Talk:Anita Sarkeesian

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon gender.svg

This Gender related article has been awarded SILVER status for quality. We like it, and you should too! See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Icon sociology.svg This article contains information about one or more living persons.

Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats.
Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed.
If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

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

Silver Brain[edit]

Nominating for a silver brain. Objections/favors/comments? Zero (talk - contributions) 16:31, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

"she is most noted for the hatred she has received"[edit]

I think this quote from the article's introduction is very accurate. The phenomenon represented by her activities can hardly be separated into the personal and the professional. I have watched some of Thunderf00t's video invectives on Sarkeesian's work and they seem to amount to the claim that she is a con artist, that she doesn't do the work she claims she will do, or does it badly. It does seem to be the case that she has been engaging in a commercial, semi-intellectual form of feminist activity, which is not a bad thing. Everyone's got to eat. She is ostensibly a media critic, not unlike Gene Siskel or Roger Ebert, who once peddled their opinions on the latest movies (in this case, video games). This is a respectable activity. Ariel31459 (talk) 15:58, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Hitman game mechanics[edit]

"To put in other terms, if the developers didn't want the players to interact with/sightsee the strippers, why does the level take place in a strip club?".

That's a non sequitur fallacy right there. That's like saying "if that girl didn't want to be molested/gawked at/raped by greasy creep bags, why did she dress up skimply?" — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

You do realize that these aren't humans, right? Zero (talk - contributions) 18:43, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Does that make her argument any less fallacious? Also if none of these video game characters matter, than why the fuck should Anita or any "gamer activist" care? It seems almost nonsensical, as you point out, to complain about sexism in video games as it is all artificial. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs
You seem to care and therefor disprove your own statement. Zero (talk - contributions) 16:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
I care about how the argument is performed, not the content itself. Now address the argument and stop derailing it. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs
No that's not a non sequitur fallacy. The author asked a question, that didn't even detail a conclusion, much less fallaciously attribute a deductive conclusion. God damn people are an amazing combination of arrogant and ignorant here, wow. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

"In-game consequences for these violations are trivial at best. There is no real penalty for having knocked out the characters, despite a loss in statistical points".
--If the major goal of the game is to complete the mission with the highest score possible, then this penalty is about as real as it gets. Other "realer" (I'm not sure what metric is used here) penalties, such as being detected instantly, will break immersion, while making the player loses outright completely removes the civilian neutralization approach not just for the level, but for the entire game. For a stealth game, that's a loss in depth that's a little too much in my opinion.

"She also points out how the game only gives the player the option of either knocking out or killing civilian characters."
--Hitman does not really have civilian NPC interaction as its selling point. And yes, the civilian stripper in the club does fall into one of the two categories. I don't see how this piece of information contributes to the argument.

"...such as in another level where the player knocks out a stripper character and hides her body in order to set up a situation to beat the level"
--Reiterating the points from earlier: 1) the game actively discourages this with whatever "real penalty" it has, and 2) the common approach in this level is to leave them there and not do anything, instead of deliberately going out of way to knock them out. This sentence, in conjunction with the previous sentence, still doesn't form an actual argument. I will return to this later though.

"She makes the comparison to the Grand Theft Auto series where the player is penalized for stealing cars, despite that being the core mechanic of that game."
--Yes, but to be clear, the target audience is already interested in the idea of carjacking. The in game penalty is primarily increase in wanted level, which unlike the score system, is not a primary objective that the player min/maxes. In fact, players may deliberately choose to gain wanted levels to enjoy the police chase. Hitman does not invite the player to commit the acts that are described as "a perverse pleasure from desecrating the bodies of unsuspecting virtual female characters", nor does players who chose to play this game have that in their mind when they pick it up. I do not find the equivalence drawn here to be representative of these two games.

"It was to say that the developers of Hitman intentionally included partially or fully naked women characters whose sole purpose is to be eye candy or be attacked by the player in some fashion. "
--Civilian characters are included in pretty much all stealth games. They act as a different class of "enemies" that serves to force the player to think through their approaches while also providing them with the option of non-violent neutralization. A civilian character in a strip club serves the exact same purpose. Adding to the earlier part about lack of interaction options, to say that a civilian character's sole purpose is to be attacked by the player is dishonest to not just Hitman, but the stealth genre as a whole.

"To put in other terms, if the developers didn't want the players to interact with/sightsee the strippers, why does the level take place in a strip club?"
--So, I interpret this as, all games should not have strip club in its settings, because if it does, and the developers added strippers for realism (not for eye candies, an assumption on intention), then the developers automatically want the players to interact/sightsee the strippers, and the players "are meant to derive a perverse pleasure from desecrating the bodies of unsuspecting virtual female characters". I definitely don't like this approach to sexuality, as if strip clubs are now the bane that should not be mentioned in video games. But I digress. I'm just saying, this is the most illogical argument in the section by far, where the addition of an entire environment is attributed to the sole intention of making the players aroused, and not possibly for any other reason.

The point I'm trying to make is that this section is rather weak in my opinion, both her responses to the critics, and the arguments presented to defend the original claim. And I decided to pretty much comment on all the points in the section not because I want to repeat my arguments, but because not doing so would leave the impression that "I'm deliberately choose a single line to nitpick". So, here I leave my thoughts. (talk) I've gone in and edited this section adding this to the top

Here we go again...[edit]

In fact, the strippers describe the miserable life they have under the owner (the guy you are to kill)8 Anita Sarkeesian FAILS 2:53 There are strong indications that the 'Trip to Hawaii' really bad in rape levels of bad and this is something they fear every freaking day. And to anyone who claimed this is "dumb" EXPLAIN how it is dumb. Just don't claim it is.--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:31, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Two points Bruce. Yes, a narrative encouraging you to kill someone in a work of fiction is going to justify it. This isn't the 80s, players expect more than "point gun at generic baddie and pull trigger until baddie dies". Two, Could you get better sources than a fucking CRINGE COMPILATION!?!? And for a bonus, three, this is an artificial narrative. It's manufactured. Appraoching it the way you would a real situation is um... Dumb. It's like fundies trying to apply Science to the Bible. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:46, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
1: " players expect more than "point gun at generic baddie and pull trigger until baddie dies"?" Not if the criticism of the modern FPS game has any merit...or it is a zombie game....or a Battle Royal game. :-). As far artificial narratives go what game doesn't have those? Even the once supposedly realistic game Call of Duty games have gone of into total gonzo land with story lines that make the ramblings of some right wing nut waiting for the black helicopters look sane by comparison (if you can put up with the insanely, and IMHO way too long sidestory, moviebob's Gameover thinker 89 makes fun of the whole convoluted mess that COD has become). As yahzee puts is regarding another game "Okay, they're not what you'd call realistic, but I kind of thought we'd abandoned realism around the time space marines were stabbing dinosaurs on the planet Zog."
2: As for the Cringe Compilation dismissal--is anything in the video factually wrong? If not who cares who its put together (as long as it makes more sense then Jacob's Ladder or Eraserhead)
3: While we are at it where are Criticisms like
A - 'She misrepresents aspects of games' (effectively the guts of nearly every reasonable counter video out there)
B - She makes many demonstrable untrue statements about a game and/or gaming genres (likely due to boarderline non existent research on the matter if we are being generous
C - She cherry picks game play options and presents that as something the player is required to do.
These are the Criticisms we should have in the article. Not that pathetic stawmen we have.--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:45, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Now you're being disingenuous. You're comparing a single player game, which is driven by narrative these days and is expected to justify the shooting and killing, hell, the fucking arcade games did that, motherfucking Mortal Kombat does that, to multiplayer games where the focus is on competition between players. Now, again, of course in the narrative the killing is justified, but as asked below, what changes other than the ability to ogle boobs and maybe kill some strippers if your in the mood to do so (after all, you can always restart the level) if the setting changes? Do the motivations change? What if we have the exact same characters, the exact same motives, but the setting is a Pizza shop because, I dunno, the target is supposed to be less secure there? What changes thematically? Also, engage with art, as art, not as "events that I am being told are happening and are devoid of any themes because I don't want to engage with art as art". ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:01, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
See the little ":-)" as end of the sentence? That generally indicates a little thing called sarcasm. But lets us be serious the single player COD storylines are totally off the wall gonzo bonkers and most zombie games are single player things. So they count as far as "point gun at generic baddie and pull trigger until baddie dies" games go.--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:36, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
My question is, does the strip club add anything to the plot? Would the script be radically rewritten if, say, the setting was some trafficking ring in a pizza parlor? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 01:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
What does the off the wall gonzo trailer add?--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:45, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
So your response to a question about setting in a audio-visual work of fiction is a non sequitur. What exactly is the difference between you and a fundy christian again? That you're "right"? I'm sure they think they're "right" too. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:01, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm looking at the cringe compilation through a private window and I saw this person's channel history. Let's just say I'm reminded of clickbait and clownish sensationalism on top of the anti-feminist/anti-SJW content including dramatic readings of anti-gamergate comments. I'm not going to give it views. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 02:15, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
And yeah, what does that trailer add? You tell me. It looks like it's just more of the same alienating shit in media. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 02:20, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
He was the first I was able to find that had a general overview (most are one episodes rebuttals). There is The Response to Anita Sarkeesian Playlist and even women have issues with her claims and examples. As for the Hitman Absolution's from E3. And that nonsense is designed to attract customers. But then again sex sales so what are going to do? Heck, remember that time when Playboy stopped doing nudes...didn't last long did it? It's not a cause it is a symptom.--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:53, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Sigh... Ok. We're not doing split thread. You're reaction to all points is deflection. Problematic themes? The story justifies it (of course it would, the audience is also the protaganist and needs to be soothed into engaging with the medium, else they'll want refunds) Sexualized trailer? Marketing, unrelated to the product (except it is. themes in the trailer are in the game, false advertising after all, lawsuits, yada yada.) But you refuse to engage with the product as art, as a story, and instead treat it like something you heard on the news. So, here's what's going to happen. I'm not convinced you're right, LGM here doesn't appear to be convinced of your cases either. So, you need to start explaining why a level set in a strip club, one that explicitly sexualizes the characters and doesn't let you talk to them or engage in any way other than violence or as backdrop, one with a kick the dog moment where you discover a stripper's body, is not saying in subtext that women are disposable sex objects. Agent 47 never rebukes these themes, they don't really add anything to the story and could have been cut entirely and take place off set, but they are included, the promo material includes them, and the themes are never rebuked. Why? How is Sarkeessian wrong? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:06, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Good post! --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 03:21, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── It's not deflects but good honest anthropological analyst. You know part of the triad field I have a Masters in. Its a matter of context. I am reminded of an old black and white comic where at the end some cops lead off an escapee from the local mental ward (drooling if you already didn't get the point) who has just' just killed "two good kids" in the guise of a highway patrolman (who he also killed). But that comment is a Twilight Zone twist as the "two good kids" are in reality a pair of sadistic cop killing thieves (surprising and killing two cops at their last gas station theft). Its been decades so I an fuzzy on the details on how they encounter the faux highway patrolman but the one scene I do remember is when they open up the trunk and find a body, in its underwear, in it. 'Wha?' "I hadn't gotten around to getting rid of the body." And things quickly go south for the pair of cop killing thieves. The stripper's body is like the end of the story. Going past the strippers is the context. The real message is not 'women are disposable sex objects' but ' certain men treat women as disposable sex objects' and you are making sure, via your job, there is one less of these creeps with power is on the planet. Does it do it in a awkward and blundering manner? Sure. Are there problems with the way women are portrayed in the majority of video game? Sure, a lot. The Agent 47 against scantly clad 'nuns' trailer case in point. But producing easily disprovable one-sided nonsense doesn't push the point to others - it at best shows you are a modern Know Nothing.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:37, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

horseshoe theory?[edit]

sometimes I have to wonder what's the difference between what she's doing vs comics code authority of old (talk) 22:58, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Dear Sir, you are a dumb ass. Sincerely, €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 14:24, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

VidCon 2017?[edit]

Where is the part of harassment Sarkeesian got when she was a paid speaker at VidCon 2017 in a panel? There was hundreds if not thousands Sarkeesian critics silently in the audience showing that dissenters can be silent. Showed in an unedited video here: She was so relentlessly attacked only because she had to face the silently errmmm... aggressively silently sitting audience. ~~ have a nice day — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

What exactly is your point? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 03:01, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
She acted like a petulant child giving a bad impression of "feminism"TheDarkMaster2 (talk) 14:07, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Scam Section[edit]

I'm sorry. You can't deny that Anita Sarkeesian collecting tens of thousands of dollars only to not finish the series isn't a scam. And no, the releasing isn't just slowed down; the series is over after not getting anywhere through the list of videos she promised. (talk) 23:08, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Rehashing old Gamergate talking points that have been refuted a thousand times do not justify calling Anita Sarkeesian a "scammer." Cosmikdebris (talk) 18:59, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
You have a source to verify that?--HairlessCat (talk) 19:08, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
The source you link to says nothing at all about Sarkeesian being a "scammer." That is an opinion you appear to have pulled out of nowhere. This opinion reeks of Gamergate bullshit. You're the one who claims she's a scammer, and it's your job to demonstrably prove your assertion, not mine. Cosmikdebris (talk) 19:12, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
It shows that she cancelled the series, a series which she clearly did not spend the tens of thousands of dollars on. If the good folk of RationalWiki can deem the Amazing Atheist a scammer for raising thousands of dollars but not following through with his promises, they are morally and logically compelled to do the same in this instance.--HairlessCat (talk) 19:17, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
I watched the series, it was definitely finished. This is so stupid, they're on the fucking internet. You can watch them. There's fucking tons. Please stop having bad opinions now. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:32, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
@HairlessCat: I think you're grasping at straws. Feminist Frequency continues to produce online resources, podcasts and videos that directly contribute to their core mission. It would be different if Sarkeesian stopped all work, took her website offline and hit the road. It's obvious that she did not do this. Again, the source you provided does not imply in any way that she is a "scammer." I'd like to see some objective sources that indicate otherwise. Cosmikdebris (talk) 19:36, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
To be blunt, I saw this when it was first posted but didn't think it was worth responding to, similar to how I don't think most of the "I disagree so you must be wrong and I must be right!!" comments are worth responding to. You disagree, big deal. Without solid sourcing, arguments, and evidence I flat out don't care. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:43, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Cosmikdebris: Was the halting of all content the case in Amazing Atheist, HairlessCat's proposed equivalent? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 19:57, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
(EC)The problem with this approach, which is normally fairly sensible, is that right-wing circle jerks will pass the same talking point around to each other, each citing the previous, elevating up the "respectability" ladder. Pretty soon you have major(if awful) publications that you could cite for the claim that she's a scammer, and when you dig down for the actual evidence, it's facebook or twitter or youtube pages for shitty misogynists saying exactly what hairless cat is: flagrant lies. If you don't address the actual truth of it, that it's literally untrue in every reasonable sense, and those saying it's true are liars with no integrity at all, it's very easy to manipulate rules such as yours. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:02, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
@LeftyGreenMario Here's a link to the relevant section. As you can see, unlike Sarkeesian, TJ never got his projects beyond the planning and/or beta stages, let alone getting to a point that could be called "canceling" or "ending" them. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:04, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
(EC) @LeftyGreenMario: I'm not that familiar with The Amazing Athiest situation at all, and wasn't using that as an example. From what I can gather from TheAmazingAtheist#E-begging_and_scams, that character appears to have clearly solicited donations for projects that never came to fruition or were implemented in a half-assed way. There simply is no comparison at all in this specific instance to Feminist Frequency. Cosmikdebris (talk) 20:07, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
I know you didn't ask, but HairlessCat brought up the comparison and I needed to make sure if it's a fair equivalency. Which it doesn't seem like it. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 20:15, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
For all your meticulous asking for sources you could have probably looked it up yourselves. For the record, releasing her first video almost a year later when the original plan was to get all 5 in a year with less than 1/10th the funding doesn’t exactly look good. The response section is also full of fallacies. She didn’t know that fan art from an artists page that she removed the artists signature from was by an artist? That and using other youtuber’s videos without permission are unethical, regardless of the legality. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs
I'm not looking for sources to your claims because you're too intellectually shallow and lazy to provide them. I've watched her series, it's finished. She isn't a scammer, you're a lazy idiot, and that's the end of it. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:13, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Personally I think this is more matter of not managing money or time properly then a scam. Many honest kickstarter projects fall into this trap - they under estimate how much the project costs and the money goes like water. Or it takes longer and in a panic they start adding features, which winds up blowing thought the money that could have covered the project if they hadn't panicked. The Financial Demise of Feminist Frequency seems to point just bad money management/business planning rather then any scam.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:09, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@BruceGrubb That's not what happened. She originally had a small kickstarter goal. She reached that goal and then some. Her campaign was successful. People then harassed her because of the subject matter. The Streisand effect happened. Blowback happened. And people gave her a fuck ton more money than she was originally asking for. She then spent it on improving the production quality. And an important note, none of the people claiming scam or mismanagement were involved in giving her money or managing FemFreq's budget. This is important because you would think if all this wild speculation were true someone from the production staff might come out and reveal all. Yet that doesn't happen. Which means you're basing your arguments on jack fucking shit. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:16, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
I was just applying Hanlon's Razor - "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." I might add the "improving the production quality" claim doesn't exactly hold up - a point raised in the aforementioned The Response to Anita Sarkeesian Playlist. Erich von Stroheim is a prime example of a lot of money going into something that may have improved the picture but you can't clearly see it and so wonder where on earth the money went.--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:00, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Anita Sarkeesian is gender-essentialist[edit]

I was among the wave of individuals who heavily criticized Anita Sarkeesian and her viewpoints before GamerGate even happened, way back in 2013. I watched in astonishment as my criticisms were rebuffed and I was tarred and feathered as an anti-feminist by fanatics, even when I tried making my argument in a reasoned manner. The thing is, Sarkeesian’s whole viewpoint is completely tainted by essentialism, no matter how valid her points about over-sexualization may be. If you read her thesis, “I’ll Make a Man out of You”, it becomes eminently clear that she thinks gender roles and traits are fixed, and any time a woman performs masculinity, it is inauthentic (i.e. fictional women don’t actually become foul-mouthed, hard-drinking, hard-smoking gunslingers unless written as men, by men). I objected to this, vehemently. If you agree with Anita Sarkeesian, then you think that characters like Revy, Alita, the Bride, Lara Croft, Imperator Furiosa, Lorraine Broughton, Trinity, Samus Aran, et cetera, are just faking being manly and are totally unrelatable to any women in the audience. This should come as no surprise. Anita Sarkeesian is a follower of Carol Gilligan and cites her in her work. Carol Gilligan is the writer of In a Different Voice, a manual of gender-essentialism that is literally page after page of explaining why women are intrinsically nice, and emotive, and compassionate and caring, and how men, like Clyde in the proverbial Bonnie and Clyde duo, corrupt women’s pure natures and overwrite their unique voice with their own. The problem with this should be evident to anyone who engages in even the most shallow analysis. If you depict Anita Sarkeesian’s ideal woman, your character will be a literal chauvinist’s idea of a “good woman”. Meek, long-suffering, diplomatic, and harmless. A doormat. Which one do you think pisses a meninist off more? That, or a hard-drinking, cigar-puffing woman who straps on a couple revolvers and kills like fifty guys in a shootout? In Anita’s world, the latter is quite literally a “gender traitor” who seeks male approval by performing masculinity. Let’s be reasonable here. If you follow Anita’s logic to its ultimate conclusion, you will end up reinforcing traditional gender roles for women and perpetuating oppression. I’ll take action girls any day over that nonsense. The article on here totally lacks any criticism whatsoever of Anita’s weird essentialism that underpins many of her critiques. — Unsigned, by: 2600:100f:b008:c28a:89d5:9b7e:9557:3c6c / talk / contribs

Maybe, but who really cares now? Anita is not a philosopher, a psychologist, a sociologist, or any scientific sort of writer. She created reviews for video games from her own perspective and caught a lot of shit for it. So what? Also, someone might take you more seriously if you register and consider making actually constructive suggestions.Ariel31459 (talk) 20:20, 28 December 2019 (UTC) <- text in for anyone that's interested
It does seem like Sarkeesian has a weird tendency to align femininity and masculinity on a linear spectrum (charitably calling it a spectrum), and how those two are defined, well, not sure if they're defined at all. I do think there's some kernel of truth that sometimes, a "strong" woman is just someone who has overly "traditional" masculine traits (typically portrayed in the west) such as aggression, lacking emotion, showing no vulnerabilities, rugged individualism rather than showing strength through other traditionally feminine traits ). Her examples, not sure if they support it, but one example I can bring up is how people think Peach from Super Mario Adventures is supposedly a "strong" female character because she's ridiculously aggressive To her credit, she does manage to fashion a plan to get out immediately as well as even risking herself to rescue Mario, but she shouts a lot and is very physically aggressive. Anyhow, this is Princess Peach, and while she's the quintessential damsel in distress, she's really more than capable on her own, and IMO, she's way more affected by the plot setup rather than her character traits as being passive, as Mario's often imprisoned a lot of times too. I don't want to ramble too much about the damsel in distress trope, and that Peach's probably not the best example of it these days, but I think the takeaway is that you don't have to be a rugged badass to be a good character.
As for your first point, I think Sarkeesian's point is that you can still be a gentle housewife and still be an interesting, strong character and capable of a lead role, but I haven't seen a lot of examples of that? She does say characters exist, but they are often relegated to a supporter and aren't really a hero because they're not the ones that have physical prowess. So far, I haven't seen any arguments that women shouldn't be foul-mouthed, hard-drinking, hard-smoking gunslingers or else they are faking it, but that when people think of "strong" women in lead roles, they think of women that display the "traditional" masculine traits rather than the gentle housewife. I haven't seen any sort of accusation of "gender traitor" by the way, I think that's making up arguments that don't exist, kinda like a strawman. I also think Sarkeesian's idea of a "strong woman" wouldn't be the doormat, but would be the woman who isn't aggressive, the woman who's not dominating over others but still assertive, the woman who has a strong moral compass and can achieve goals through cooperation and diplomacy (as well as assertiveness such as avoiding sources of harm, the woman who can emotionally lead someone out of a mental rut. It's a problem you characterize that as a "harmless" and a "doormat" as if physical strength is a measure of worth.
We'll have to see if her examples hold up to scrutiny, but I do think characters like Samus Aran and Lara Croft, while far better than the overly passive sex objects (even though they tend to also be treated like sex objects), aren't illustrative of ideal examples of "strong women", representing only a portion of what strong women should be (and being overrepresented). It might be a problem of how people define what a strong woman is, which can be just another thread of patriarchal values, and it's not wholly unique to women as you don't see men in those roles either (but "traditional" feminine gender roles is an abstract concept which can apply to both men and women). --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 20:49, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. It only takes a few paragraphs to discover that, yes, Anita is using an implicitly essentialist point of view."This project began as I was watching TV and found myself identifying with and rooting for the strong female heroes." She declares that she selected the "strong female figures" according to her own reaction to them. While this may not seem essentialist at first glance, her ability to pick them out is implicitly essentialist via her own subjective standard. This sort of POV requires that a narrative need only present a number of cues that identifies the femininity or masculinity of a character; the rest is a projection, supplied by the viewer. Further essentialist details are embedded in the concept of the male gaze: "The determining male gaze projects its phantasy on to the female form which is styled accordingly." So, she clearly recognizes the male gendered structuring of reality is essentialist, something that men cannot help but must do. This male gaze is, I think, related to the Jungian female archetypes. But, as I have previously asked, so what? Ariel31459 (talk) 23:12, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
To be fair, the thesis is comparatively ancient, since it was kicking around at least ten years ago in her head. Zero (talk - contributions) 07:26, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

How about some actual general Criticisms in addition to the pathetic Strawmen we have?[edit]

In addition to the pathetic strawmen we have we should have Criticisms like

  1. - She misrepresents aspects of games (effectively the guts of nearly every reasonable counter video out there)
  2. - She makes many demonstrable untrue statements about a game and/or gaming genres (likely due to boarderline non existent research on the matter if we are being generous)
  3. - She cherry picks game play options and presents that as something the player is required to do.
By her logic Super Mario Brothers is a suicide simulator simply because you can make Mario purposely fall down a pit, run into an enemy, etc.
  1. - It is not exactly clear what the money to make 'better' videos was used for as the videos after the kickstarter look the same to videos made before it.
  2. - Why did the videos come out at a speed slower then a snail out for a walk when channels with far less money produced content like there was no tomorrow? (see Anita Sarkeesian Releases Kickstarter Breakdown, Raised $440,000 In 2014 Forbes for that one)

and the like. The Response to Anita Sarkeesian Playlist contains criticisms such as the above. We are supposed to be Rationalwiki and deal with rational criticisms of a point as well as the off the wall narrow nonsense. So why are there none of the rational criticisms in the article?--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:46, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh how the mighty have fallen to the level of cranks... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:06, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Non sequitur. The questions are totally valid and have actually been asked. Claiming they are from "cranks" is a dodge.--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:02, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
I mean it does help my case that you're just vomiting up the slightly reheated talking points of a digital hate mob that then went on to become part of the alt-right so... Yeah. But mainly I was referring to the whole "rationalwiki" thing. You know, the thing that literally every group of cranks has used at this point? The thing you should know will get you laughed out of the room? Yeah that. Anyhow, enjoy your reactionary YouTube channels, because I refuse to give the consensus needed due to you presenting poor quality evidence. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:08, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Something to read while you are shut in.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:58, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Excuse me, but.... "Mario Super Brother"??? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 19:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
@Ariel31459 Thank you for the interesting article. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:02, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
"She cherry picks game play options and presents that as something the player is required to do." This is a strawman and a lie. Has Bruce actually watched the series or just the many reactionary apologia videos? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:05, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
You complain about not doing enough research, yet one example of a game you cited you literally cannot spell its name properly? How about you take your own advice and actually do some research before you make yourself look like a fool? БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓(T|C) 19:18, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Never heard of typos have you? If that is your best counterargument then it boils down to 'I got nothing as a counterpoint'. As for the rest I have watched her videos and they are full of errors that even I a Mac user (ie not much of a gamer) can spot them. People with far more knowledge then me (such as those in the Rebuttals on Anita Sarkeesian playlist)) have pointed out these errors and other issues. And I notice that people are not actually addressing that point but going off an irrelevent side tracks.--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:21, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Non-argument. You are making claims, appealing to videos (around half of which are either private or have been removed, one of which is TJ, an unreliable source on any subject related to feminism or sexism.) as if they were authorities. So that's an appeal to authority. When I point out that you repeated a falsehood you dismissed it as "going off an irrelevent side tracks", so we can chalk that up as well. I don't see you getting any closer to the consensus you require. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:43, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
This is exactly the type of dodge the issue I am talking about.--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:37, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
"You citing bad sources, poor quality arguments, and dismissing points out of hand": Legit.
"Me pointing this out": "Dodging the issue."
Enjoy having no consensus and not having your changes instated. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:51, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
First of all "Mario Super Brother" isn't a typo in the slightest. It stems from a complete ignorance of the game you're referencing, and the logic that employs it is in fact, incredibly lazy. It's called Super Mario Bros.. At the very least, Sarkeesian actually does title the games she references properly and doesn't mistitle it as a boob who ironically would be the same type of person who would say Sarkeesian hates games and doesn't know what she's talking about. As for how your argument is lazy, it's a complete strawman of Sarkeesian's point. When talking about player choice and how the narrative progresses, she's not talking about games light on story where you could, if you want, make Mario deliberately die to the Goomba on World 1-1. She's talking about games such as Mass Effect, Fallout New Vegas, Red Dead Redemption, where players are railroaded into making such choices and she's specifically referring to choices that involve a female character, and especially those in which she labels as "background NPCs", where even the positive, heroic outcome is rather shallow, and many cases have female characters being the objects of a negative sexual advance with a cartoonishly evil, black and white perpetrator you must kill. I can't even sum up a video myself as it's pretty complicated and dives pretty deep into multiple games with multiple examples, but people like you and Thunderf00t consistently miss the point and attack strawmen she specifically does in fact address in her videos (she always says in the lines of "I'm not saying that..." that people criticize her regardless). БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓(T|C) 03:01, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Actually the majority of the games she points to are "light on story" - as pointed out in many of the rebuttal videos 'the woman has been captured and you must rescue her' trope is older then dirt. So is the one - dimensional/future Darwin Award winner villain trope - the Umbrella Corporation seem to cover, he he, that kind of silliness though the Vault-Tec Corporation is just as off the wall insane. To read your summations "Mass Effect", "Fallout New Vegas", and "Red Dead Redemption" they in are this vein. Newsflash they aren't. "Mass Effect"' has the broad Paragon vs Renegade option, the 3d Fallout games aren't really open world thanks to a very limited dialogue system (likely due to the heavy amount amount of voice acting - that isn't cheap), and "Red Dead Redemption" has the same problems the majority of the Western Genre has with regards to women. "Big Valley" is about the only Western I can think of off the top of my head that had a strong female lead in the form of Victoria Barkley. As I said before a symptom not a cause.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:32, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

My usage of the word "light" is relative to the example of the game you cited, Super Mario Bros. Aside from that, it's a subjective qualifier I've used to counter your strawman point of taking control of Mario only to plonk him off the cliff as an example of "player choice" influencing the course of the game, which of course, mostly serves as a side-note as an originator of the trope being against women. I don't understand why you're going off on a tangent about how supposedly "light" the examples of stories I've mentioned in my paragraph actually is. You're missing the overall point of her videos again. The trope of damsels-in-distress IS in fact old, and while games aren't going to be as blatant about it as they will be in Super Mario Bros., with even the overall Mario series in of itself regularly making fun of the Peach getting kidnapped plots (and some Mario games actually do explore it a bit further and give Peach her own agency like in Paper Mario or Super Mario Odyssey), it's only been gussied up with more layers against women lately, and that's really the point of Sarkeesian's videos, to examine such tropes that still exist within the games themselves, as they are more deeply embedded, and while a bit more sophisticated, still contain a lot of the core problems with representation of women in gaming. A lot of examples of female NPCs in games are them being used as rewards for a story, and they have no agency of their own, and another good chunk of them, especially in grittier storylines, are prostitutes, which seems to me that the writers for such gritty and edgy story lines simply want sex for the sake of it but are too lazy to actually develop a story or relationship between two characters so they rely on said prostitution to get that. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓(T|C) 08:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
I went off on the tangent because you are missing my point which is 'while she is right about there being being problems her examples are totally horrid in that they are either half-truths or flat out wrong.' . I mentioned Rebuttals on Anita Sarkeesian playlist)) which has only ~36 private videos out of its 269 video list so its in far better shape then the The Response to Anita Sarkeesian Playlist playlist)) is.
Side issue: I have no idea why the owners of the videos in those list made them private and can't even see what channel (if any) they were a part of though the usual suspects are there: Some companies having no concept of Fair Use, YouTube having badly written algorithms, YouTube doing boneheaded things (COPPA) without thinking them through, and the misuse of the DMCA to remove videos/channels people don't like. Heck, both sfdebris and Matt McKinney have taking their videos to their own websites because Youtube has become so toxic and inconstant with regards to Fair Use. Youtube is so dysfunctional that it has effectively smothered the Earned Media (the holy grail in marketing) for Google's planned gaming platform. Talk about left hand not knowing what the right is doing.
The point is once your examples can be shown to be either flawed or incorrect then your whole position becomes a jenga tower.--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:30, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
The term "light" is a relative term. One you made in response for me banging about your player choice complaint in the first place, resorting to a game series that is specifically known to emphasize on gameplay rather than story (I can talk all day about Mario games by the way, I'm an expert on them). That entire argument you made about "well Sarkeesian's point about player choice in video games doesn't matter because in Super Mario Bros. you can jump off a cliff", which wasn't even Sarkeesian's point in the slightest, which is a strawman in of itself.
YouTube is garbage though, that's what I'll agree with. COPPA technically isn't even their fault, it's how they managed it, by leveraging the blame on the content creators. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓(T|C) 00:44, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
I wouldn't go as far as to say YouTube is garbage but rather managed by people who clearly have no freaking idea what they are doing (Effectively killing Earned Media is stupid on so many levels I don't know where to even begin). But again playlists like Rebuttals on Anita Sarkeesian playlist)) and The Response to Anita Sarkeesian Playlist playlist)) show there are more general Criticisms to her work. A particularly ironic one comes up in #Gamergate: when 'Feminists' and Gamers collide! where Sarkeesian's idea of a strong female protagonist matches the "men with boobs" part of her own thesis! Faceplants. So here we have Sarkeesian herself using a trope that she herself criticized! Wonderful. And that is not the only place where her arguments (and examples) go totally off the rails and with 230+ videos one can still watch there is a lot.
Regarding my Super Mario Brothers comparison you missed my point - her Hitman example involves do something the game actively discourages you to do ie it involves playing the game improperly. Agent 47 is supposed to be played as a stealthy assassin killing as few people on the way to the target as possible not as a misogynistic murderhobo Sarkeesian give us. As I said before the "nuns with guns" trailer is a prime example of the problem she is raising and it doesn't involve playing the game improperly - which her example does.
On a side note I looked up Feminist Frequency's Form 990 and ugh. The IRS software appears to still be crap (I did volunteer work for them as part of my associates in accounting back in the 1990s) because there is no way that is the actual 990. Now you could say certain information was redacted...but doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of publishing the information in the first place?--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:37, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
I've decided to entertain you and watched Thunderf00t's video labeled #Gamergate: when 'Feminists' and Gamers collide! The very first thing that got my red flag up was him linking Breitbart and many other questionable headlines like "The death of "gamers" and the women who "killed them". Like, using the term "gamer" to describe a hobby is something ludicrous, other entertainment mediums don't call themselves "movie-watchers" or "readers". Oh, and Thunderf00t uses the classic "sex sells" argument, which is a thought terminating cliche that doesn't actually address criticisms aimed towards not just games, but society as a whole. He also claims that she wants games to be aimed only towards her ideals when...that's not what she wants at all (and the ironic thing is that Thunderf00t wants games to stay the way they are, the way HE likes them by making this video).
As for the parts of negative and positive traits for women that she lists, I think there's one thing that Anita missed about a negative for both: when they're portrayed as villains, they're likely to be seductive and manipulative rather than aggressive and brutal. And in addition, Thunderf00t latches on the chart for television, when creating a video game is entirely a different medium than is creating a television show. Yeah, games come in a variety of flavors but a video game has a different objective than a movie, and that is to be an interactive medium rather than a one where you watch things happen. And for her game, how does Thunderf00t know that all of the soldiers the female protagonists attacks are men? They're ambiguously gendered, you don't see their faces in the armor, you only get to see them being men in that one scene with his armor being taken off but other than that...there's no explicit confirmation, unless you rely on gender tropes that unless the NPC acts in a feminine manner, it's a male (which is extremely common with ambiguous species like Pokemon where people love referring to animals by default as "he" unless they are specifically gendered to be female). And he latches to extremely minor NPCs, nonimportant characters who have no story importance whatsoever and serve for gameplay reasons, like latching on a random Goomba you kill in Super Mario Bros., whereas, Sarkeesian talks about plot important characters like Peach or in Pandora's Tower. He loves going back to that one inconsequential scene in that hypothetical game.
I also like for his Bayonetta example, he uses cosplay as a counterargument for a Tweet that going to be restricted in length anyway. It doesn't actually address her point. It still does have the male demographic primarily in mind, and while there are girls who like the sexualization, it's not like Platinum doesn't know what they're doing: the camera likes oogling at her whenever she does seductive poses. Granted, I'm not the one who would criticize Bayonetta as it's intentionally designed that way and its presentation is definitely very over-the-top, but it still IS designed with the hetero male in mind, make no mistakes about it. Thunderf00t also counters Jonathon's Tweet about caring for sexual objectification with Metacritic review scores doesn't actually discount what he's saying? You can love a game but can still address mechanics that make you feel uncomfortable...and some reviewers probably have a different opinion on it, especially Polygon's review which Thunderf00t completely ignored, who didn't like Bayonetta's sexualization and even then again, I disagree with people taking an issue with Bayonetta as that's part of her character but then I understand where they are coming from because the sexualization is such a common trope that it's become tired...has Thunderf00t ever reviewed a video game before?
Thunderf00t also excuses GamerGate's harassment towards her (by the way, even Nintendo, Bayonetta 2's publisher, has called it a hate campaign), by implying that she deserved it for criticizing Bayonetta's design. He doesn't call out on the people harrassing her at all and ignores the legit hate campaign's she has gotten for otherwise innocuous videos that will not hurt the "gamer" hobby at all.
While it is true that a good percentage of people who play games are female and that there's little distinction to be made towards games like The Sims and God of War (The Sims has a 60% female playerbase) the games Sarkeesian attacks are the most highly publicized games, games that would receive a lot of coverage from the press, and while we've got games with a considerable female playerbase like The Sims and Animal Crossing, they're still in a minority and even so, those games with a higher female demographic like the aforementioned games are actually balanced and just slanted towards a higher percent of females than just being a dominant demographic.
He brings up the school shooting and how Sarkeesian pins the blame on toxic masculinity and he fails to note that the ONLY consistent markings of a mass shooter is that they're male, everything else including mental health, abuse history, race, etc. are all confounding factors. He's still excusing the horrific harassment by thinking that she deserved it because she made some, what they think, are weak criticisms.
When he talks about "we want our games to be fun we don't want this political nonsense", who is this "we" he is referring to? Is he talking about people who share his opinions with him? Because if so, that's an extremely limiting demographic, and it runs counterintuitive to his point that "well companies need to make money". One of the best ways for companies to make money is to be more inclusive in general, not a stagnant effort that runs rampant on the game industry. When there WERE times that games tried out new ideas such as taking control of an old lady in Watch Dogs 2, I've seen a lot of great reception towards that. And to be honest? I would love to play as a normal-looking woman for once. Personally, I'm sick and tired of over-sexualized women. I can't stand playing a bunch of Ninja Theory games, and it's one of the primary reasons I prefer the male protagonists, I'm sick of women who look like prostitutes or are overidealized.
He makes an assumption that Sarkeesian is okay with the brutal murder when that isn't the focus of her video either, and me personally, I think a lot of murder and violence is tiring in of itself as well, and that's really another topic to discuss about on how common those themes are. Jim Sterling has made a pretty decent video explaining some of the critiques behind violence overall in the medium, being someone who loves violence a bunch.
Aaaaand my attention just fleeted. Crap. I might get back to the rest later but Thunderf00t's video is extremely flawed, and that's just one I picked apart. I fear the rest will be the same thing. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓(T|C) 21:04, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Gish galloping?[edit]

Shit I may have gish galloped without realizing it.

My point is, I don't think Thunderf00t uses strong counterarguments against Sarkeesian, and I don't think he really addresses any of the claims she has made (his argument style may also be a form of gish gallop as well, hence why he goes all over the place, with one part of him talking about Bayonetta with another talking about male school shootings, with another talking about her ideal game, with another talking about Gamergate, with another talking about video game violence and so on). His opinion is that the status quo is fine and dandy, and nothing needs to be changed in the industry. And you know, I think that's a valid view point to have, even though I strongly disagree with him. The problem with him is that he drones on and on and on about her on multiple videos, Thunderf00t loves going off in tangents unrelated to the topic she is discussing, and she's inconsequential to the bigger picture, as if she has personally insulted him in some way. However, she's not valid because of her views on feminism in games. No, she's valid because of the tons of harassment she has received for expressing what could be considered a relatively mild viewpoint that addresses some of the problems the status quo appears in the games, and she's not even aggressive about promoting her views. How people creepily latch onto her videos, how they are eager to thoroughly deconstruct everything she says, how people seem to take an issue with feminism critiques. That we STILL have discussions on the validity of her videos speak great volumes weird internet people seem to get personally offended by her viewpoints? БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓(T|C) 23:03, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Well Sarkeesian can drone on a bit though she is a little more focused. IMHO Thunderf00t is dealing with a Christ Myth Theory situation where in effort to point out all the issues (a good hunk of which is Sturgeon's law writ large) he is all over the place. Its a little like Dorothy Milne Murdock whose raw information regarding the Historical Jesus situation were spot on but the moment she tried to interpret that information she promptly went off the rails. Possibly a better example is the Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ article - there is much nonsense on both sides of the issue is that the article kind of rambles...and that is after we did our best to clean it up.
As Moviebob pointed in out GAME OVERTHINKER V33: Building a Better Gamer gaming culture has some serious problems with anything it sees as a "threat" with the "joy" that is xbox live trying to be the 'knight on his white horse' (which in Yahtzee's word "can charitably be described as lively, and uncharitably described as a bunch of hooting dick holes." But even within the community such as with Age of Conan: Hyborian Adventures you have games "in dire need of smacktard fumigation".) As Moviebob says in another video it is effectively the Hammer of Thor wielded by Stimpy.
That said I doubt Sarkeesian knew or even knows about the female heroes in Game OverThinker (Remastered) - LOST GIRLS. Regarding Bayonetta, you did catch that part about her design being done by a woman, right? Another example of how dysfunction things are is the Twilight series which is written by a woman and in THE TWILIGHT SAGA; ECLIPSE (Escape to the Movies) Moviebob goes into the actual message in the novels and movies are giving its fans...and it is not pretty by any stretch of the imagination.
The really sad thing is there is so much Sarkeesian could have used. You want an example of what was a strong female character getting shafted don't do freaking Crystal in a game that for financial reasons because a Starfox vehicle but rather Samus Aran in Metroid Other M (Yahtzee has a field day raking the game's treatment of Samus Aran over the coals). The totally horrid treatment Samus Aran got in that ClusterFUBAR is gone into more detail in Metroid Other M (why it SUCKS) Mega Review (The Ultimate In-depth Breakdown). As I said I'm not a "gamer" (Mac user remember) and I know about Metroid Other M so why the sam hill does Sarkeesian use such a piss poor example when there is one ready made? Heck, if she had known what she was freaking doing she could could have had an entire episode on the problems with Metroid Other M treatment of Samus Aran. Instead we get what amounts to BS about another game whose character roster was changed for financial reasons. Never mind that it ignores the deeper issues listed in Metroid: Other M- The Ultimate Elephant in the Room - where abusive relationships are romanticized and are popular (Twilight series).
As for the "how weird internet people seem to get personally offended by her viewpoints?" issue as I indicated you have effectively two camps - the children of Xbox live and they people who have valid counterarguments but can't focus because there is just so much wrong with her examples.
Finally, Thunderf00t did not do all 230+ videos in the Rebuttals on Anita Sarkeesian playlist he just happened to be hitting the most points. Heck three of the videos lamblasting her in the shorter The Response to Anita Sarkeesian Playlist are by women (InuitInua and KiteTales & Flex) and raise more focused versions of the points Thunderf00t did. Other females bringing either providing criticism along Thunderf00t's lines, with regard to the whole Gamergate fiasco, or feminism's extremes in Rebuttals on Anita Sarkeesian are ShadowBender91, Gaijin Goombah Media (with Aki), InuitInua, meltheofcgamergirl, KiteTales & Flex, AlyssMajere (a satire), American Enterprise Institute (several by them), SyrianGirlpartisan, Lisa M, Rabbit Plays Games, ShadowBender91, ShieldWife, Jennie Bharaj, Liana K (there are a lot by her in the list), PragerU,, Video Culture Replay Blog, RevengeOf TheNerd, Kristi Thinks, HoneyBadgerRadio, GameFreak982928, David Pakman Show (Mercedes Carrera & Liana Kerzner interview), Viper Sword, BraveTheWorld, SunBunz, Margaret MacLennan, Viper Sword, and gineriella (I think I got them all)
While we are at it what about dangerousanalysis' issues regarding the quality (ie does it measure up to university standards)? How about the points raised by LeoPirate?--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:07, 14 April 2020 (UTC
I had seen the bit where Bayonetta was designed by a woman, yeah. It's good that a woman did design her, we need more female workers in the industry period, but keep in mind, she's not the only person behind the design process, as it's a team effort rather than an individual one. Again, I wouldn't larp on Bayonetta regardless: she's a positive example of a female character IMO in an industry filled with shameless women whose only goal is to have males wank at them. She's the type of character that would intentionally make the camera oogle at her or sexually pose against it to taunt people, and she's using her sexiness as a form of empowerment. However, it's a bit sad she's an exception, compared to games where females are dressed poorly solely because for the male audience to wank at them while making some of the female players might uncomfortable, and I want more neutral depictions of women rather than just them being good-looking. Like imagine if the only male characters allowed were people who look like Nathan Drake...this is one of the reasons I really like Zarya from Overwatch, not only is she Russian, but she looks bulky and muscular as well, and I like that a lot! Sarkeesian even noted that Zarya and Ana from Overwatch are great female characters, and variety of them is the spice of life. And in addition, I can talk about how I'm not a big fan of the Mario females all that much, I kinda wish we got an ugly, fat WaPeach instead of Peach, Daisy, Rosalina, and Pauline, all females with very similar body types compared to Mario, Luigi, Wario, and Waluigi.
Oh, I've heard about Samus in Metroid the Other M and how awful that game treated her (as a Nintendo fan and a Smash Bros. fan it's pretty inevitable I would be exposed to some of the gripes in the Other M). I should give the videos a watch, but I'm aware of the meme culture and word of mouth surrounding the controversy such as the baby and Adam being overly restrictive on her.
And I'm wondering, but is Sarkeesian even aware of the very high female player base of life simulation games? It's something she should definitely look into, honestly, as a feminist who critiques gender roles and demographics in games. Animal Crossing developers noted that the game's female to male player base is roughly 50/50. Hell, even searching The Sims 4 videos will get you a bunch of female YouTubers playing the game, which is a pretty fascinating look into how some video game genres will draw a particular gender of people in while others are less likely so.
This trend of the "gamer" wanting to resist change or differing ideas that would threaten enjoyment of the status quo of others is one of the multitudes of reasons I don't sympathize with the self-procalimed "gamer". I'm a girl, and while during my time at tournaments and other events, it always feel really awkward for me to be one of the only females in the room, and it feels awkward playing games that sexualize women (in games I'm not familiar with, I tend to gravitate towards the female option but I don't like them sexualized in the slightest...I like them pretty and idealized of course, but I don't like thick thighs or large breasts and whatever and exposed skin, and if that's what they are, I'm sticking to the male option); to me, it's not very inviting and in fact, very alienating. And I don't think that it would help the industry at large in the long run, and the so-called "gamer" should be well aware of that. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓(T|C) 03:41, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Sarkeesian is right (as opposed to Jack Thompson and Patricia Pulling who IMNSHO are/were off on the dwarf planet Pluto) in there is a problem but she undermines her argument with easily disproved examples. InuitInua appears in both the playlists I provided and she is not thrilled with Anita's tactics. Neither is Liana K (she is in the longer playlist). On a side note Moviebob goes into true objectification in Game OverThinker V12-oh boy that should have been fodder for Anita. How much can you objectify woman in a capture the flag game other then by turning her into the freaking flag?! I forget, did she use Fat Princess or did she go Metroid Other M on that one as well? To be fair to the gamer culture they have fought so many nonsense claims about video claims that they have fallen into the 'fight the Dragon long enough you become the Dragon' trap. On Metroid the Other M there is a lot more wrong there then the baby and Adam being overly restrictive on her. There is the overall relationship with Adam which when you look at the games later in the timeline takes on a very dark tone (nearly on par with battered wife syndrome). Samus's effectively monotone inner monologue (instead of having her talk to Adam regularly to establish their relationship) doesn't help and neither does the mental break down with regards to a monster she has fought several times before (if it was a form of PTSD give the player some idea as why it is happening now and not in previous encounters) Other games she could have gone for were X-Blades and Age of Conan which regards to how females are (not) clothed.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:28, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Position in pyramid scheme[edit]

I've tried to revise the point that classifies her as a victim of the pyramid scheme to point out that it's unclear what her place in the scheme actually was, but I was reverted once for a bad reason (that Alex Mandossian's place in the scheme was known), and again for no reason at all. I know better than to engage in an edit war so I'm saying this here instead: You don't have to be at the very top of a pyramid scheme in order to be a perpetrator. Sarkeesian was promoting Mandossian's scheme, and she could have been doing this naively, but she also could very easily have been aware of what was going on. It can't be conclusively said that she was a victim. Is the point of this article to provide an accurate and rational view of Anita Sarkeesian, or to defend her at all costs? These criticisms and responses are very obviously written and defended by people who are not at all critical of Sarkeesian, and the weakman/strongman format they're in really strains their credibility. I'd like to shore some of them up so they're a bit better at accurately representing what her critics actually think, but I'm getting the sense that that's not welcome here. Am I wrong? User_talk:

Some Reddit threads regarding Anita Sarkeesian[edit]

A confusion about the Hitman part[edit]

I'm genuienly confused. Doesn't the Hitman series allo you to kill any NPC, regardless of gender? If I understand correctly, you're arguing that you're not against a game that allows you to kill women, just against the women being sexualized as heck. Mikwee (talk) 16:19, 12 December 2020 (UTC)