completely exempt. It is terribly sexist that men’s worth, through placing them in the seat of sexual conquest, becomes defined by the number of women with which they have sex, sexually subdue, or assault.

    Women’s worth in games is often decided by the pleasure or control they grant to primarily male players, while men’s worth in games is often decided by the control they can exert over female characters and the sexual prowess they can demonstrate, with their limit on sexual experience being nonexistent, while women cannot exceed a certain degree of experience lest they become ‘sluts’.

    Great video overall. You go, Anita!

    • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9Ju-1I1DTU

      Actually it was terrible. That model is a catch all for making whatever argument you want, its just not defensible
      By that model every man who jerks off to anything other than a woman’s mind is guilty and thus sexist, which is rather convenient…. its just a catch all for demonizing mens sexuality.

  • Using Nussbaum's objectification model is brilliant, although I would have liked to have seen more of her original framework included such as the denial of autonomy and the denial of subjectivity in female sexworker NPCs. Also, I want to respond to your Anita's very last bit on the ill effects consuming violent and misogynistic media may have on men.I agree that women are often denied personhood or non-sexual existence, where their sexuality defines their character wholly, but I disagree that men are completely exempt. It is terribly sexist that men's worth, through placing them in the seat of sexual conquest, becomes defined by the number of women with which they have sex, sexually subdue, or assault.Women's worth in games is often decided by the pleasure or control they grant to primarily male players, while men's worth in games is often decided by the control they can exert over female characters and the sexual prowess they can demonstrate, with their limit on sexual experience being nonexistent, while women cannot exceed a certain degree of experience lest they become 'sluts'.Great video overall. You go, Anita!

Comments are closed.