Talk:Anita Sarkeesian

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This page is automatically archived by Pibot
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>

Contents

[edit] Men are important too...

Title says it all. I don't think people should be going about saying women are superior... not saying women are bad or anything, but both genders should be equal. XY007 (talk) 09:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 09:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Not all men.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, it's a good thing nobody around here's saying that women are superior, then. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar?~) 12:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Why do people do this? "You're biased against men because you cover feminism at all" is such a dumb attitude. Ikanreed (talk) 22:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Troll Zero (talk - contributions) 23:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Nwah. XY007 (talk) 01:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I support GamerGate. XY007 (talk) 01:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

[edit] The 2014 bomb threat

Apologies if this is irrelevant, but over on Youtube a guy by the name of 'MrRepzion' recently released a video claiming he had received a visit from the FBI, with regards to the email containing the bomb threat. The email had been signed off with his Youtube name. The guy, Daniel, states in the video (titled "The FBI Visited Me Today - Anita Sarkeesian Does Not Deserve Threats") that he is not responsible and has been set up. From what is known so far, the only thing connecting him to the email is the signature being his Youtube name.

Again, sorry if this a turns out to be a load of useless dribble, but I thought as this case advances, it might be useful for extending the relevant part of the article. MisterBlueSky (talk) 00:09 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Or his claim that he was visited by the FBI in the first place and isn't yet another person trying to cash in on Gamergate.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:21, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh this guy. A series of rebuttal videos that are nothing but logical fallacies and outright lies. Yeah. Not even worth talking about. Zero (talk - contributions) 10:21, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Would it be okay to list things she's gotten wrong?

Sarkeesian has made quite a few genuine mistakes in her videos, one of the big ones being the whole 'Sabre' thing in Starfox adventures, where she made it seem like Fox had replaced Krystal as a character instead of the male Sabre. There's also a few listed on TV tropes' Cowboy Bebop at his computer' page, for however accurate that is. Of course, none of this mistakes justify dismissing her overall points or harassing her (Horrors! An person on the internet made a mistake! She must be a liar and a con artist and not a real gamer so let's yell at her so we don't have to actually consider what she's saying!) but maybe list a few, just so the article comes across as a little more balanced? — Unsigned, by: 68.146.38.31 / talk

But being factually wrong about random points isn't particularly relevant. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 22:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
(EC) What point would such a list make? If it's just a load of pedantic game trivia, it probably doesn't belong here. If it's to prove that Sarkeesian isn't omniscient or infallible, then it's a pointless strawman. If any of these mistakes seriously undermine her core arguments, that could be worth mentioning, but ought to be clearly explained (in a way that people not familiar those particular games can understand) and a list may not be the best way to present that. WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Instead of a list of incorrect statements, maybe have a list of statements from one of her video-game-analysis videos with text noting whether she was correct or incorrect? That'd provide context at her overall success/failure and at her overarching points, methinks. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 22:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Not really. Listing is a poor alternative to analysis, and why should we care if she's occasionally got a character's name wrong or confused one game with another in the same series etc.? WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Then do the same thing, minus the list. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ﹐ Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 22:52, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
This isn't relevant at all. It's just more gator bullshit because if she's not right 110% of the time then she's faulty and a con artist or whatever excuse they're using lately.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Having a list of Ms. Sarkeesian's trivial errors (presented, preferably, in an ironic light) might actually be useful — if an opponent of hers has gone over her videos with a fine-toothed comb and located nothing except errors that are only of relevance to half a dozen troglodytic gamers, it would tend to indicate that she is correct on her main points. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 05:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Well, lets have someone show us them. *Crickets* Zero (talk - contributions) 07:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. Maybe just expand the nonsense claims made against her? It's more than just the two.
All of Phil Mason's "criticism" has its own dedicated page.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Instead of listing her trivial errors, my preference would be for a (gentle) criticism section arguing that her work is, in fact, just trivial, and barely notable aside from the absurd Sturm und Drang it inspires in certain reactionary circles. If anyone believes that her pop culture commentary might amount to anything more than a footnote in the history of the feminist cause, then please feel free to argue at great length below. Robledo (talk) 22:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd argue with you a little if you want. While her commentary is indeed fairly trivial, in that it is more or less just standard feminist textual criticism, here directed at video games, the Strum und Drang, as you put it, is undoubtedly notable and works as a synecdoche for the larger issues facing women in the increasingly important tech sector. Not to mention, these reactionary circles while not mainstream are, at least in my opinion, evolving and becoming increasingly relevant as they tap into widespread dissatisfaction with contemporary conditions in the developed world. Marlow (talk) 22:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
And the article currently does a very thorough job of documenting her travails and firmly opposing those responsible. The absurdity of the reactions she provokes would surely be emphasised by pointing out that none of her arguments are particularly ground-breaking, or in the context of the wider feminist cause, particularly influential. Robledo (talk) 00:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
The thing is, those problems with her material are general problems with feminist eisegesis and reading-into. Yes, her material is cliché'd to people familiar with the shtick. Frankly, I wish we had better coverage of That Sort of Thing somewhere. On the other hand, it seems unfair to add a criticism to her article for problems she shares with a great host of similarly-minded commentators. It's not about her, in other words. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 02:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
GamerGate was the best thing, that ever happened to her, it brought her fame and fortune. Is there an greater case of Streisand effect ever?--Arisboch (talk) 18:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Probably not. 110.148.112.245 (talk) 06:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
She got richer and more famous (how many people would've donated to her Kickstarter campaign without it?!) and nobody even harmed a hair on her head.--Arisboch (talk) 08:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, she probably orchestrated the whole thing herself as a publicity stunt. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 08:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Of course not. Where did I ever said or implied that? She is no professional spind octor and even their astroturfing get's busted often, as you can read on this very site. --Arisboch (talk) 08:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
and nobody even harmed a hair on her head - yeah, having to put up with being the most hated person on the internet, with being consistently harassed and abused, with endless threats, a mere bagatelle.
And that is exactly the point of this article and why a 'list of things she got wrong' is irrelevant. What makes Sarkessian notable is not what she said but the extraordinary vile and virulent reaction of certain parts of the gaming community. It's not about what she said, it's about what happened to her for what she said - and for being female while she said it. Trying to trivialise that as 'and nobody harmed a hair on her head' is so missing the point. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 08:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Depends on what part of the net you are talking about. E.g. here on similar sites she is rather popular. Of course it is true, she is notable not because of what she said, but of what reaction she got, but the point still stands: GamerGate made her richer and more famous. --Arisboch (talk) 08:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
She's not exactly living the life of Reily, and I very much doubt she would consider death threats and mass shooting threats as an acceptable price to pay for the money she has received. I know I wouldn't. Queexchthonic murmurings 10:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I believe that, too. Everyone would want to live, upload videos on YouTube and make money without some dumb moron assholes screaming "I will violate/kill you" on the net.--Arisboch (talk) 12:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
That is completely true. She's not to blame for anything that has happened to her, she's just exhibiting what is known as 'free speech'. 110.148.112.245 (talk) 08:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


[edit] Feminist or Misandrist?

[edit] How Much of the Gamer Community Threatened her with Violence

[edit] Studies behind paywall

The full texts of the three sciencedirect studies footnoted for the "Objectification spillover effect" are, sadly, behind a paywall. (I can only see the abstracts.) Are there other sources for the full texts of those studies, or for analyses of them? I'd very much like to see the methodology they used for objectifying their targets to their test subjects. They're probably legitimate and straighforward, but without being able to see the methodology there can always the lingering suspicion of experimenter bias. --Tracer (talk) 05:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Send me an e-mail with proper references and I'll see if my university has access and send you the pdfs. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 12:33, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
ResearchGate—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support