Talk:Anita Sarkeesian/Archive1

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 17 July 2018. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: , (new)(back)

Tired of Writing[edit]

Before people lose their shit about grammar, syntax and spelling errors and leaving things out or putting in stuff I didn't need to, I'm tired as all fuck for some reason. I'll finish tomorrow. I plan on re-watching her videos to help flesh out her commentary.--Token Conservative (talk) 02:33, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks good so far! I fixed up a few little things, so you won't have to worry about them. Wehpudicabok (talk) 02:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
OK, went through all but a few of her videos today to expand on the coverage. I think I have monday off, so I'll probably finish then. I need to talk about her videos on toys and toy ads more and the only released Tropes vs Women video. --Token Conservative (talk) 21:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

should probably be included--Token Conservative (talk) 03:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Trigger warning.[edit]

Does anyone but Hamilton find the descriptions contained in the article so over-the-top in their graphic nature that they need to be preceded by a warning? If the thunder don't get you/Then the lightning will. 16:50, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

  1. Act your age. I'm not being ridiculously over the top
  2. If you would like, I can make it a whole lot more over the top and graphic if you want
  3. Try keeping the dispute you apparently have in like, one area, rather than here and on my talkpage.

--Token Conservative (talk) 17:04, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I took out the Sam Adama "phallic knives" symbolism because I'm not sure if that was intentional by the show's creators in the first place, and that "Harrison Ford + vagina ≠ a strong female character" sentence needs to be articulated better (I didn't remove it, it's still embedded in the text). Osaka Sun (talk) 03:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
I just noticed this. At a point I realized that my input was not important or wanted, even though I seem to be the only person here who has any clue who she is. So I gave up. Delete the whole article, or whatever, I don't give a shit. --Token Conservative (talk) 23:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Sure thing sweetheart. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


(cur | prev) 22:30, 1 June 2013‎ Osaka Sun (Talk | contribs)‎ . . (-1,058)‎ . . (Undo revision 1199202 by (talk) You claim she's cherry-picking, yet you just did the same. Also, funny you mention Samus, who has been extensively sexualized recently.) (undo)

How was I cherry-picking? I was copying nearly word for word the attack on thunderf00t. If I'm cherry-picking, so is that section. As for Samus, you'll notice that's been happening in Other M, which everyone hated. Everyone hated Samus's portrayal in Other M. Which suggests that this really is all in people's heads. There isn't some conspiracy with a bunch of men somewhere going "muwhahaha, we will enslave women even more by making games this way." People didn't go "OMG, finally, the portrayal of Samus I've been waiting for, she's much more traditionally feminine and sexualized!" That's ridiculous.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Nobody said anything about a conspiracy. But it IS a simple fact that the industry is run by men. They aren't deliberately oppressing women, but they don't see women as equals and it reflects in their work. Work which is very difficult for women to enjoy. Hell, I can't even browse NON-GAMING sites anymore without seeing some pinup-girl with her boobs spilling out of her shirt trying to sell me Grand Theft Fucking Auto #23423.
And frankly, even if I disagreed with Sarkeesian (which I don't), I wouldn't DARE say so, for fear of being associated with the most despicable gang of misogynistic assholes I have ever seen (the people who regularly attack her verbally - not saying you are, saying you shouldn't associate yourself with them). Wehpudicabok (talk) 23:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Quit the reverts and start talking here, please. Wehpudicabok (talk) 23:22, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

That second paragraph right there is a major problem. We've created an atmosphere of thinking that all the media is anti-women and anyone who disagrees is somehow a horrible misogynist. I would think a site like rationalwiki should be against such thinking. That's what it says it is anyway.

People don't think that women are somehow less and that's why they're making games like that. The GTA ads are there because sex sells. And that's true whether we're talking about women or men. Video game companies aren't saying "Well, women are inferior so we're going to make it like this." They're saying "What sells, that's how we'll market it."— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Seriously, "sex sells" is your defence? Osaka Sun (talk) 23:31, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, stop ignoring everything I'm saying. Yes, sex sells. And thus things are sexualized. Because money. Seriously this is a no brainer. Men are sexualized as well as women, and I think you're ignoring that.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

The fact that women's images are used purely for marketing, with no actual acknowledgement of the humans behind them, is itself evidence that the industry doesn't see them as equals. And men are only sexualized in works that are explicitly designed as erotic entertainment for women (e.g. Chippendales). Women however are objectified constantly.
Please sign your talk page posts with four tildes (~~~~). Wehpudicabok (talk) 23:36, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
"We've created an atmosphere of thinking that all the media is anti-women and anyone who disagrees is somehow a horrible misogynist." I didn't expect the persecution complex to appear so quickly. Osaka Sun (talk) 23:38, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
The GTA promos are your response? Seriously? Find me one poster, one, which sexualises male characters in the same way the female ones are. The women are always either in some degree of lingerie or doing something or other associated with seduction (lip-licking, showing cleavage) and are mostly (if not all the time) characters that only appear as peds, i.e. disposable, unimportant, while the male characters depicted actually are characters in the games (Ryder, Smoke, Rosenberg, Caesar) and are depicted doing something associated with the game / setting. And even before you say it, no, Chris Redfield being jacked is not 'sexualisation'. The way he is designed is aimed at dudebros, not women. Polite Timesplitter Let's move on to some other area of sodomy! 09:45, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Just FYI, Timesplitter: I was actually the one who brought up GTA ads originally, not the BoN. I agree with your points though. Wehpudicabok (talk) 09:51, 2 June 2013 (UTC) — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Reading this article was like reading feminist version of Conservatopedia. Nice job defending this moron. According to you feminazis (you are the reason why everyone hates feminism), everyone who criticize you is sexist, even Richard Dawkins himself. Have fun pepper spraying protesters while screaming naked on the street. Just don't come crying about "sexist police hitting women", like Femen did. — Unsigned, by: ‎ / talk / contribs

What a useful and relevant way to contribute to the discussion. So now we at RatWiki are feminazis ? That's fantastic (especially since most of the Rats are males). I don't see the connection with John Pike (and I certainly don't the see the connection between not joining in the Sarkeesian-bashing and police brutality), but I'm not sure I want to know. Kungo GumiQui ça ? 08:26, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Tropes vs. Women in Video Games[edit]

After watching the (two uploaded) videos I will have to admit that Sarkeesian used a few iffy examples and made iffy general assertions (and shallow, surface-level observations and minor mistakes in research) to make her points, which is not a good reason to jump all over that and ignore the rest of her valid and sometimes very well-made points. One should always be constructive and not destructive like all these "back-to-kitchen" types. But anyways, her overall points nevertheless stand. Sexism and misogyny is present, constantly creeping and largely unchecked in the games industry. Also, another good effect is that her videos sparked discussion on the topic (in more civilized places than Youtube, /v/ or /r/gaming, obviously, like SomethingAwful or RockPaperShotgun).

On a side note:

If you want to draw up a shining example of positive development/advancement/hope in the depiction of women in video games, you should be looking at Alyx Vance from the very refined Half-Life 2 and sequels. Very athletic, able to take care of herself, not one-dimensional, no big boobies or “showing of sexy skin”, likeable personality, and most importantly: not the protagonist.

Note that this is addressing the concern that only protagonist females ever get good characterization while NPC females get pushed into sexist roles, and this is also addressing the concern/myth that violent video games with male protagonists like most shooters are too limited to have good female characterization. Thus Alyx is imo a better cherry to pick than Samus or Lara or whoever. She is also very popular, so not obscure at all.

(Yeah, more cherry-picking, I know, but it’s better cherry-picking than whatever else I’ve seen around here. If you’re gonna cherry-pick, do it right.)

At this point there's also another relevant tendency. The more refined a game is in terms of characters, the less shallow things like those arising from sexism are prevalent. Games with very shallow or cliched characters tend to have the most misogynist/sexist issues, but are conversely also the hardest to take seriously.

On a final note, as statistics like “45% of gamers are women” or “50% of gamers are women, 20% of “hardcore” gamers are women” pop up, it is apparent that we do actually need more positive female examples like Alyx Vance in gaming, so not just in terms of protagonists, though they are a key focus.

Just my two cents. Nullahnung (talk) 18:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, she's not ignoring anything. Looking at tropes is not about looking at counters to those tropes, whatever they be. It's about seeing if there is a very real sample of "more than some" within a genera. Maybe there is an "alian kidnapped me and I got super powers" trope. you look, find only one, and it's not really a trope. you find 30? then maybe/maybe not. it's up to you to make the argument. She found hundreds to fit the first two tropes she is working on. she says, right in big bold "please stop feeling offended" language, that these do not deal (yet) with counter examples. and these are not really about the most modern examples, either, but the "history" of the trope, if you will. Green mowse.pngGodot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 19:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Indeed. She also promised to look at some types of counter examples in the third part of her 'Damsels in Distress' series, so that's something to look forward to for those people who want a "balanced" discussion, and anyways, it's not like she came across as someone who is intent on ignoring anything so far.
Admittedly, the two videos she's put up so far contain minor points that are too shallow (simplifying game theory, ignoring facets, etc.) and stays on the surface a lot, but a good effect of that is that they are are very streamlined, accessible and easy to understand and appreciate for the broader audience. Nullahnung (talk) 02:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, she's not an academic, or at least isn't playing one on tv you tube, so you have to take that into consideration. Her audience isn't familar with academic studies of media or feminism, nor with academic feminism. Her audience doesn't understand "othering" or "embodyment" or "disembodyment" without it being explained to them. Which is not a bad thing, the audience is expert in other things, individually. I'm sure if she were writing for (or rather, i hope if she were writing for) a University class on feminism, it would be less superficial. Green mowse.pngGodot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 03:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Pretty much spot on. I can't say I like her regular use of rapid-fire montages very much because it robs games of their context (but to play devil's advocate, how else are you gonna show a problem is widespread?) but that doesn't change the fact that her central argument is right. Also, uh, can people stop bringing up Alyx Vance? She borderline hasn't much role except to massage the player's ego (there's even a 'joke' about her and Gordon getting it on during Ep1) but she gets praise heaped on her for covering it up with her clothing. That said, every NPC in HL is just there to jack off the player. Polite Timesplitter Cultural loneliness is a right pain 10:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Um, I think you're simplifying Alyx too much. She certainly has a lot more nuance to her personality than an "ego boost dispenser". The genius in the characters of HL2 is that they don't say much more than is needed. You can sort of guess at the rest of what they must be feeling with all the fluff and plot. Alyx's face animations and body language in particular were revolutionary at the time. Alyx may be unusually attracted to Gordon, but the rest of the way she really is just a regular person with concerns for those close to her and hopes and fears just like you and me would have if we were in that situation, riding out the rollercoaster of events along with the player. I have no trouble identifying with her, even though she is of the opposite gender. She's also never frustrating to the degree a lot of other NPCs are especially in "escort missions", and even helpful. She has a very active role to play overall, but that doesn't mean she takes control away from the player. In short, she's the perfect sidekick NPC. What more can you really ask? Name me one better designed sidekick in all of the FPS genre, you probably won't find one. Valve did an excellent job with her and you should see that the heaps of praise aren't 'just because she is covered with clothing'. Nullahnung (talk) 12:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────So she finally put out the third part to her 'damsels in distress trope' series. I will attempt to summarize what I took away from it below and throw in my two cents about it yet again:

Here's the summary: In a lot of video games it is attempted to do a witty take on the damsel trope. You would think that that would often entail mocking the trope to help gaming move on from the trope and evolve as a medium. But that is not the case. A lot of the time all the witty take is doing is reinforce a version of the trope like having the man be damselled and the woman be strong (repeating the trope, except with a different target, but still bad for repeating the trope) or having an ironic take on the trope, which is still re-stating the trope. Sarkeesian also shows examples of how even in comedy, where the damselling is the punchline/joke, that is still ultimately re-stating the offensive trope of objectifying women and thus preventing us from moving forward from the trope. Only some games like Braid actually challenge the damsel trope without reinforcing a different version of the trope, which is good. The real way forward would actually be to do away with the damsel trope altogether and have more strong women, especially as protagonists.

Personally: Good points. I would just like to point out again that "The more refined a game is in terms of characters, the less shallow things like those arising from sexism are prevalent. Games with very shallow or cliched characters tend to have the most misogynist/sexist issues, but are conversely also the hardest to take seriously." The fact that Sarkeesian cited Braid as one of the legitimate progress-making examples just reinforces my point as well, because Braid does in fact try to be highly refined in terms of characterization. (I would argue, even, that it does so to the point of being eyeball-clawingly pretentious, but that's a different discussion.)

But is it a bad thing to have these shallow games that reinforce offensive tropes, if we do not take them seriously? I mean, who the hell cares, it's just a stupid, brainless game, right? Well, my friend, evidently people ARE starting to care (Mostly women, but do we really want to alienate women from gaming? Didn't think so.). And that fact alone in my eyes is making these points valid. People do care, and not just stupid people. Some quite notable gaming critics too.

I am also thinking about adding a section to the RW video game article detailing common bullshit people say about feminist points in gaming and refuting/discussing them. It IS becoming a rather hot topic now with the release of Dragon's Crown, so it would be very relevant to our article. I would also then draw a parallel between objectification of women in video games and violence in video games, and show that they are very much different cases even though both are claimed by mainstream media to affect gamer's thoughts negatively (violence in video games in very much cathartic, whereas objectification is not, etc.). Nullahnung (talk) 17:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Please do! I think it would add a lot. Most I know about video games is that Plants kill zombiees. Also, good critical work on this stuff here. You might consider an essay, and we could link it. I try to link good RW essays when i find them. :-) Green mowse.pngGodot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 18:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
This is (sort of old but a) non inflammatory article about this person (that I take as a con artist) and it has the best description of Anita Sarkeesian I've found so far.
"Poor Anita doesn't seem to realise that she has become the embodiment of what she hates, namely a living, breathing, stunningly attractive trope of a damsel in distress who has been rescued by a mysterious stranger. A hundred and fifty thousand times over." — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs
Hmm, well, some of that article is on point, and some of it really isn't. Also, it does use some inflammatory language, so I disagree with you there. For example, it makes the completely irrelevant comparison of feminist concerns to climate change concerns, which it seemingly does just to be provocative. But, you know, at the end of the day this article just an opinion piece on the internet. No need to get upset about it. Nullahnung (talk) 19:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

The 6KB edit[edit]

Anything salvageable in this? (note that it's still included in the article)--ZooGuard (talk) 15:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Again, does anyone see anything worthy in three-printed-pages worth of nerd-level obsession with mostly irrelevant detail? If nobody shows up, I'm going to go in with the pruning shears.--ZooGuard (talk) 18:57, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Nothing of value there I can see. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 19:07, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Sarkeesian Debunked[edit]

Sarkeesian has been thoroughly debunked as a con artist and plagiarist. She was never a gamer, there's video of her saying this herself years before doing this series. She's stolen all footage used in her critiques from letsplay sumbissions on youtube.

In a just world she'd be sued by the same organizations currently defending her for defrauding them and the women they represent of over 160,000 dollars. If her "efforts" were submitted in an academic environment she would have been expelled for violations of academic honor.

A short video by prominent online atheist Thunderf00t which juxtaposes her kickstarter vid purporting to be a "gamer" with a previous video of her assertions a few years before that she had never touched them.

Information on her use of other’s video game footage:

The Randy Pitchford Murder fantasy:

Information regarding Anita’s past:

Links to the lecture in which Ms. Sarkeesian admits to not being a gamer: (relevant statements begin at 12:00 here)

So long as RationalWiki continues to praise this fraud, I can't with good conscience use it as a reference.

Signed, A staunch, moderate skeptic. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs 21:10, 11 November 2013

Eh, so what? Does that have any bearing on whether her criticisms of the gaming industry are valid & accurate? ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:16, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
It has a bearing over whether your article on Anita Sarkeesian is fundamentally accurate. Weaseloid is right, you are deflecting a criticism of her intellectual honesty and evidence she's perpetrated charity fraud by derailing the discussion into whether her claims are true or not. This is a person who mis-represented herself and her initial perspective. There have been plenty of videos by Thunderf00t criticizing the accuracy of her claims themselves.. you are betraying the introduction of a non-neural point of view and pushing an ideological opinion... Your reaction to this is tantamount to republicans denying the Romney "47%" video was vitriolic against the poor. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs
In case you haven't noticed, we do have a sub-section at the bottom on widely used criticisms brought up against her. Nullahnung (talk) 22:21, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
(EC) Well, no doubt these allegations of using stock footage & not playing video games are a very serious matter, but it does seem from the context a lot like they're being introduced as a needless distraction in response to comments she's about the video game industry & its fanbase that a lot of people don't want to hear. As for evidence of charity fraud, where is it - in a readily accessible format please? Seriously dude, nobody is going to sit through the 90 minutes of vlog links you just posted. If you're referring to anything on Kickstarter, that's explicitly not a base for charity. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:36, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Pardon me.. but she's an outsider to the gaming community, has no interest in video games, and is swooping in to criticize something she has no passion for. It's a very valid criticism. It would be like jewish people demanding changes in churches because.. well.. there's no torah. "Seriously dude, nobody is going to sit through the 90 minutes of vlog links you just posted." -- thanks for telling this entire discussion thread that you're not interested in reviewing actual evidence: ideology over reality! very "Rational". "for evidence of charity fraud, where is it" -- Self-evident. Thunderf00t and TAA have put out better videos while drunk or sick and didn't need 160k to do them. It's obvious, especially given the plagiarism, that this money went straight to anita's favorite investment fund. As for the "criticisms section" -- She's a fraud, the evidence is mountainous. The criticisms section should be the article, and the article should be a sub-section noting the history of her saga and the attention it brought to her cause. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs
Please sign your posts properly like everybody else who wants to post on article talk pages. Nullahnung (talk) 23:07, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Typical tedious tirades against Sarkeesian. Charity fraud? LOL wut? It was never a charity. Not a gamer? Like there's some set definition of what a "gamer" is. She plays video games sometimes, is that not enough? Not that it would invalidate her arguments if it wasn't true; Jewish criticism of Christianity actually has a long and valid history to use your . These are the typical pseudointellectual complaints from the a lame portion of the male gaming community who is so willfully blind to their own privilege that they they can't handle a few mild criticisms about misogyny in the video game world. This a misogyny is so obvious that I actually find Sarkeesian's videos uninteresting. It is after all the industry which gave us Duke Nukem Forever and that Dead or Alive volley ball game. --Marlow (talk) 23:41, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

A guided tour through truth for the anonymous IP, chaperoned by the charming AD. You're welcome[edit]

Looking at the first video, which (along with the others you raise) have already been discussed above, I see that you provide a misleading summary of a misleading edit of a comment taken out of context. This is fairly illustrative of your issues, so I'll show them to you at length with how that worked.
You called the video, "A short video by prominent online atheist Thunderf00t which juxtaposes her kickstarter vid purporting to be a "gamer" with a previous video of her assertions a few years before that she had never touched them."
That is demonstrably not true. Instead, Thunderf00t shows a short clip of Sarkeesian speaking to a classroom and describing herself as "not a fan of video games," and saying that she "would love to play video games, but [doesn't] want to go around shooting people," in regard to violent video games. This is juxtaposed with a clip from her Kickstarter, where she shows a picture of herself as a child playing Nintendo.
Now, you probably regard this as harmless exaggeration, but it's important: the video said one thing (that she wasn't a "gamer") and you grossly inflated its claims, even to the point of blatant contradiction of the facts - even though the video actually shows Sarkeesian playing Nintendo, you summarized the video as saying that she had never touched them.
Don't roll your eyes, you schmuck. I can see you. And you're not getting it. You're the crude and ill-informed end result of a snowball effect that takes slight deviation from a story in order to falsify the whole narrative.
But don't worry, it's not just your fault. Thunderf00t is also to blame, and at this point deserves about as much respect as the grainy remains of skin left encrusted on a communal bath's sponge. Because when you actually watch the goddamn lecture she was giving to a college class, you see just how massively those comments were yanked out of context.
Sarkeesian was discussing fanfiction and vidding and slash, all intense "fandoms": communities where highly interested people devote many hours to writing, reading, cutting video, and discussing about the possibilities within stories that go beyond the sanctioned stories themselves (be they literature, television, or even video games). When she says she's "not a fan," she's saying it in a very specific context - that of these intense "fandoms." Even as heavily cut as Thunderf00t's version might be, you can even hear a bit of the tail end of context in there (the word "fandom.")
She does also say she had to "learn a lot about video games" to do her project there, but that she's a bit nervous, and maybe self-conscious, and loving video games may have had a different atmosphere to the scholarly culture critic she was trying to project.
More easily explained is her later comment about how she'd really love to play video games (implying she doesn't do so a lot) - she's explaining why the heavily male-dominated and misogynistic atmosphere of the games and the communities associated with them, violent and angry, have repelled her away from those games. That doesn't preclude an earlier period where she played them a lot!
Right now, you're saying, "Yes, but she built this whole criticism on a lie about how she is a 'gamer' and identifies as one! But she can't really understand because she's not a gamer!"
You're stupid. Don't be stupid. It is definitely not the case that only fully-fledged intense members of a subculture get to launch any criticism at that subculture. At absolute best, this might call her credibility into some slight question - regardless of Thunderf00t's deceit, Sarkeesian does put on different public faces, depending on the image she's trying to project. But that's completely normal, and any level of falsehood here is so laughably minor that you yourself would shrug it off in any other context.
You know how I know that? Because you did it, and yet it wasn't a big deal to you. Remember? You exaggerated the contents of that video, to make them more inflammatory and put forward a more effective case for your beliefs?
This is not a "ooooh snap shithead you got caught being a complete fucking hypocrite" moment (well yes it is) but something more: I want you to recognize that your standard for truth is completely flexible depending on the speaker.
Further, reflect on the fact that it's okay for Thunderf00t (or you) to criticize feminism, even though you're not a member of that subculture and you arguably don't understand it at all, even though that's not okay for Sarkeesian.
Notice, anonymous, that your standards shift to reflect your biases. And reconsider how you decide what is true, or a good basis for believing in a truth.--ADtalkModerator 00:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
  • applauds* Finally someone sat through the actual material!
Some quibbles: 1.) It's worth noting (or maybe not, since it doesn't affect any of your arguments) that some critics have claimed that she isn't actually really playing those Nintendo games, but just posing, because the controllers look like they're not on or something. 2.) 2 wrongs don't make a right. Just because this fellow or Thunderf00t uses falseness to his advantage doesn't mean it's ok for everybody/Sarkeesian to do so. 3.) You can criticise things from outside, but really it's just not on the same level as if you did it from the inside. Levels of expectation and disappointment and all.
Not that any of what I just wrote really matters, of course. Nullahnung (talk) 01:44, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't pointing out hypocrisy for its own sake, because I think that's usually a pretty lame thing to point out - the fallibility of humanity ensures that everyone fails to live up to their values in many ways, large and small, but that doesn't negate those values unless that failure is systemic. Instead, I was pointing out that anon's ideas of fairness shift according to convenience, so maybe they should rethink their validity: if mild hypocrisy or contradictions disqualify someone from comment, after all, then anon and Thunderf00t should consider themselves disqualified.
You are very right to say that internal criticism is much more effective than external.--ADtalkModerator 01:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
What her detractors are referring to about posing with a controller is, for a few seconds in her kickstarter video, she can be seen fiddling with an Xbox 360 controller that might not be on, the lighting makes it difficult to tell. At most it's a weird oversight, particularly since she's shown fiddling with two other controllers that are clearly turned on. I'd like Sarkeesian's detractors to tell me if they seriously expect her to make her cameraman wait while she loads up a video game and gets into it. Or if she actually bought what would essentially be three expensive paperweights as part of her grand scheme to make it rich quick. Not that I'm accusing you of being one of her detractors, I'm just posting this for clarity's sake. As for the Nintendo controller, that'd be this image, the source for that is the official Feminist Frequency tumblr page. Radical Pacifist (talk) 08:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
I imagine the OP was sparked by Tf00t's recent video. As distasteful as it is to say it now, back when I was first leaving the family cult Tf00t's videos on creationism were a great resource for me. It really makes me sad to see the turgid mess that he now calls videos. The worst part of this is that there probably is something to critique with the A+/feminist movement in atheism, or at least refine but he is so far off the mark that it's not even worth paying attention. Tielec01 (talk) 02:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Bravo to AD for an simply masterful dissection of these arguments. Is Thunderfoot still talking about Sarkeesian? It's shocking how these mild videos have drawn so much flack from just about every male nerdy youtuber. Despite being progressive in gay rights and racial relations, there is a huge blind spot in the geeky segment of our culture (which I generally consider myself a part of) when it comes to women's issues. --Marlow (talk) 16:27, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

You need $6000 to fight pseudo-science and leave Sarkeesian article w/o valid criticism. No donation from me. (talk) 22:55, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Anita's Irony Reference[edit]

You can't claim it's an internet law when it's only referenced in one blog and has never been used generally. The assertions underlying it are also intellectually dishonest. The backlash to talk of "misogyny" online is from people tired of people twisting themselves into pretzels to claim there's misogyny in places it does not exist. It's the same crap with MRA's claiming "misandry" online where it does not exist. I call them out on it all the time.

Further, the linked "citation" comes from a blogger who is closely aligned with Ms. Sarkeesian. How about we take Fox News quoting Breitbart as "journalistic integrity" too. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

With a little over 1.3 million hits on a search engine starting with 'G' I think your claim to non notability flounders somewhat. It may have started as a reference on one blog but so did Poe's law. The way that it has gone viral speaks volumes. Innocent Bystander (talk) 17:23, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
*cough, cough* If you search for the exact string, you'll get ~850 results.*cough, cough*
Independently of what you call it, the phenomenon exists, and existed even before Sarkeesian - there are people who's first reaction to "this isn't cool" is "shut up, you fat/ugly/slutty bitch".--ZooGuard (talk) 18:22, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
There are rules for determining what is and is not an internet law? When did that happen? Last I heard, an internet law was something somebody made up that spread out from there, through other websites. As in, we're allowed to say it's an internet law if we feel like. Because the term has no real meaning. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 08:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, you can't just make up any old internet law in your own little Austrian Cooking forum and then expect people to accept it "because we feel like it". It does need some degree of notoriety on the internet above that. This is another case of "Where do we draw the significance line?", so I tend to not look at this sort of thing too closely (unless it's literally just something someone made up in their own little Spanish Cooking forum). Nullahnung (talk) 10:24, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I have to comment on this[edit]

I have to comment on this. Without being explicit so I don't drag my employer into this - I pretty much work in this industry in Silicon Valley. Look, the only thing people care about in this area is making money. They'd love to open the market in any way they can. They will exploit anything about human nature to make money. If you know of a good way to open up 50% of marketshare, there's plenty of companies that want your input - all of the companies do. This isn't about men oppressing women, or being sexist, this just making a product to sell. In the 1980s, girls and women simply did not play video games and believe me - corporations tried with disasterous and expensive money losing results - they learn from this. That's just the way it was for whatever societial reason - nerds did and only they did, it was a social stigma - but if people have changed, tell us all how to exploit the 1/2 of the demographic. The accusation that we're all men and sexist bigots it's ludicrous. I have a superior who is smarter than me, more capable than me, harder working than me, more knowledgable than me, about my age, who is female and Indian. She's goddamned brilliant and nobody questions it. I have coworkers that are trangendered, who are cross dressers, gay, black, white, Indian, Muslim, atheists, and even one that is rumored to be a furry. We simply don't care - there's no room for bigotry of any kind in Silicon Valley - that sort of thinking weakens your competitive edge and it's competitive here. Lots of unique people out here, and what many people would just say are outright wierdos. Corporations just design to the maket and they hire anybody that can do it. So please don't talk about the industry seeing women as equals or inferiors - you don't know what you're talking about. Nobody gives a crap out here. We're a meritocracy believe it or not. The reason for the backlash on Anita is she simply doesn't understand what's she's talking about - she's not a technologist, or an engineer, or a marketer. She doesn't have a clue. Work here if you can cut it, find out for yourself. If you worked in this industry, your mouth would be agape with the level of ignorance and arrogance coming from this woman. She has no idea and it's blatant that she doesn't. We are probably the most diverse area in all the United States. Games are a business, that's it, and it's HARD to do. You think you want to make video games? Everybody does, you compete against the entire country for a job, and you get paid crap, work long hours, and for what - to make toys for kids. What type of person do you think wants to do that? Normal ones? Eveybody out here would want to sell more junk to that untapped market if possible. Anita is supposed to be working at EA now which is HQed in Redwood City - about 10 miles from where I live - watch their sales and see if she's actually useful or just a whiny idiot that was hired for PR reasons. Time will tell if she has anything to actually add to the industry other than to get on television and youtube and insult and industry she has no experience with. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs 10:03, 26 December 2013

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. I don't recall hearing that Sarkeesian had commented on employee demographics within the games/software industry, so I'm not sure how the diversity of your colleagues has any bearing on the issue. As for the old "she is an outsider & has no right to criticise our ways" routine, I think most of us are tired of hearing this argument, & frankly I'm baffled that people can say things like this without realising how idiotic it sounds. You do realise that the people who review games for the mainstream media also generally aren't engineers & "technologists"? You do realise that Sarkeesian didn't critique games from a technical standpoint? €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 12:42, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
So you're not sexists. Wonderful! Stop making sexist products then. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 21:44, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
I think you just missed the entire point. Even if the games were the most anti-female list to ever exist, with zero exceptions and zero anti-male tropes, it would still not reflect that the people that make the games are in any way sexist or in any way have sexist motives. It's just a matter of supply and demand. Bearing in mind this guy works in the industry and seems to know a thing or two about it, why would you ignore his points and dismiss him off hand. If you have a problem it's with the audience, not the industry. As he stated above "In the 1980s, girls and women simply did not play video games and believe me - corporations tried with disasterous and expensive money losing results". Unless you can find a way to open up the market and convince more women to game, games will continue to be, what you consider to be, sexist. There has to be a market to expand into. You can't create a market and force people into it. (talk) 09:39, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
This is where we are going to have to agree to disagree. The first thing we are going to have to disagree on is that the IP above thoroughly understands the gaming market, and the second thing we are going to have to disagree on is that women are not entering the market in a significant enough way. Nullahnung (talk) 12:30, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
I thought RW encouraged original research and experts in a field? Anyway, that doesn't matter, my main concern with you comment is your second point. The point the IP above was making is that if women were entering the market in droves and taking up action games then games developers would seek to capitalise on that in order to improve their market share and, all in all, make money. As it stands you are arguing that women are significantly entering the market which, if true, would mean that games with less sexist tones wold already take a larger market share and the production of games wouldreflect this. Understand? (talk) 13:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying, don't be insulting. You think the IP above is an expert, we'll have to agree to disagree on that.
"if true, would mean that games with less sexist tones wold already take a larger market share and the production of games wouldreflect this"
Games with less sexist tones ARE taking a larger market share than before. What you may need to realise is that the gaming market is not quick to respond. It will take some time for this industry to mature, and it already is in the process of maturing. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't rail against games like Ride To Hell that are also still coming out... Nullahnung (talk) 13:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, no offence meant. There is no reason to assume the person is an expert, but they're in the industry which certainly counts for a lot. Also, if the market is changing anyway then what's the problem? For example, games like Ride To Hell are fucking terrible. The reason it's terrible isn't due to it being sexist, it's because the developers of the game were lazy and had a low budget. It has poor graphics, poor dialogue, a poor story, poor gameplay and all in all was just pathetic. Rallying around lazy games is just ridiculous. I could just as easily talk about how Ride to Hell's main character has pretty much no reason to do half the shit he does, adding to the "boys are stupid" campaign. Saying that the industry needs to "mature" is also ridiculous. There will always be game developers that take the easy way out. That deosn't however mean that they're immature. They're cost-saving, that's all. It's not maliciously attack people and it's just as bad for men and gamers in general as it is for women when a game like Ride to Hell comes out. (talk) 14:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
You want to talk about actual good games that come with sexist issues? Dragon's Crown. It's a fantastic game with a fantastic art style, fantastic gameplay, etc. etc. . Now, even though the art style is fantastic and really cool, it is still a bit sexist and that is worth talking about. A deeper issue might be the relative shallowness of female Non-Player Characters as opposed to male NPCs, which is familiar, but is still worth criticising. Overall a pretty good game with issues that are worth talking about and seeing how we could have improved the variety and creativity of the game if we didn't have those issues, or if the issue is difficult to change, like for the art style, then at least have a talk about it.
For the gaming industry to mature all that needs to happen at first is more talking. I'm not counting on developers who take the easy way out to lead the industry either, I'm counting on the guys who are willing to be creative. Nullahnung (talk) 14:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I think we're pretty much in agreement. No mass conspiracy. It's more a matter of poor budget than anything. The obvious point the "sex sells" doesn't really need to be said as it goes hand in hand with "they're out to make money". The problem many people see is that this environment is:
1. A product of "patriarchy".
2. In any way intended to be sexist.
I think it's also prett obvious that the level of hype Anita and TF have put around this subject is undue. While it's certainly a phenomenon, I'd hardly call it a "problem". You said it yourself, the industry is already changing. People don't change quickly either mind you, hense the slow changes. Anyway, nice speaking to you. (talk) 14:57, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, I'm glad we could come to some sort of compromise. I do agree that things are rarely, if ever, intended to be sexist (and of course I also don't believe that there is a mass conspiracy). The amount of hype may be undue compared to so many other issues we could also be talking about, but it spurs discussion we wouldn't have otherwise had, so I'm actually okay with it. Nice speaking to you too. Nullahnung (talk) 15:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The thing that always strikes me about this is that the amount of hype almost entirely came from the gamer comunity. After all, Ms Sarkeesian had a pretty low profile before the death threats. What makes Ms Sarkeesian special is not what she says, it's the gaming comunity's reaction to it. Placeholder (talk) 16:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

As I said, I'm okay with that. And who better for the hype to come from, honestly. I shows that people care and they are willing to discuss it. The violent threats were a kicker, but the response from the rest of the gaming community was an integral part in the hype too. Nullahnung (talk) 16:36, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


How does one "strictly censor" their own Twitter account?--AndYourFoesShallRejoice... (talk) 17:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

(I think) you can block tweets to yourself from showing up on your page and block your reply/rts as they are needed. Zero (talk) 17:07, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
It's unclear what do you mean. It's also still unclear why "strictly censor" is used to describe her behavior, whatever it is.--AndYourFoesShallRejoice... (talk) 18:39, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
"limits access and replies to her tweets"? PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 18:50, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

One person is misleading therefor their movement is inherently flawed[edit]

What's the name for this phenomenon, wherein an extraordinarily elaborate campaign is staged to target some things said by one person, as if it destroys an entire movement? You see it more in politics, but the sheer extent of the hatred for Sarkeesian outpaces anything I've seen. Ikanreed (talk) 19:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Poisoning the well (not really)? Cherry Picking? Quote Mining? I dunno. I'm not even sure a term for this exists yet. Zero (talk) 20:37, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Nutpicking. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 16:05, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, it's mighty disorganized for a campaign (let alone an "extraordinarily elaborate campaign"), and in my experience you're attributing an unwarranted amount of common purpose to this simple case of "gamers raging on the internet". (Unless you know something I don't know, if so, please explain.) Nullahnung (talk) 20:47, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Elaborate doesn't mean organized. A campaign can come from seeing one person outraged on the internet, and going and being another one yourself. It's not like most of her critics are people who have been "tapped into" the feminist movement as a whole for any long period of time. Scale is as relevant as cohesiveness here. It's not without warrant to say that at least a fair percentage of people who are on this boat have said "Anita Sarkeesian is what's wrong with feminism" or something very similar, as if she were definitional in some way. And I'm more interested in a word for the idea than debating whether this case is an exemplar of it. Ikanreed (talk) 21:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Likewise there have been many disgruntled gamers going on about how "Anita Sarkeesian isn't a real feminist", denying her a label they don't really understand to begin with.
That is the problem with non-cohesiveness. You get a lot of variety, some that will make your case, some that will contradict your case. Nullahnung (talk) 22:56, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Isn't this just a bit fanboyish?[edit]

The only things that I know about this lady are what I have just read in this article. But it really does read as though it were written by a fanboy.

Before I receive any flames I would point out that I have no knowledge of anything factually incorrect in the article because I know nothing about her either way. I'm just surprised to find something on RW which is so relentlessly complementary.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 16:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Any criticism I could agree with that she has received isn't actually relevant to the topic of feminism in pop culture that she examines, but rather just personal dirt. We are not a site on celebrity scandal dirt, so those have not been included.
Any criticism that was actually relevant to the topic of feminism that she examines comes from people RW doesn't agree with, so that's why she gets so much positive treatment here, to show that we are against those people so to speak. Nullahnung (talk) 16:40, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
That said, I agree with you that it reads too fanboyish. Just saying why I think we have it like that, not saying I like it. Nullahnung (talk) 16:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
So we have to abandon snarky POV if people we (or some of us) like are being criticized? As I said I have no horse in this race and I note above that there are strong opinions but it doesn't read like one of our usual articles.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 19:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
It's not that we've deliberately tried to keep snark out of the article, it's more that nobody has bothered to put any in. Also, the original article was written by Hamilton, and nobody has bothered to change the fanboyish tone since. Lazy bastards, all of you!(<-hypocrite) Nullahnung (talk) 19:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
That's not actually true. There have been several examples, including a recent one that pointed out that in the past 2 years Anita has done fuck all with the $160K she got from kickstarter. It was reverted almost instantly, like pretty much every edit that goes against the "status quo" around here. Hobby (talk) 21:10, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I tried to put that criticism in, but people are saying what she does with her Kickstarter money is more personal dirt than stuff that would be relevant to the feminist examinations of pop culture topic. I can sort of see that reasoning, so I let it be. Nullahnung (talk) 21:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Except that character does seem to matter in other contexts when talking about people taking a stance as an opinion maker in the public, political, or moral sphere. To give an example in a related context, consider the article on Hitchens when talking about women. This is off-topic to the central positions that have cast him in a political light (like atheism) but is included anyway. Notice how "views" is scarequoted at the title of that section to lead us into the idea that this is dirty, irrational stuff. Another example that relates to this article in a different way is the article on TheAmazingAtheist. Beside reading like a character attack in general, the content on his e-begging is similar in substance to the criticism of Anita's kickstarter campaign. That is, money was petitioned for a website, which materialized, but was inadequate to expectations, especially considering the amount of money which was donated. I'm not saying either of these characters are good people, but that the standards about what information is relevant when discussing a personality should not be based on hate or love. If there is a standard that disallows the dirt on Anita but allows it in other articles with a more negative tone, we need to be clear about what that standard is. Shirtsleeves (talk) 21:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I also find it rather odd to consider this "personal dirt", considering it was a project funded by almost 7000 people. I'm not saying that we need to write a section on "what she could be doing with the money", but writing a bit on how she certainly hasn't delivered what she promised (even $6000 worth of content) should at least be mentioned. Hobby (talk) 07:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
We'd be criticizing her for being lazy, which doesn't seem worth it. The thing is on Kickstarter you typically don't control how much money you get. You set a lower limit of how much money you think you want to use and then how much you actually end up using depends on how generous people are and your personal ability to spend it wisely. That's quite irrelevant to the topic of "do her videos have a valid point to make?" I don't know what's going on with the TAA page, as I have not much interest in that page and don't intend to fully read it anytime soon, but I'd let it go on this page. Nullahnung (talk) 10:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Actually I was thinking more along the lines of, people accusing her of being a scam artist and a professional victim, then supporting that claim with the fact that she has done very little in the way of actually using the money or following though with her series. Especially as her video quality, length, frequency and style have all remained pretty much the same. At a glance it's almost as if the budget is unchanged, which leads people to wonder, what the hell did she even need $6K for? Never mind $160K. Hobby (talk) 11:29, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
You know, time is money. If she's a really inefficient video maker, and has to feed herself for the whole of her planned series, then it becomes somewhat more understandable to ask for 6000 dollars. That people ended up giving her 160000 doesn't really oblige her to do more from a Kickstarter perspective, though it kinda does oblige her to do more from a generosity perspective. Still, we'd just be criticising her of being lazy.
Calling attention to her victimhood is a separate issue. If donators choose to give her that much attention and money because people are swearing and threatening down her efforts, then that's their choice, why should we concern ourselves with that? Again, doesn't seem worth it. Nullahnung (talk) 11:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Two things. One, her video quality has actually skyrocketed. In side by side comparisons of her old videos, lighting is better, audio is sharper and CGI quality is smooth. To say that she's been sitting on it and profiting from the gullible is just dishonest. Second, why is it that everyone who seems to bitch heavily about her series and the money she got has likely never kicked the project? Did you? Do you have the right to complain she's wasting your money? Zero (talk) 13:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

1. The claim that her video quality has "skyrocketed" is bullshit. I've seen both her old and her new videos and the only thing the older ones are missing is experience. As you look through them you'll see that several videos that were after she took a break but before she had the money are the same quality as her newer videos. In fact, the only thing you could possibly be referring to is her low frame rate, pixel art video where she advertised her concept for a game (which she would then sell btw, hence the word "advertised"). It was however, only a minute long. She also used to do at least one video a month.
2. I actually came in too late to kick her project, but does that mean I should be banned from criticising her? What kind of fucked up logic is that? Unless they take my money I'm not allowed to say that they wasted other people's money...which should be put in contrast with TAA who has several cash projects listed on his RW page as scams. Did you give him money? Do you have the right to criticise him? See how bullshit that line of reasoning is? Hobby (talk) 14:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I've seen people do higher quality videos with a much tighter budget (just an average writer), and not even kickstarted. She's not the most efficient content producer. Still, that doesn't warrant mentioning.
I don't know why we need to have that stuff over on TAA's page, if we do have it (I'm thoroughly uninterested in reading it right now), but I don't support having it here on a page I'm actually interested in. Nullahnung (talk) 14:29, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Another criticism on her is that she took her gameplay content from various Let's Players without asking their permission, which I find to be incredibly rude and lazy. But that too is just personal dirt, saying she's rude and lazy, so I can see why we wouldn't want to mention it. Nullahnung (talk) 14:34, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Here's a simple citation. [1] And a better one. [2]
And I don't believe that for a second. We criticize TAA's projects because unlike Anita he produced nothing of value with them.
Third, I'd be interested to see any proof of her ripping from Let's Play videos. People keep parroting it, I've yet to see it backed up. Zero (talk) 14:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Here's the investigation people keep citing for the LP stuff: If you can show me why I shouldn't trust it, I will take back what I said about her being rude and lazy.
About her budget-utilization... if she manages to respond convincingly as to what she has done with the money, then I will also take back what I said about her being an inefficient and lazy content producer.
But anyways, none of this is relevant to the article, I have to repeat, this just pertains to whether or not I'm going to take back my words. Nullahnung (talk) 14:50, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
What? Zero, one of your sources claims that a professional camera would cost $5000. You'd have to go REALLY top of the line to spend that much. Your own source also points out that Anita certainly hasn't spend as much as she received. Even if we assume she's spend top dollar on everything, she still has at least 90% of the money left, according to your sources.
Nullahnung, how is this not relevant? She was given all that money and yet still steals content without asking or paying. Both her videos and her logo use stolen content, which is also funny because Zero's source said "The videos, produced in a nightly news style with plenty of clips from the games being discussed". She still asks for donations and subscriptions on her website (as if she needed any more). She has completely failed to even remotely keep up with the level of video output that's to be expected from someone who was just given a lot of cash and hired people to help her make videos. Is 1 video a week so much to ask? 1 a month would be enough for fucks sake. This is not just laziness, this is flat out disregard for the people that put her on the pedestal. Some youtubers manage 1 video a day, yet a well funded vlogger with a producer can't manage 1 a month. Hobby (talk) 16:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
I have no stake in this discussion, but most professional photographers/videographers would vehemently disagree with your idea that $5000 is "REALLY top of the line". - Grant (Talk) 16:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
(EC)You're just repeating the point that she is disappointingly lazy and inefficient. I don't see how "betraying the reasonable expectations of donators" in any way relates to the discussion of feminist arguments in pop culture that we are concerning ourselves with. Nullahnung (talk) 17:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
It definitely relates since the implication is that giving money to anyone proposing to solve feminist issues seems a rather shitty idea. Apparently people will even argue that they have no accountability since it was the thought that counted. --Someon (talk) 17:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
No, that's not a logical implication at all. And legally, there is in fact no accountability here, since the money was freely given without conditions. Now, ethically, a bit higher production rate after that kind of overfunding might have been called for, but I wouldn't exactly call it Sarkeesian defrauding her funders or anything. They knew how the Kickstarter principle works. Octo8 (talk) 17:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


A sideline, because I noticed something about "we" criticizing his projects: The sections in question were originally added by a drive-by BoN who seems to be fixated on the TAA and more than a little ED-influenced. Up until now, they continue to stand out as inserts, even retaining the non-standard section title style (on RW, only the first word in section titles starts with a capital). I won't be very disappointed if they disappear or get radically rewritten and re-framed.--ZooGuard (talk) 15:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


Since this discussion kinda drifted to other points, here is my take on snark: The article has it. It's just not directed at Sarkeesian. But IMO, that's okay. After all, we are not a neutral encyclopedia - we do shamelessly take sides. So it is IMO entirely within SPOV to get snarky about Sarkeesian's detractors instead about herself. Octo8 (talk) 17:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

It started with my accusation of fanboyism - by which I mean that it is uncritically, even gushingly, positive.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 17:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
I have to agree with Bob on this. Simply leaving out every possible criticism and calling it gossip or not important is a poor excuse. Hobby (talk) 20:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, I would also like to have a less fanboyish article and in addition some relevant criticism is always appreciated. I don't have the leisure time to come up with something right now, though. Nullahnung (talk) 20:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
My point is that SPOV only means there should be snark involved. It doesn't say at whom it should be targeted. It doesn't need to be the person the article is about. So "gushingly positive" articles could still hold up that policy. The reason the article is so pro-Sarkeesian is because the wiki (or, well, at least the editors who have worked on it so far) are pro-Sarkeesian. And the wiki never made pretences to being neutral. Octo8 (talk) 20:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but does the mission even suggest that criticizing Sarkeesian is necessary at all? After all, it's not like we're trying to make a WP-style article about her since WP's already got one of those. If we're talking mission, then she's no big deal, but the primarily sexist/authoritarian backlash is fair game. --Kels (talk) 22:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
True, true. We don't need to have any criticism. At the same time fanboyism is... unsightly, as evidenced by non-biased (or as close to non-biased as you are going to probably get) readers like Bob_M. But in principle, the article is fine.
If someone were to go seek for criticism to add, it would have to specifically relate to talking about the topic of sexism in pop culture which she is missional for. Nullahnung (talk) 23:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm a bit late to this discussion but - picking up on Bob's original point - I'm not in the least surprised to see fanboy content at RW. Check out, as examples, our articles on Stephen Fry, Terry Pratchett, George Carlin, and the now-deleted pieces on Neil Gaiman and Alan Moore. I would argue that this article has more mission-relevant substance than any of those. Re criticism of Sarkeesian, there's no reason to exclude it as long as it's fair & intelligent criticism. Most of the critiques that have been added to & removed from the article so far have been mutton-headed smears like 'she hasn't played enough video games to talk about them' etc. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, Stephen Fry, Terry Pratchett and George Carlin are all pretty famous and in the entertainment business, but still a fair point. Nullahnung (talk) 23:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Violation of RationalWiki's alleged purposes[edit]

I must say I'm not a user of the RationalWiki, I stumbled on it as I was Googling for Anita's older college lecture videos, and felt curious about what difference this article might make from Wikipedia's, and also because I'm deeply interested in following the case of Anita Sarkeesian, and lastly because the Rational part of the name got me curious. However, I found this article to be curiously uninformative, much like the one on Wikipedia, except that the latter is actually well written and well organized. This article in this Wiki is no more than an attempt at promoting her propaganda and pseudo-analyses, paranoia and delusions of entitlement (and ironically sexism, which can be made a strong case for as well) and her victimhood strategy, and devoid of any critical analysis of the case at hand.

This is what the home page claims RationalWiki to be about:

   Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement. 
   Documenting the full range of crank ideas.
   Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism.
   Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media. 

I failed to detect any of the above in this article. Since, as I mentioned, I'm not a user of this Wiki, I don't feel very inclined to be concerned about this, but more inclined to shrug this website away and move on. For that reason, and also because the issue seems to have been extensively discussed and exposed in this same page, I won't bother elaborating. My main point is that this article violates all the premises by which this Wiki is claimed to exist. However, this wiki could very well become a place where all the information pertaining her and her campaign could be gathered, ideally in an impartial and mature manner, for everyone's convenience. -Skaruts (talk) 15:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Don't let the door hit you on the way out. Scream!! (talk) 15:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
"However, this wiki could very well become a place where all the information pertaining her and her campaign could be gathered, ideally in an impartial and mature manner, for everyone's convenience."
Information without opinion gathered in an impartial and mature manner is the job of Wikipedia. You're complaining in the wrong place.
The only comment you've made that hasn't already been discussed here is whether or not explorations of sexism within media fit within the mission of RationalWiki. Nullahnung (talk) 15:31, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh, my mistake, then. You see, the front page is misleading and you might want to adress that, I thought I was speaking to Rational people in a RationalWiki. I'm terribly sorry to disturb your slumber. Won't happen again. -Skaruts (talk) 23:51, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
And Drink! Zero (talk) 23:52, 21 April 2014 (UTC) Nullahnung (talk) 00:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm in the Heroes of the Storm alpha, and you are not, FYI. Hipocrite 15:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


Someone vandalized the Anita Sarkeesian page and removed all negative content. please help. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Uh, nobody did that. Can you show the specific revision? Zero (talk - contributions) 12:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Her latest video in the series has some taking-things-out-of-context (like she mentions that you can kill hookers in some games and kill them for money, but actually those were games where you could kill pretty much any NPC and also for money). That's a negative, but I don't feel like there is any good way of putting such minor criticism in the article, so I let it be. Nullahnung (talk) 02:40, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Criticism of material used in arguments.[edit]

Many people have already pointed this out, but many of the major criticisms of Anitas work have been about her inherent incorrect interpretation of source materials. For example, one of the games she often refers to as "Objectifying women" is Hitman:Absolution, in which she states (while showing a scene of someone doing it) that the game has you kill innocent women in revealing clothing and dispose of their body, yet the game actively discourages you from killing people, especially innocents, and attacking the women there usually alerts the security, screwing you over. In the clip, the player pointlessly drags one of the corpses over the other in a circle for a few minutes before dumping the body in a container far from the scene where they were killed, suggesting that Anita has purposely chosen a clip that completely misrepresents the game and exploited the game mechanics in order to prove her point that the game is sexist. In the game, the entire plot revolves around you avenging the assasination of a women anyway since Agent 47 was very close emotionally to her, suggesting that Anita either hasn't played the game at all or is lying purposely. Another game she uses is WatchDogs, in a scene where the player walks through a human trafficking auction with naked women on display, claiming that this encourages the objectification of women. In the game, Aidan Pearce clearly shows his disgust for it through his diologue, manages to save one of the women there, and can complete an entire mission set on bringing the trafficking ring down and killing those who set it up (Which is part of the main mission), yet Anita says that the scene is in a strip club and is horrifically sexist. Wut. RationalWiki members, just because she fights for a good cause, doesn't mean she isn't bullshitting. Actually watch some of her work before siding with her. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

I think you have a point. I've caught her bullshitting with source material before, but wasn't sure how to include that in the article. If you can provide a link to the video where she commits said mistakes, maybe I can review it to verify what you're saying. I may include a sentence about how she makes conclusions that don't follow from the examples she shows off. Nullahnung (talk) 19:27, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Weak points of Sarkeesian's analysis[edit]

After watching the part of Tropes vs. Video Games that talks about "Women as Background Decoration", there was something that bothered me about various points she made about female NPCs, notably prostitutes, but I couldn't think of how that could in any way be relevant to our article.

Then I read this blog post that expresses the same kind of concerns that had bothered me. It tries to critique Sarkeesian's video as free from bias as possible (of course it's not possible, but it's a good try, relatively seen):

Basically, a problem Sarkeesian has, I think, is that due to her not really experiencing the games she is supposed to examine in depth (with the whole watching Let's Plays instead of playing herself thing), she may not have had a complete view of what role NPCs exactly play in video games. Owing to that she draws some conclusions about things in games being detrimental to women that are unwarranted. (If all corpses of NPCs you have killed disappear in video games due to technical limitations, why is it notable that the corpses of NPC prostitutes you have killed disappear? Why is it notable that you can rob dead NPC prostitutes of their money when you can rob all dead NPCs of their money? etc.) I think maybe this warrants a short note that her analysis isn't as on point as one would like sometimes.

What does anyone else think? Am I way off, or am I right on some things but still missing the point, or am I making an elephant out of a mouse, or what? Nullahnung (talk) 21:51, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this is wrong, if a bit nitpicky. I want to sit down and actually play this level myself before I say mention it, but even then I'm a bit of the impression it's too weak. Zero (talk - contributions) 15:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
I didn't really specify any particular game (I have specified GTA:SA before). Which level from which game do you mean? Nullahnung (talk) 15:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Oh. Hitman: Absolution. Zero (talk - contributions) 15:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Oh right, the one that Thunderf00t is making a fuss about. I don't really know enough on that one myself. Would be good if you could get a personal impression and then share what you think. Nullahnung (talk) 15:57, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


In the article I found this a little odd, Worse, someone actually created a game called Beat up Anita Sarkeesian which allowed players to simulate doing exactly what the game's title implied. This was compared to threats, spurious reporting of her videos and attempted "doxxing," all of which are surely worse.

Am I the only one who thinks attempts to censor the videos and possibly even expose the person to real life violence are worse than an offensive game, even if the attempts failed?

Perhaps it is better, instead of "worse," to write "more amusingly."

Fonzie (talk) 16:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The game embodies a disgusting sentiment. It may not be "worse", whatever scale we are using for "better or worse", but it certainly is not "amusing". Though "more amusing" does not automatically mean "amusing", since it is a relative term, people tend to read into it the implication that it be "amusing". So to protect such readers that are not sufficiently pedantic with the language they see from taking it the wrong way we should in no way write "more amusingly". Instead we should maybe just replace "worse" with something neutral that doesn't convey a judgement. Nullahnung (talk) 16:24, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Like: "Additionally" or "Also" ... MarmotHead (talk) 16:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Easy to clarify. It's intuitively worse, in that someone went to that much effort to perpetuate the threat. It's usually pretty easy to dismiss threats as low-effort trolling by lazy people(on the internet). Going to that extreme kinda makes it seem like someone is dedicated to the threat, and might follow through. Spurious logic, sure, but it's there. Ikanreed (talk) 17:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Ikanreed makes a good point. Doesn't mean I'm gonna revert my edit, but it's a fair point. Nullahnung (talk) 17:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Art Theft[edit]

Should we acknowledge that Anita stole someone's art:

John Pannozzi (talk) 18:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Maybe. On the other hand, she's claimed fair use for it, just like with the borrowed LP material that we decided we wouldn't mention. The problem with mentioning it is the same with the LP material, namely that it could have been an honest act of rudeness in the name of fair use and has nothing to do with sexism on the internet, which is the topic that we wrote this article for in the first place. Nullahnung (talk) 18:46, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Short answer, no. We went over this charge at Wikipedia and decided it was not notable enough to include. Worse, these articles are all leaving out that Anita did reach out to her and fixed the image to make amends. It is not worth our time since it's too inconsequential to anyone. Zero (talk - contributions) 18:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you can charge the first article for "leaving out". It mentions that Anita has reached out to Smith and that they were working on coming to terms with the issue. At the time of writing the author may not have had the latest details about the outcome of said outreach. Nullahnung (talk) 18:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Then why report half the issue? If we write everything about it, it would actually serve as points in her favor as fixing a mistake. Zero (talk - contributions) 18:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
That's not what I implied. I was changing the topic towards whether you can justifiedly charge the dailydot article writer with "leaving out". Yes, I was being an annoying pedant going on a side tangent again, as I often do. For that I apologize, I'm not proud about it. Nullahnung (talk) 18:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────This guy just did the same drive-by on Wikipedia. He's not working with good intentions it seems. Zero (talk - contributions) 19:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The art is only "stolen" to the same extent as the various game companies' copyrighted images/footage which Sarkeesian uses in the same context within her videos (which, given the nature of her analysis, I'm sure many of these companies would prefer her not to if they had a legitimate case for copyright infringement). If these images are fair use, then so is her use of the fan-art. If anything, the fan-artist is more likely to be infringing copyright/intellectual property by creating this artwork in the first place than Sarkeesian is by reusing it, but this is a legal grey area that tends to be tolerated (much more so than women critiquing sexism within video games, it would appear). WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Minor but probably inconsequential correction on "If these images are fair use, then so is her use of the fan-art." The two are used in very different contexts. The clips and images used in-video are used for the purpose of commentary, while this fan artwork has been used for the purpose of branding. FWIW, the other images used on the logo are official art, and arguably form part of the oeuvre she's commenting on. So there is a continuum of strength of the fair use claims, the strongest being the in-show material, next the official artwork on the logo, and the fan artwork weakest. That said, none of us are in any position to state definitively whether the claims are valid or not. More importantly, the part that makes it probably inconsequential is that we still don't know whether it's deliberate dishonesty (which might be worth including) or simple carelessness (which almost certainly isn't). Cock-up before conspiracy, and all that. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs
Generally speaking, it's off mission regardless. If someone is actually sued, charged, or convicted, it might be worth noting on the subject's page due to sheer importance. Random accusations(that don't highlight hypocritically) just aren't ever worth discussing. Ikanreed (talk) 20:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I just heard people criticize Anita on a forum I frequent that is generally made up of fairly sensible folks, so I was worried that there was a dark side to her that was being suppressed on this wiki.John Pannozzi (talk) 00:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

What Anita did not show you[edit]

Anita showed a clip from the 80s SMB anime special with Peach screaming and running behind Mario. She selectively showed this to portray a false narrative of Peach being helpless in that anime special. I actually watched the whole thing, and there are contrasting scenes which dispute this. This leads me to judge she either didn't watch the whole thing (inadequate research, lazy) or omitted it to suit her narrative:

What happened in the show isn't Mario being an uber-brave hero and Peach being a damsel. It's realistic fear of a GIANT DRAGON by both the plumber and the princess. In Peach's case, she's overwhelmed because she spent who knows how long battling Bowser's massive army and just jumped through dimensions. Even then, she only ran behind Mario once. Mario immediately ran behind her after experiencing no prior stress, and he did it a second time after having time to collect his wits. So if anything, the male character is being portrayed as weaker and more cowardly than the female.

Anita also conveniently leaves out how Luigi is portrayed as a carefree drunk who just floats around sipping sake when there's a kingdom to rescue. No misandry there. Tyc (talk) 23:27, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Realistic? Misandry? Are you being serious?
I don't see any of those clips really showing the Princess as other than a damsel in distress. What you describe as Peach attacking Bowser looks like a lift from King Kong with the girl struggling feebly against a giant monster. I see the Princess is hiding behind Mario in the last three of those clips. When he runs around to hide behind her instead in the last two, it's just a comic reversal to amuse the audience by making our hero look ridiculous; it doesn't really affect how she is portrayed. I haven't watched the film, but is the gist of it basically that the Princess is in peril & Mario saves the day? WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 00:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
And gets a pretty undeserved case of blue balls. Zero (talk - contributions) 05:27, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Women as Background Decoration part 2[edit]

While I thought this episode was pretty good, I have to say one line just resonated with me so well I...feel kinda moved by it. "What does it say about our culture when games routinely bend or break the laws of physics and no one bats an eye. When Dragons, Ogres and magic are inserted into historical influenced settings without objection. We're perfectly willing to suspend our disbelief when it comes to multiple lives, superpowers, health regeneration and the ability to carry dozens of weapons in a massive invisible backpack. But somehow the idea of a world without sexual violence and exploitation is deemed too strange and too bizarre to be believeable." Wow. Zero (talk - contributions) 18:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

So? Suspension of disbelief is very selective to begin with. However, the "sexual violence and exploitation" is mostly there be exciting/intense/escapist and hence serves the same general purpose as the dragons. Of course, premises vary from work to work - in Game of Thrones, for example, while the sex and violence are definitely made with entertainment in mind, their main purpose is to contribute to the "unadorned realism" of the series, that is then mixed with the fantastical/speculative elements. (talk) 21:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Horseshit. There's nothing realistic about the sex scenes in Game of Thrones. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:15, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Who taught you that shyte! (talk) 22:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't get it. What games does this apply to, that sexual violence and exploitation is deemed indispensable for the sake of realism? They are simply part of games to fulfil male desires (in the sense of the gamer feels more motivated to go against the bad guy if the bad guy did something to beautiful women). The realism argument doesn't really apply. Nullahnung (talk) 19:19, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I'll save the explanation. Start here. Zero (talk - contributions) 19:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I've now watched it. (note when I say sexual violence, I actually mean sexual violence & exploitation, but too bothersome to write all of it every time) She leads into it by saying that games containing the sexual violence depict it as something normal, a fact of life. (A bit of a contradiction to earlier in the video when she claimed that those games represent it as something exceptional only done by exceptional bad guys and that the theme is actually quite common in real life.) Thus the games assume it to be "realistic". And then the quote that you quoted above, comparing it to dragons and ogres and then saying that we somehow feel the need for depictions of sexual violence for believability in our games. I simply disagree with her on this. We don't need any of that. It's just that in some of our AAA games they decided to include it. Nullahnung (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Notably she also says that games lack a narrative about the struggle of women against said sexual violence, which would represent hope of a world without said violence. That's a fair point. The absence of such a narrative doesn't mean you can just conclude that we would find it bizarre or unbelievable, though. It's just that the game makers didn't consider spending the resources on such further sophistication of their dumb action game. Nullahnung (talk) 20:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I think she makes two separate points regarding sexualized and gendered violence. One is the overly caricaturised evil dudes with blackened hearts that do this(as opposed to normal everyday people)[Let me put it here that I think the Watch_dogs scenes were depicting of vengeful ex-partners and this is not an exampl of this but her other examples hold very well.]. The other is people say to her that if the games didn't have these tropes, they just wouldn't give a "realistic" vibe(and let's face it we've all heard of this hand waving of the issue.)
"It's just that the game makers didn't consider spending the resources on such further sophistication of their dumb action game." Here's the deal though, they do spend resources to create scenery and scripted events that rely on the overly used tropes, such as the sexually-welcoming looking women brutalised, as shown in the video, opposed to what you see in their male counterparts. Yes, they can decide that they decide to take the easiest form of creating an emotionally-charged and tittilating environment, that doesn't mean we can't criticise and put pressure on them for it and request better quality.Shadow Nirvana (talk) 20:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, so about the two separate points, the first one, fair enough, the second one... nope, haven't heard that type of hand-waving before.
About the usage of tropes as the easy way out. Sure, criticise it. I believe Marlow compared it to criticising Michael Bay movies for being overly shallow (explosions + super models) and I'd agree with that. Nullahnung (talk) 20:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't see the point of Sarkeesian. Most of the exemples of couple violences are here to demonstrate how the bad guy is really bad. Anyway the hero is encouraged to stop this violence. In some way, the game is learning the player, he should try to stop any violence he sees. --Vouze (talk) 17:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Her argument is more "Why is it women who are most commonly in these situations?" Motivating the player is one thing, but it is so cheap that it isn't worth it. Zero (talk - contributions) 18:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
If that's her point, then why not complain of equally "cheap" "shortcuts" to establishing someone as "evil", e.g. classics such as killing kids, beating up the weak, stabbing/shooting someone from behind etc. etc.?
The problem is that Sarkeesian seems to insist on tying her cherry picked examples to some implicit or explicit level of misogyny among game designers/gamers/society as a whole. Her arguments seem to fail the "turn 'em around test": If I applied such a Sarkeesian'esque analysis to most violent video games, I'd have to conclude that they're made by and for a rabid group of man-haters as by far the largest proportion of opponents the player has to beat, slash, shoot, or blow up are male...
As already mentioned Sarkeesian also appears to at least sometimes employ a kind of "heads you lose, tails I win"-logic in which, if realistically depicted, sexual violence against women is trivialising the issue, and if absent or muted it's a sign of game designers knuckling under to a societal taboo and trying to deny the issue.
I admit to not being much of a Sarkeesian afficionado, but from what I've seen so far, her arguments seem to revolve around rather shallow and cherry picked pop cultural analyses followed by a sort of Giorgio Tsoukalos-style, "I'm not saying it's due to misogyny... but it's due to misogyny!"-conclusions. Not that misogyny is wholly absent, but Sarkeesian seems to be able to make pretty much everything into an example of it.
ScepticWombat (talk) 09:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Look, her analyses and examples may not be on point all the time, but she does have good points as well. Why is it that women are so often the ones who are damselled in video games? There is no good reason, really. It would be more interesting if there was less of a gender imbalance in that regard. Why is it women who are so often used as titillating background characters? There's no good reason, really, it's just that men are still the majority of consumers and those who make games think it may appeal to them more to do things that way. Nullahnung (talk) 09:58, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I absolutely agree that such depictions of women are (way too) easy shortcuts, but my problem is that Sarkeesian seems to depict them as expressions of misogyny as well. Using that logic, the "hulkification" (as I guess the opposite of damselling might be called) of male characters is indicative of man-hating. The absurdity of this counter-claim illustrates why the larger implications (i.e. beyond sloppy writing) that Sarkeesian seems intent on drawing from her analyses is bunk. In terms of your example: Why is it men who are so often depicted as brainless mountains of muscle? Or why are men so often the stock mooks to be gunned down? If Sarkeesian framed her analyses as being about sloppy writing and personal preferences of topic and style of games, that would be a different matter. However, she frames them as being, to put it bluntly, about gender warfare, which is where the wheels come off her cart in my eyes. ScepticWombat (talk) 11:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I think you are unfairly strawmanning her a bit when you say that she frames them as being about gender warfare, I don't think her opinion is that extreme. As for the men being cannonfodder thing, it would be nice if we could get past the societal stigma of "omg, you can't hit girls, they are weaker, it is immoral!" in video games and it would only be a bit of equality if women could be cannon fodder as well. You see, it would actually elevate the status of women in video games if they could at least get recognized as worthy-enough enemies to become cannon fodder. About the hulkification thing, that's false equivalence and I'll let Jim Sterling speak to that: Nullahnung (talk) 11:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I did say that I was putting it bluntly, and perhaps too much so. As regards the female cannon fodder thing, I think that if such a game was produced, it wouldn't take two weeks until Sarkeesian would've made a video calling it "trivialisation of violence against women" or something similar (hence, why I called it "heads you lose, tails I win"-logic).
The irony is that women are actually far more likely to be bosses than mooks, which kind of suggest that they're considered to be more worthy opponents than males, but then an alternate argument would be that this shows that powerful women are viewed as exceptional aberrations by game designers (and I have a hunch as to which interpretation Sarkeesian would favour...).
As to Jim Sterling, I wasn't claiming that men are being objectified, but that they're being stereotyped. Sterling's argument is that male characters are usually not being made into sexual objects and I agree with that. However, while male characters aren't (often) objects of sexual desire, they are, as we seem to agree, the targets of the majority of violent activity and are not supposed to solve most problems in anyway except KILLKILLKILLKILLKILLKILL!!! This is why I disagree with Sterling calling this "idealisation" (unless he either thinks that the "Hulk smash"-type is deliberately being presented as something to strive for, or is using "ideal" in the Weberian sense of "ideal type"). Sterling also talks only of protagonists, which I think makes his video less than useful in the context of our discussion, because I was not only, or even mainly, talking about protagonists. My point is that these are in large part "genre problems" with shooters/hack 'n slash and similar games. That is probably why Sterling's video side is composed mainly of screenshots from them, alternating with the kind of semi-softporn games where, for instance, beach volley seems to be almost an afterthought... These games are rarely trying to tell much of a story.
Thus we're back to preferences and style: If I don't like dumb "blast everything in sight"-games and think that they're dominating the market, then I'd complain about that. What I wouldn't do would be latching onto the fact that their stories are so sloppy, short and clichéd that they'd fit on the back of a matchbox and turn the narrative shortcuts they employ into an argument of some sort of male chauvinism.
Oh, and for the record, I'm not a particular fan of shooting games (they tend to become rather repetitive), I do agree that loads of games could do with far better writing, and I think that sexual eye candy (and flashy graphics too, come to think of it) are far too often used as substitutes for good gameplay and/or storylines. All of these factors are, in my eyes, hardly a gender matter. ScepticWombat (talk) 12:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Let's not throw around words that are charged with different meanings depending on who uses them, like misogyny, let's just call it "systemic bias in representation of women in video games which favours men over women" for the sake of our discussion, which I believe is close enough to what Sarkeesian means.
Your predictions as to Sarkeesian's reaction to the cannon fodder thing, well, we can't say for sure unless it happens, now can we, so let's not make such assumptions.
As for women being more likely to be bosses than mooks... I feel like women are also underrepresented in the bosses category. The fact that they are less underrepresented in the bosses than in the mook category still doesn't make that a good thing, wouldn't you say? It is merely a lesser underrepresentation that is therefore less worthy of note than the mook underrepresentation.
It appears we can at least agree that women are more objectified than men. I do agree that men are stereotyped in some ways, but I think this will solve itself to an extent once we can bring in more diversity in terms of gender representation. I don't think Sarkeesian needs to talk about problems of male representation in video games, because her video series specifically focuses on the representation of women in video games.
As for other types of games not having as much of a problem with gender representation as shallow, shooty AAA titles, you've got a point there. Nullahnung (talk) 13:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality of this article[edit]

This article really seems one sided. I came here after reading an article about a Youtuber Thunderfoot (which held a good deal of, mostly earned, criticism) to find that the article on Sarkeesian has no criticism of her work or ideologies (which is not non existent), but rather deals in attacks on her and praises her work. I'm not arguing that she has some good points about poor female characters, because she indeed made some good points, but this doesn't seem very, very one sided as she has been criticized in a rational manner. Is this because of deletion, as someone posted here? (talk) 23:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC):

This article reads like a personal rant. It is full of unprofessional statements like "the shitstirring". The article does not allow any reporting of a counter-narrative such as the wide criticism Sarkeesian received for her treatment of "Hitman" where she purposely sets out to murder some strippers and desecrate their bodies, even though the game penalizes such behavior, and Sarkeesian inflames her rhetoric by insinuating the gamers experience a perverse sexual high from gameplay they actually do not pursue. Her mentality is something like this: Streets are designed so that I could mow down pedestrians with my car, watch as I mow down pedestrians with my car, conclusion: all drivers are murders given incentive by the street designers to kill pedestrians. I should also add that any attempts to fill in Sarkeesians biography or to mention controversy or criticism here are immediately deleted. It's ironic that a 'rational' wiki is full of inflamed rhetoric and shuts down any neutral, facts that don't fit the 'official narrative'. — Unsigned, by: MoonDust / talk / contribs 16:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
How do you know that she purposely sets out to do all that stuff, then records it and puts it in her videos? Last I heard she just takes the footage from other video playthroughs on the grounds of fair use. I know Sarkeesian isn't always 100% on point with her examples, but heaping such accusations of bad faith on her without evidence isn't helping anybody. Nullahnung (talk) 16:47, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
The trouble is that a lot of the criticism is steeped very heavily in its own misunderstanding of feminism and sexism. Finding genuine critics of her work has proven to be unfruitful. The most compelling argument about her works (that I have seen) boils down to "The series is incomplete." In other words, hardly worth mentioning. This is the same argument we keep having over at Wikipedia. Zero (talk - contributions) 01:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand how criticism from other established academic feminists Youtuber theFactualFeminist is 'unfruitful'. The truth is Sarkeesian refuses to debate anybody, anywhere. She has never engaged her critics, ever. — Unsigned, by: MoonDust / talk / contribs 16:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
HER WORK is heavily steeped in misunderstanding of sexism - finding people correcting said misunderstanding in a compelling way is exceedingly easy: it basically writes itself. Search for "Sarkeesian response" or "Sarkeesian rebuttal" on YT, and you shall be fruitful. You won't even have to click past the 1st page!
A relatively notable, especially now, example would be JordanOwen42 who's made dozens and dozens of point-by-point rebuttals of her talks and videos - not perfect by any means (like 10-15% of his points are weak / influenced by some irrational opinions of his own), but still a very valuable resource as far as compelling rebuttals go. I don't even remember him saying anything about the "incomplete video series"... it's certainly a marginal point at best in the responses/rebuttals that I've encountered. (talk) 20:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
For me the most compelling criticism is that she does not do much work to make sure her findings fit in context (seemingly taking most of her research from LP material, if she researched more in-depth, maybe she wouldn't have a problem with NPC corpses disappearing which happens for technical reasons). However, it is not interesting to us what the quality of her work is and how much of it she does, it is more interesting that people are focusing so much negative attention on her and making a big fuss where there shouldn't be any. As David hill said, the most effect she's had on games so far is adding slightly more diversity. Nullahnung (talk) 09:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, the negative attention has everything to do with the poor quality of her work, as well as her stated goal to spread this poor quality around in order to "make a change". Had she gone the more humble route of "well this is my take on things, but I'm just another voice on the interweb" instead of lecturing from above, the blacklash may have been interesting - but stupidity mixed with arrogance is well-known to be an inherently inflammatory combination.
Another major contributing factor is the unquestioned support she's been getting from the mainstream media and many other voices pretending to speak for rationality and enlightened values - were this wiki, for instance, to admit that most of her arguments are complete tripe, it would definitely contribute to dampening the backlash ;) (talk) 20:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter how sub-par her video series is, nothing can justify the backlash. And if you know anything about the internet at this point, it's that the harassment topic can and will overshadow any previously focused less important topic like gender representation in video games. Nullahnung (talk) 21:15, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't talking about justification, but causation - the internet is known for its abudance of assholes and trash-talkers, which means that saying something as inflammatory in public can be expected to lead to such results.
Also, I was talking more about the intense critical backlash rather than the threats - i.e. many of the "level-headed" critics still express a high amount of irritation and frustration with her, which I'd say IS justified for the named reasons.
PS: This wiki isn't "the internet" - or, rather, it can choose not to be ;) (talk) 21:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
As I mentioned when they topic came up before, I know nothing about this woman apart from what I have read in this article. I repeat this is my only only knowledge of her. So I am told that this wonderful person is often the subject of virulent criticism, and I am also told that any and all criticisms which have ever been levelled at her are the work sexist fascists.
It is certainly possible that this is true - but looking at it from the outside it seems kind of doubtful. Is anybody that wonderful? I would also point out that I am exactly the sort of person who I would have thought that the article was trying to persuade, as anybody with a horse in the race probably has a firm opinion already.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 18:13, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
It's my opinion that the article should be persuading gamers who have stumbled upon her videos and by extension our article, if anything, because those are the group most likely to be interested in her, but that doesn't seem to have been the route we have taken. Nullahnung (talk) 21:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree that this article is extremely biased towards Anita's viewpoint. It writes off all criticism of her as just being the work of misogynists and ignores all the genuine criticisms (her lack of research into topics, nitpicking, lying about filing a police report, etc.). If we're going to be a rational site that gives clear information without bias than we cannot simply sing praise for this woman while handwaving any of her flaws away. Are we basically admitting here that they don't care about factual accuracy as long as we can insult/criticize a group that a few of us don't like? Because that's kind of the opposite of what Rational Wiki is supposed to be.( (talk) 17:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC))
Thanks everyone for pitching into the discussion rationally. In the meantime I've taken notice of Anita Sarkeesian's practice of publishing hate mail without any regard for privacy. Apparently Feminist Frequency's twitter account (Sarkeesian's FF twitter account to be precise) doxxed several people who emailed Sarkeesian. I think this is relevant because the article addresses personal attacks on Sarkeesian.
Link: (talk) 13:15, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Quite recently I was linked to some other articles on this wikia after seeing a Facebook argument on #gamergate and the, so called, "Social Justice Warriors". In the meanwhile I've managed to read up on some other sources on the matter. After reading the articles here I've noticed a certain bias in a lot of them. All seem to be in the same vein. So I can only conclude that the community of this wikia is such that it makes it inhospitable to other schools of thought. And seeing how I got no responses here, I will make no further attempts to better or add to this wikia. In any case, thank you very much for your time and consideration. (talk) 03:04, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I would like to see some mention that criticism of Sarkeesian's position exists which isn't just antifeminist rants. (This video is a half-decent example. You might not agree with his arguments, but at least he's making them in a level-headed manner. He's actually appalled by the sexist vitriol that's been levelled against Sarkeesian. Once, I found an even better level-headed video that discussed women in video games, but sadly I haven't been able to locate it again because of all the vitriolic attack videos that show up when you search for "Sarkeesian") -- Tracer (talk) 01:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, I posted this one a while ago, which criticises some of her points about women in video games in a level-headed manner: Nullahnung (talk) 10:23, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Wow. This section of the talk page is definitely the most civil dissent-filled section of RationalWiki, which is ironic considering the topic. I'm seriously surprised no one has mentioned the "Isn't this supposed to be RATIONALWiki?" thing as an appeal to ridicule.TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 22:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Awful biased and unreadable[edit]

This article reads like a blog post made by one person that obviously sides himself with Anita's side. Usually this wiki is a pleasure to read but this article should be at least edited to an extent that some of the bias and the swear words are edited out. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Actually it's all about bias in games journalism. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 09:34, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
If you think this is bad, check out the article on Rebecca Watson. Greatnecro (talk) 01:38, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I dont't get it. The article on Rebecca Watson is barely 2 paragraphs long, with a "See also" link at the bottom to the article on Elevatorgate. How is that horrible? --Tracer (talk) 13:00, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
She's a woman. With opinions. And we don't openly hate her for it. Ikanreed (talk) 14:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

This entire wiki article needs to be deleted ASAP[edit]

I don't see why there is even an argument here to begin with. This wiki's goals state that the point of it is to be pro science, to analyze and refute pseudoscience and the anti-science movement, document crank ideas, explore fundamentalism and authoritarianism, and finally, how to analyze and critique how all these subjects are handled by the media.

So why, then, I must ask, is there even an Anita Sarkeesian page at all? I understand that many here are feminists. But at this point, you are bludgeoning this Wiki over the head with your ideologies, regardless of correctness, and you are essentially replacing one fundamentalist system with another. There is no longer any objectivity to be found here. The very fact that Anita Sarkeesian is being presented here when she has absolutely nothing to do with the aims of this wiki is confusing. Is this Wiki really about video games and sexism? Or is it about science and the promotion of it?

You're not refuting anti-science or fighting against it. You're actually promoting ideology and fundamentalism. Let me remind you the definition of fundamentalism: "strict adherence to the basic principles of any subject or discipline."

^^ Feminism is the ideology which is being strictly adhered to on this wiki. And in doing so, you are costing tremendous amounts of credibility to what was once a genuinely rational wiki.

Anita Sarkeesian is a video game critic. She is not a scientist. Gender studies are usually not based in science but in the humanities anyway. Taking a stance against sexism is something that delves into morality.

But to be a skeptic: to be a rational thinker, we must evaluate topics completely without regard to morals. In the last two days, I have observed dozens of instances where science has been neglected in favor of politics or ideology.

Therefore, I highly recommend this entry on Anita as well as her opponents to be deleted. Please put this wiki back on track. You can always create a feminist wiki that deals exclusively with feminist issues. Feminism is neither rational or irrational: it's an idea. It is not a subject of science. It's a belief system. And completely regardless to whether or not it is a correct belief system, rational thought is independent of ALL such systems. In choosing promote a belief system on a wiki designed for rational thought, you have invalidated everything this wiki claims to stand for. Please stop the ideology pushing. I don't think you realize how bad of an idea it is to merge ideology with science. Parogar (talk) 16:07, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

One last thing. I'd like to remind people that, while I am personally against sexism and misogyny, it's a fact that there have been misogynist scientists who have contributed greatly. Why am I mentioning that at all? Not to promote misogyny by any means, but to point out that, if the goal of this wiki is to fight anti-scientific beliefs, then fighting misogyny is not part of this wiki's goals. Though noble, you are not actually fighting anti-science by fighting misogyny, as being a misogynist is not linked to being against science. You can be both at the same time, even if it is immoral. And that's something you'd automatically realize if you think rationally. Which is something that, sadly, this wiki no longer seems to promote. Parogar (talk) 16:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
In fact, I just checked this page: and noticed that the most commented on and debated articles on this entire website (anything and everything to do with feminism) aren't even on there. So clearly, this website has lost all of its function, as it has chosen a course that puts it at odds with its stated goals. This is now a biased wiki that seeks to promote an ideology and a belief system over being skeptical and debunking anti scientific claims. In other words, there isn't even a category listed on that page for the agenda being promoted, because it's NOT on the stated agenda. It's something that has developed over time, and it has become authoritarian in nature, the very thing which this wiki claims to be against. I highly suggest that the feminists of this wiki put aside their personal beliefs for the greater point of sticking to the goals claimed in this wiki's "about" page. Otherwise, for what purpose does it even exist? Parogar (talk) 16:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Except that it fits well within items 3 and 4 of our mission statement. RW is about a lot more than just science. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 16:27, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, yeah, brand new user comes in and says "feminism isn't on mission just delete all this" as all their edits, and hangs onto a balance fallacy as essential to impartiality. We've seen this before you, and we'll see it again, when you give up and leave. The the conclusion every one of these discussions arrives at is that anti-feminism is an artifact of traditionalist authoritarianism, and can be critically deconstructed as such. It's not hard to see past these "It's important that we don't talk about feminism at all, ever" posts, when that's seemingly all you care about. Ikanreed (talk) 16:28, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
"The the conclusion every one of these discussions arrives at is that anti-feminism is an artifact of traditionalist authoritarianism, and can be critically deconstructed as such."
Anti-feminism is opposition to feminist claims which can be based on many different mindsets and worldviews - ranging from rationality to specific ideologies such as "traditionalism", and with a lot of visceral emotional opposition and mulish opposition to anything calling itself "feminism" because reasons, inbetween. You are correct in stating that feminism and views surrounding feminism are susceptible to rationality and scrutiny - however, you are incorrect in thinking that feminism generally stands up to those, while anti-feminism generally doesn't. (talk) 18:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Look, mates, you know very well that new sections go to the bottom of the talk page. I want to do it for you, but you keep edit conflicting me with your replies. This could be avoided if you could, in addition to leaving your reply, put the section in its rightful place. Thanks. (<-hypocrite) Nullahnung (talk) 16:32, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
There, I've done it now. Nullahnung (talk) 16:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
What does Anita Sarkeesian have to do with parts 3 and 4 of this website's goals? Do you not see how you're so attached to a particular belief system that you will actually claim that it is something it's not? It's not just feminism, but anti-feminism as well that has no place in a website with these states goals. In fact, just look at the content of your post. You accused me of being a "newcomer" as though that has some validity in your argument. Basically, you're suggesting that the age of my existence is relevant to my opinion. This is known as an ad hominem attack. And it shows just how far this place has fallen. And I've been a reader for a very long time. I've only recently decided to contribute anything. Parogar (talk) 16:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it's an ad hominem, good job. And what you just posted is called a "red herring" as long as we're playing fallacy bingo. The argument I presented was pretty clear. It's covered under authoritarianism, because anti-feminism is a common authoritarian thing. The end. It's up for debate, but here's where your newness is relevant, you blow in, declare that you understand what's best for the wiki, on a flimsy, if verbose, pretense, without having shown any interest in anything else, besides removing things you disagree with. I was letting you know we've seen your exact editing pattern before, and it's never been honestly in the interest of improving rationalwiki. Ikanreed (talk) 16:50, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I challenge ANY of you to prove using logic and reasoning that feminism has any basis in rationality and not merely morality. Bear in mind that I agree with much of its stated goals. But please provide EVIDENCE that feminism is inherently rational. Feminism is the belief in gender equality. And why do you want this? Because it is morally just. I agree! But that's MORALITY, not RATIONALITY. Parogar (talk) 16:44, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Imagine, if you will, a debating club. Members come and go but there's a comonality, a general agreement about what they want to debate about. And then, one day, a new person arrives and says "You've got it all wrong, you're debating the wrong things." How do you think that would play. So, yeah, you might have a point. Personally I don't think so. But what you don't have is the right to come here and tell us how our Wiki should be run. I have seven years invested here. I'm not ready to have someone tell me what I can and can't have articles on. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
And so I ask ^^ Is that rational? "I have seven years invested here. I'm not ready to have someone tell me what I can and can't have articles on." <- Those are your words. Are they based on rational thought? I am not mocking you. I am not trying to disrespect you. I'm trying to ask you if you can see what has happened to this wiki and why it is problematic. There's too much emotion and personal bias attached to this. Anita makes some great points about video games. She also makes some I disagree with. But for the life of me I can't understand why it would be included in this wiki other than because it interests the member base. I actually miss the days I could link to the science-based articles on here without having to worry that it's all just "feminist propaganda." Parogar (talk) 16:54, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

@Ikanreed Please define the word "Authoritarian" for me. Authoritarianism Parogar (talk) 16:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, for heaven's sake: read "The Authoritarians". It goes into a lot of detail about the notion, and it's not whatever simplification you cooked up in your head. Suffice it to say, sexism really, definitely fits into the umbrella category, due to their adhesion to traditionalism. I know a reading assignment is a lot to ask, so here's a critical excerpt:

[...]groups anathema to authoritarians, such as homosexuals and feminists[...]

Now, please chill a bit. Ikanreed (talk) 17:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
@Ikanreed " I was letting you know we've seen your exact editing pattern before, and it's never been honestly in the interest of improving rationalwiki." <- And this is the problem with anonymity on the internet. Look, I don't like being anonymous. If you Google my username "Parogar" you'll see that I have fought for rational causes to the point of exhaustion. I've debated with thousands of people about psychics, ghosts, magic, religion, and every other faith-based nonsense that humans tend to believe in. I adore science. I love skepticism. And it's abundantly clear that you're not being fairly objective here. Just think about what your response to me is. You actually want me to read a 267-page PDF opinion piece which you feel is somehow sufficient evidence to define an entire group of people as authoritarian despite not being a mind-reader and not having any scientific evidence to support your claims? Let me remind you that this is called "rational" wiki. Please, tell me if I am incorrect in the following statement:
On this website,, you feel that feminism is a valid topic because "anti feminists" are authoritarian, which means you somehow know based on scientific evidence that people who are against feminism are all against feminism (or even most) on the basis that they want power? So women who are against feminism are authoritarian? Men who reject feminism out of not understanding it are authoritarian? How many people, I must ask, who are against feminism, do you honestly speculate are against it because they both, A, understand what it's actually about, and B, even understanding it, still think that women are unequal? I'm sure you'd find that it's a minority, as a recent survey suggested that 84% of people believe in equal rights for women.
But wait. I'll take this point even further. So not only do you base your argument on an opinion piece, and not only do you claim that an entire subset of the population are all inherently authoritarian, but you claim this without evidence to support it. But let's say you're right. Let's say being anti-feminist really IS authoritarian and that you somehow know what everyone is thinking and feeling and what their views are. How then does an article on Anita Sarkeesian, a video-game critic, debunk these authoritarian claims? Or are you suggesting that you have scientific evidence that the portrayal of fake women in video games and their creators translates into anti-feminism which translates into authoritarianism which is one of this website's aims? And here I thought this place was called rational wiki. Parogar (talk) 17:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Feminism is about treating women as humans. As women are humans it is rational to treat them that way. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 17:20, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree with you 100%. Women are human beings deserving of respect as they are NOT mere objects for our amusement. But can you prove that this is rational? Is there any actual evidence to support the conclusion that we SHOULD behave morally? Do you see how subjective this is? When we delve deeply into it, everything regarding this topic comes down to philosphy and the nature of good vs. evil. This is far removed from creationism or other anti-scientific claims which can be refuted without any need for philosophical debate. We know creationism is wrong because we can observe mutation, natural selection, genetic drift, and gene flow. We understand how allelic frequencies change. We understand how genes work. And we can use this knowledge to completely shut down the idea that the reason women feel pain during childbirth is because a talking snake told one to eat an apple. But can we do the same with your claim? Is it rational to promote good moral behavior? I've seen firsthand where that ends up. I've been fighting FOR Pro-LGBT causes for many years. And every single one of the homophobic morons I argue with swear up and down that their morality trumps my morality. The truth is that science should be free of such questions of morality. Because humanity is inherently irrational. Thinking rational is to put aside all emotion. Emotion can never mix well with rational thought. Parogar (talk) 17:25, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Ummm, Altemeyer's The Authoritarians is not an "opinion piece," but a report of his research findings. There may be opinion mixed in, but it's worth a read all the same. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 17:27, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Lawl, am I the only one who felt reminded of "you should killusalllll on SIGHT!" when reading the title of this topic? Actually, I don't know why I just said that.

Anyway, I'm decidedly anti-Sarkeesian and anti-Feministwiki, as some might have noticed, and I think you're being kinda stupid here.
No, they shouldn't delete the page - this wiki has looser views on notability than Wikipedia, and tends to be openly snarky and humorous. The latter doesn't stand in the way of rationality as long as Poe's Law doesn't start applying, the former is even a contributing factor - why not debunk a crackpot just because they're not sufficiently notable?
Anita Sarkeesian is a crank - if this wiki became rational tomorrow, this page wouldn't be deleted, it would merely turn against her (to a large degree). However, this simply ain't gonna happen - the feminism section of this wiki is firmly and hopelessly ideological; it's MO is to back everything said by either the Sarkeesian camp or the FTB camp without question. You can mock it, you can argue against it on the Talk pages, but if you really think this is gonna change, you're being naive.
Losing credibility? It's already lost it, to the point that it doesn't even hurt anymore.
No, feminism isn't outside science and rationalism - it makes a lot of factual claims, and makes a lot of arguments vulnerable to logical scrutiny. That's why they're called "ideologues" in the first place!
So it totally has a place on a "rational wiki", except that it should be evaluated critically, and reprimanded when it forgets its place ;)
No, talking about morality doesn't stand in the way of rationality - you can bring up Nazi experiments and say they were unethical (or any less formal term you might feel like using), and you can judge people's words and actions as long as you represent them accurately. Being rational isn't to lower yourself into a detached state of zen nihilism, it just means acknowledging facts and avoiding false conclusions.
I don't see any problem in combining rationalism with secular humanist morality. Especially considering the origin of this wiki (as a response to a certain fundamentalist conservative "wiki" that shall not be named), it's probably the most sensible approach. However, its decision to transcend the reasonable center and land way too far on the left, less so.
"Anita Sarkeesian is a video game critic. She is not a scientist. Gender studies are usually not based in science but in the humanities anyway. Taking a stance against sexism is something that delves into morality."
Wrong - gender studies deal a lot with facts, which doesn't automatically mean they do it properly.
"Humanities" isn't a field that's limited to morals and opinion pieces - it includes a lot of fields that are scientific in nature, such as history and sociology, and even the things on the other end of the spectrum, such as literary criticism, are very much susceptible to logical scrutiny. At the very least, books and video games are things that exist in reality, and that you can make factually wrong statements about.
Correct me if I'm wrong, anyone, but I'm pretty sure it's always been this way. The two issues I've found it to be most irrational about, namely Sarkeesian and Elevatorgate, didn't exist a couple of years ago, however that doesn't mean the wiki itself was more reasonable.

There's some other dubious stuff you've said, but whatever. (talk) 18:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

intellectual honesty[edit]

Parogar, you're not being honest anymore. This article is almost entirely about anti-feminist hatred piled on her, not herself. You know that. Please cease bullshitting me. I don't appreciate it. Ikanreed (talk) 17:29, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I am being honest. I'm NOT disagreeing with you. There is no excuse for the death threats and harassment that gamers have made towards this women. It is atrocious. But, as a whole, I fail to see the relevancy in promoting it as part of a website that, until recently, was almost exclusively dedicated towards fighting the conservative-led anti-science movement. I agree that the attacks on Anita, regardless of my interpretation on her views, were wrong and reprehensible. But it's still promoting morality. How often do you open a math book and find a lengthy derision of Pythagoreans for drowning Hippasus after his discovery of irrational numbers? Parogar (talk) 17:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
...a website that, until recently, was almost exclusively dedicated towards fighting the conservative-led anti-science movement... Err..., no, wrong. This web site has had a strong Feminist stance for many, many years and our Feminism article predates 2008. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 17:44, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
That may be so, but as a reader, I never felt an ideology was being pressed on me until only the last year or two. I mean, when the biggest challenge a website like rational wiki is facing is angry attacks by MRA's, one must only step back and examine this with some objectivity to realize that someone has made a huge error. The fact that there is even a "war" going on between two moral-based ideologies on a website promoting rational thought is a slap in the face to the very idea of rationality. Parogar (talk) 17:52, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
It's not just about the anti-feminst hatred piled on her, it's also about anti-feminist criticism piled on her, as well just criticism piled on her, and dismissing it as "half-assed" or "nonsense". I've seen news articles that were exclusively about the harassment - this page isn't like that. Just saying. (talk) 18:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Uh huh. Ikanreed (talk) 19:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

What if I claimed women did not deserve to be equal[edit]

I absolutely don't think this. But for the sake of proving my point, I'm going to make a claim that I would abhor had someone made it to me. Suppose for a moment that I say the world is better off with women being submissive to men. Can you prove using scientific evidence that I am wrong? Or would you have to merely insist that your morality, which is subjective, demands that all people are equal? Can anyone here honestly say that feminism is not simply about doing the right thing? The good thing? It's commendable, but it's anti-science to promote it in the context of rational thought. Because no matter how much you'd like to deny it, the very fact of the matter is that fusing morality and rational thought will always result in at least SOME of it being held back. Fusing together science and morality hinders science. It might make us all feel better as people, but it hinders science. That much should be patently obvious if we observe the world through the lens of history. Parogar (talk) 17:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

How can it hinder science if it opens up the scientific fields to half of the population? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 17:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Good point. I didn't consider that. Parogar (talk) 17:54, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Scientifically it has been shown that tit-for-tat is the optimum solution to the iterative prisoner's dilemma. This maps onto human behaviour in as much as the ethical position known as "the golden rule" which is, if you believe in evolutionary ethics as I do, a positive survival trait. It doesn't make sense to apply that "golden rule" to only one half of the population. Ergo, I'm a feminist. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 17:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but using science to justify moral beliefs seems absurd to me. We don't need some kind of scientific proof that a certain kind of behaviour optimises survival to justify treating women as equals, that seems awfully cold and pragmatist, whereas moral behaviour is all about feeling warm and fuzzy for me. Nullahnung (talk) 18:20, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
OK, so how, as rational atheists, do we get our morality? Big, big question. The golden rule feels right, equitable, decent, all the other good words - and is warm and fuzzy. But why?
This all goes along with why do I love my wife and son. Oh, easy, I'm genetically programmed to do so. Otherwise my genes would die out. That sounds cold and hard but it doesn't stop her smile being the most precious thing in the world, or that inner glow I get when my son is happy.
Knowing the "why" doesn't stop me marvelling at the outcome. A flower is pretty to attract insects but that doesn't stop me filling my garden with colour. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 18:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Ok, so I guess we can use science to attempt to explain why we feel certain things are moral, but judging behaviour to be moral or immoral will still be through applying a set of moral beliefs. Seems plausible. Nullahnung (talk) 19:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I need more time to consider this point you made before I say anything else. It's simple, but it's meaningful. You're suggesting that promoting equality will lead to more people interested in the sciences. And naturally, the more people doing science the more people who will further it. This is definitely a good point. I really don't have anything to say in response to it. Parogar (talk) 18:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I do have one thing. I still feel that it's fair to criticize rationalwiki as being excessive in this regard. I don't think the methods and manner has been entirely fair here. MRA's are dicks. I don't think anyone reasonable is going to deny that. I wrote a scathing rant about them the other day actually. But my point is that appearing extremist (which some articles really do) can sometimes be more harmful than trying to be a bit more balanced. Like the MRA article. It's ... troubling.
"MRA's are dicks. I don't think anyone reasonable is going to deny that."
Some are, others aren't. (talk) 18:34, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
And, in what way are we "extremist"? Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 18:06, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to plead the fifth to that one :) Parogar (talk) 18:09, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, you could say it's not derived from any facts. However, technically that would only work against arguments claiming to be based on "realities about gender", not so much the "wouldn't ie be fun?" kind - and also, values can't be derived from facts alone, only facts in combination with more general values.
However, I'm not getting into this moral philosophy horseshite right now, and this is all beside the point - this site isn't called "MorallyDetachedScienceWiki" and it's stupid to hold it to those stand- ah fuck it I've already covered that. (talk) 18:32, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, so you're right, Dox, when you say that we need more women in science. But I've thought about it, and modern feminism (especially Anita Sarkeesian) will not be able to fulfill that role, because a negative cannotation has been applied to it, and it continues to worsen. At this point, promoting feminism will impede equality. Promoting feminism is not going to lead to anything fruitful. That's the unfortunate reality of the situation.

For example, take Anita Sarkeesian: she's what is known as an antagonistic feminist. Or, in modern speech, a bitch. She is immediately off putting to moderates. Far too extreme and rage-inducing. To help women, people need to actually like and want to join the cause trying to do so. Not a whole lot of people like feminism. To be honest, I like some ideas of feminism, but I dislike it. Maybe not to the degree I hate MRA's, but I tend to be more in the middle on the side of Egalitarianism. And yes, you can link me to the dictionary definition of feminism and then tell me to read "Bad feminist," but to do so is to deny that a culture has formed around the word, which it has. Parogar (talk) 18:40, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

At any rate, I've made my points, and I have little else to add. I'd like to personally thank each and every one of you who took the time to debate this with me. I'll leave you in peace, because truthfully, my intention was not to harm RationalWiki, and I am not here to troll or harass. is where I can be found if anyone would like clarification about anything. But for now, I don't want to cause anymore disturbance. Take care. Parogar (talk) 18:44, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The madness of the militants… the small body of misguided women who profess to represent the noble and serious cause of political enfranchisement of women, but in fact do their utmost to degrade and hinder it.

Manchester Guardian ( 2 March 1912 )

The way in which certain types of women, easily recognised, have acted in the last year or two, especially in the last few weeks, lends a great deal of colour to the argument that the mental equilibrium of the female sex is not as stable as the mental equilibrium of the male sex… It seems to me that this House should remember that if the vote is given to women those who will take the greatest part in politics will not be the quiet, retiring, constitutional women… but those very militant women who have brought so much disgrace and discredit upon their sex. It would introduce a disastrous element into our public life… One feels that it is not cricket for women to use force… It is little short of nauseating and disgusting to the whole sex…

Viscount Helmsley, speaking in the House of Commons, 28 March 1912

Yep, same old arguments. Damm feminists, they get so uppity the put people off. Simply not cricket! Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 18:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
You asked above about appearing "extremist". Whilst that's almost certainly overstating the case, have a look at the polemic that passes for RW's considered opinion on rape culture. It presents its subject as an established matter of fact, without any attempt to acknowledge its roots as an academic concept / rhetorical device that sprang from second-wave feminism in the 70s.
It's entirely possible to argue that there is no such fucking thing as "rape culture", whilst still acknowledging the importance of drastically reducing the incidence of rape and vastly improving victims' experience of the criminal justice system. You'd have fuck all chance of telling that from the article, though. Robledo (talk) 19:18, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Allegedly using NLP (a.k.a. normal English grammar)[edit] You may want to watch the video first, it's at the bottom of the post.--ZooGuard (talk) 07:53, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

When you manage to provide Manboobz with legitimate ammunition against you... there are problems! Mammoth sure knew how to pick a video out of several :D
It's kind of regrettable, really - while by far not the only one to have made high-quality rebuttals of her nonsense, Owen's still one of the most prominent ones, and one of the best... most of the time. Too bad that he's kind of a kook himself - a "taxes is theft" libertarian, and occasionally this NLP stuff (which is not to be confused with some valid observations about her choice of words in the kickstarter video etc.). Sometimes he gets overly melodramatic with Nietzsche's "master and slave morality", or doesn't get a feminist joke even though he criticizes Sarkeesian for not getting jokes.
Sure hope he keeps that shit ouf of the movie, or it's just gonna be known as "the rightwing/libertard/numerologist/drama queen" perspective on things. Then again, who cares - he's the one who went through with starting such a project, not someone else, so whatever happens happens I say :) (talk) 02:31, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

No-nonsense claims[edit]


"Anita on the other hand only goes as far as to say that sexist tropes that exist can be perpetuated in media like video games."

Perpetuation is a form of causation.

"Ultimately she is just suggesting that it might be better if video games treat women better."

Would, not might, and saying, not suggesting.
Not just "better", but not/less misogynistic.

"She is by no means trying to restrict developers in their creative freedom, merely hoping to maybe influence their attitudes."

Her lack of legal/censorship ambitions is what sets her apart from Thompson. Her narrative, however, that there's something morally wrong with the medium and that it harms/affects the minds of consumers, is made out of the same cloth. He's the poster-child for the "conservative moralizing" camp, she the poster-child for the "liberal social justice" camp - both camps are highly notable for their literalist, tone-deaf mindset and their self-righteous condemnation of completely benign things.

2) No, she's saying she's not a fan and doesn't play video games. Stop lying. (talk) 21:43, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I have a shot glass with vodka here. Trying to decide on drinking it. Apart from that, show me the proof I crave that she doesn't play video games. Zero (talk - contributions) 07:44, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I didn't say she doesn't play video games, I said in that video you linked to "for context", she said she didn't. Or, more accurately, she said she'd like to play video games but they're too gross - technically you could also read it as saying she hardly plays games, or does so casually. The part with her not being a fan, though, was black on white. (talk) 15:39, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
So he found out through research that people who are against feminism (and I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out that 99% of them don't even understand what feminism is) are pro-authoritarianism? Look, I understand why people support feminism. But as someone who is a frequent critic of it, well ... okay, see now what I'm about to state is an anecdote, and as such, it means absolutely nothing, but I may as well say it. Based on my own personal observations, I'd argue that the people against feminism are actually against feminISTS and they can't tell the difference. I've made this mistake myself. They miss-attribute the feminists for the feminISM. But again, I can't prove that this is true, so you may as well take that with a grain of salt. Either way, by supporting Anita Sarkeesian on a website about rational thought, you've essentially done the equivalent of picking sides in Game of Thrones -- and that, I must insist, is the diametric opposite of being rational. Parogar (talk) 17:31, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Why do you think repeating yourself like this is going to achieve something? Your argument is shitty. You've apparently mistaken "rational" for "logical absolutist" and that's... well... silly. Ikanreed (talk) 17:35, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
It's more like picking the side of Walder Frey. And also, you're being the White Walker to my King of the North right now - stay on topic pls kthx. (talk) 18:42, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

"Most videos criticizing her rely on attacking her credentials, claiming she's "not a real gamer" and is therefore "biased.""

More lies. The large chunk of most of those videos focus on her fallacious content, and don't "rely" on any of the ad-hominem stuff even when they do touch on it.

"Additionally, because of the attacks on her she has disabled the like/dislike feature"

lmao (talk) 02:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)


Yeah. It has gone from being dumb to being terrorism. More on this when the air is cleared. Zero (talk - contributions) 03:59, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Can't we just copy some of the stuff from our Gamergate article that this article doesn't yet have? Nullahnung (talk) 07:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm kind of surprised that Anita doesn't carry a gun herself. Fairly sure I wouldn't leave the house without some kind of weapon in her position, because holy shit. King Skeleton (talk) 07:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
If I remember correctly, Anita lives in California somewhere. Gun culture is very different there. Zero (talk - contributions) 12:52, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Having a gun on you isn't always a huge help when someone fires at you. The assailant always gets the first move anyway, so you're basically relying on that person's initial action failing to kill you and the guy giving you enough time to pull out your gun. You'd probably be better off wearing a bulletproof vest. (talk) 17:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Eh, a vest won't be that helpful, they're primarily designed for military situations where the attacker aims for the centre of mass. People with no military or police training tend to aim for the head. King Skeleton (talk) 17:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Possibly the worst response to death threats is to carry a gun. Firstly, the lone gunman will have done his worst before you even have time to draw and secondly, if you do draw, it all but ensures a fire fight with ensuing fatalities - probably innocent bystanders. Is that really what you want? Life is not like the movies, ever. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 11:48, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Wow - what a piece of anti-gun tripe right there! Sure, having a gun on you will increase your chances of survival / stopping your assailant, but what if you hit someone else instead? Leaving yourself completely at the mercy of the assassin and let him kill you is definitely the better choice, especially considering that you'll also leave others at his mercy, and not only that but he actually threatened to shoot other innocent bystanders as well... oh wait. But in either case, crossfire with accidental injuries < letting an armed psycho Mr. Blonde all of you one by one. Eh? (talk) 19:47, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
The problem with this scenario is it works if you've pissed off a squad of crackshot ninja snipers in perfect cover firing Hollywood instant death bullets, not so much in real life where it's about as sensible as "there's no point learning martial arts because the attacker always gets to throw the first punch." Sure, in a worst-case scenario you won't get to draw at all, but there's plenty of other possibilities (attacker yells "die whore!" while fumbling with a gun stuck in his belt, scuffle at the door which ends with shots being fired, etc) where that doesn't apply. And given the attacker is as likely to hit an innocent as you are (particular since that's what he's actually trying to do) that doesn't really hold up unless you argue the attacker is also necessarily a better shot than the defender. King Skeleton (talk) 00:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
And if the attacker is behind any kind of cover, you'd have to be a hell of a good shot - assuming you can even locate him in time. All this stuff about "a good guy with a gun" presumes that gunfights are usually fought like wild west showdowns. SophieWilderModerator 13:10, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Such is the culture of concealed carry. And it would be rather hypocritical if Sarkeesian participated in it while cancelling a gig because of it. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 13:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, her focus is on video games, right? If she gains enough levels, she'll have sufficient hit points to withstand a couple of direct hits before returning fire, assuming her assailant doesn't get off a lucky headshot for double damage and hasn't found the rocket launcher yet. Of course, her attacker might have a high hit point total too, so she might have to shoot him six or seven times. --Tracer (talk) 13:07, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Her focus is sexism in media. She just started a video games segment, which drew the ire of dimwits scared of change. Ikanreed (talk) 14:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Not scared of change, opposed to bad change. (talk) 19:47, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Sarkeesian's School Shooting Gaffe[edit]

I'm going to admit up front that I have my own biases, & that I'm also new here(in fact, this is my first edit here). I don't care for Sarkeesian as a person, let alone a scholar, & the following links illustrate why I don't like her: 1. (On the day a school shooting occurred in Marysville, she tweeted about the shooting, , followed by the tweet linked here, in which she presents a statistic claiming that 98% of school shootings are perpetrated by males, though the objectivity of the source she uses for the statistic is questionable, since the source itself uses the statistic & a handful of reports to assert that cultural perceptions of masculinity are the culprit behind school shootings, to which I would say correlation does not imply causation.) 2. (She then asserts that men & boys are always the culprits of school shootings because of ideas of "toxic masculinity".) 3. (She blames Patriarchy for school shootings.) 4. (She makes a scaremongering appeal to emotion, to claim that our culture causes men to be violent, even though she hasn't presented any studies to cooborate this conclusion, & being a neither a sociologist nor a psychologist, she did not have the knowledge nor authority to make the claims that she did.) 5. (Declares herself a victim of hours of hate for making the tweets mentioned above, I read the tweets made to her, many praise her, some are what I'd consider hate, but she seems to forget about a few, such as myself, who were genuinely offended by her comments, which I took to be in very poor taste, & rather insensitive to the victims of that tragedy. In other words, she spoke too soon. Before this, I'd often heard comparisons to Jack Thompson, but of course, I didn't take those comparisons seriously, I just thought of her as some nobody who decided to talk about video games from a certain ideological perspective, but in this instance, I was reminded of the cynical abuse of the Columbine disaster by various groups intending to promote a particular ideology, including a few who wanted to blame video games, such as Doom, for the shooting. In light of this, I can say that the Thompson comparisons seem much more apt.) I bring this up because so few sources address these comments made by her. I didn't want these things to sink into the ether because, in my opinion, these comments definitely bring the credibility of her work into question, whether these comments were made out of genuine concern, or cynical self-promotion, & the latter is a possibility, since being a feminist activist is now her career. Varian French Fry (talk) 15:51, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, do you think it's unreasonable to ask why massacre perpetrators are almost invariable male & to look for possible answers? €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
It would be perfectly fine if she were presenting her opinion as a hypothesis, a starting point for study & peer review, but it seemed more like she had taken her statistic (which I remind you, came from a possibly non-objective source) as proof of her position in of itself(I consider it something of a logical leap to claim "A majority of school shooters are males, therefore our culture encourages violence in men."), & also, she made these comments the day a tragedy had occurred, & she was well aware of this. I find that incredibly disrespectful. Varian French Fry (talk) 21:37, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
She's a longstanding feminist cultural critic. She didn't just jump to "our culture encourages violence in men" from a shooting - that's what she's been saying for years. So have various other people. And why are her comments about what causes shooting any more disrespectful than anyone else's? Whenever one of these massacres occurs people talk about it, what it caused it, how to prevent it happening again; right away, the same day. The anti-gun lobby weigh in demanding more gun control; the pro-gun lobby weigh in demanding more concealed carry for protection. People talk about mental health, bullying, ostracism. But when people talk about feminism, this is apparently a problem. WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:04, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Would it be okay if some televangelist was claiming that we need to "poot gahd bak in skools!" because of this? Was it okay when Doom & Marilyn Manson were blamed for Columbine? Also, Sarkeesian's a pop culture critic, & she's claiming that our culture causes men to be violent, & she's currently making a series called "Tropes vs. Women", in which she points out what she considers to be troublesome trends in media, & she's currently making a living off of her activism, think about that. Varian French Fry (talk) 22:41, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm thinking about it. I don't see what your point is. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:21, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
My point is that she may intend to rehash the "Media causes violence!" moral panic of yesteryear within the framework of feminist thought. Varian French Fry (talk) 01:24, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
How can media not influence an individuals views? Have you never consumed media with a political message before? Of course media can cause sexism. That isn't the same as saying it can make you violent --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 01:35, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
If you'd read my main post, it would become clear that I was calling her out for asserting that our culture makes men violent. Varian French Fry (talk) 01:46, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Okay, what is it that you believe causes men to be violent? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 01:53, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Mental illness, abuse, testosterone, abuse of meth or crack, & maybe cultural perceptions of masculinity, but you really have to ask, "If cultural perceptions of masculinity cause school shootings, as Sarkeesian claimed, then why are school shootings so rare?". Varian French Fry (talk) 02:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
They're not; they happen disturbingly often in the USA. & Did you read the article Sarkeesian linked to? It suggests answers to some of these questions. €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 02:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
They're common in the US compared to other countries, but considering the size of the country & availability of weapons, that's not saying much. What's more, the media has a tendency to milk school shootings for all they're worth to draw viewers, which can give the appearance of school shootings being a common occurrence(it's like how Armageddon predictors will point to an increased incidence of earthquakes as a sign of the end-times when the reality is that earthquakes are receiving more attention from news media than they use to.). Lastly, I did read that article, & all I saw was fallacious scaremongering. Varian French Fry (talk) 02:53, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Per , there were 30 serious school shootings in the US between Dec 2012 and June 2014. The UK hasn't seen a fatal school shooting since Dunblane in 1996, and has ~ 1/4 the population of the US. Population size and the availability of firearms are certainly factors, but if anything US media downplay school shootings because they are depressingly frequent. Queex (talk) 15:55, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Okay, so maybe I don't spend a lot of time reading about school shootings, so tell, would you say that school shootings are on the rise? Varian French Fry (talk) 16:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
That's harder to find out. I'm loathe to try. The last time I tried to draw together some data for firearms in the US I gave because just about every source I could find for numbers was repeating the same debunked claim that had been lauded amongst the trigger-happy set. You tend to get similar excitable and less-than-credible numbers from those fever swamps, and the more credible sources don't say much other than 'it's difficult to find out because political lobbies have made it their business to obstruct the collection of data'. Queex (talk) 17:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Seriously, go to the Wikipeadia page on school shootings and you find that the US has a page all of its own - and that's because they have more than the rest of the world put together - ok, maybe that's because WP is US centric. But go to that page, read it and weep. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 16:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Alright, I looked at it, certainly more school shootings than I expected, but what I'd really like to know is if school shootings have increased or decreased in the past century, & I'd like to compare that to depictions of men in culture throughout the past century, to see if this "toxic masculinity" claim she made holds water. Yeah, I made this post because I was angry at her making a school shooting all about her politics, but now I want to see if I can prove her wrong! Varian French Fry (talk) 18:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
You might have a point if she were asking questions and not telling people what the answer was. I can't think of a single other case where we've responded favourably to someone grinding their political axe against a tragedy, especially immediately after the event. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 19:29, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
How about the widespread backlash against MRA & incel culture in the wake of the Isla Vista killings. RationalWiki was fairly solidly behind that. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:07, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Well that was slightly different. Men's rights forums are hotspots of extremist ideologies and misogyny. Video games don't tend to be as political. There are some hugely toxic communities within the subculture but most video games don't reflect what the average GamerGater stands for --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 01:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
What does any of this have to do with Gamergate? ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 01:59, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
It's my fault, I got mixed up between an article I read last week about video games cause violence vs sexism and the general point of the tweets. Sorry --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 02:00, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm surprised this is at all controversial. In many human cultures, men are encouraged to act in ways that show off their 'masculinity', i.e. visual displays of 'macho' behaviour. Since this typically involves establishing oneself as physically superior to those lacking in strength and masculinity, violence is seen as affirming one's masculinity. In America, school schootings regrettably seem to have become some kind of 'trump card', an ultimate act to raise the levels of one's perceived dominance, strength and proud disregard for society's 'weak' civilizedness to supreme heights in one fell swoop, regardless of one's social status prior to committing the act. (talk) 00:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
What you're expressing here is an opinion, perhaps the starting point for study & discussion, but not a proven fact. What was controversial to me was not the possibility of a connection between gender roles & violence(which I will concede is a possibility), it was the fact that Sarkeesian asserted this connection as if it were fact on the day that a school shooting occurred, & she did so while aware of that a school shooting had just happened. Also, you seem to disregard biological factors & the possibility of mental illness as well as child abuse. I know that when things as unpredictable as school shootings occur, it would be nice to have one sole cause upon which to lay the blame, but in our complex society, we do not have that luxury. Varian French Fry (talk) 01:24, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm not saying that's it's been scientifically researched and proven as fact and I never claimed it'd be the only factor, but it's such a blatantly obvious connection that questioning it being a major factor smells strongly of denialism. (talk) 04:11, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Until your opinion transfers from hypothesis to theory, skepticism is not denialism. Varian French Fry (talk) 14:35, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Patriarchy is a well established theory. It's not like Sarkeesian is saying things about society & culture that people haven't been saying for decades. WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:59, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
*sniff* *sniff* Still smells like denialism to me. Seriously, just suggesting that the way men are brought up in our society might play no role whatsoever is as ridiculous as suggesting that people are members of certain religions, not because they were spoon-fed certain religious beliefs by the people around them starting from a very young age, but because membership of specific religions is an inherited trait. Genes don't control everything. (talk) 21:35, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
What's ridiculous to me is that she's basically retreading the "Media makes us violent!" moral panic, but she's doing so through a feminist perspective, so even though RationalWiki rejected that same BS when it came from Thompson, it's suddenly okay because Sarkeesian is a feminist & she said that our culture only makes men crazy, but I know where that road leads us. She's going to push for less violence in media because most violence in media is perpetrated by men, & somehow, that is affecting our young men in the real world. What's more though, I did not intend to have this kind of debate, I made the first post here because I was concerned about Sarkeesian jumping to interpret a tragedy so soon after it had happened, how she did so with logical fallacies, & how some people(like myself, who has personal connections within Washington state & the city of Marysville) might be offended by her doing so. I was not intending on debating how our culture makes our boys violent, I was only intending that someone other than goddamned MRAs be concerned about her lack of tact! I don't ever want to see this kind tactic coming from the left again, it was bad when the right did it! Varian French Fry (talk) 13:06, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm still not seeing what's offensive about this. She wasn't endorsing, justifying, profiteering from or joking about the shooting. She was clearly upset about the shooting, as were a lot of people, and was talking about what causes these kind of incidents - again, as were a lot of other people. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 13:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
So you don't see what's wrong with a pop culture critic, armed with a degree in communications, who's made a career out of examining & critiquing pop culture tropes when they do not present women in a way she sees as proper, declaring that our culture makes young men want to shoot up schools, the day a school shooting happened? I'm of the opinion that if she were truly torn up about the shooting, she could have waited a week or two before promoting her own rancid take on the issue! Maybe waited until after the affected families were done burying their kids! Perhaps our culture does play a role in causing issues like mass shootings, alongside a myriad of other factors that could be addressed, & maybe issolating our young men by branding them possible killers wont make it less likely that they will become killers, did you think about that! Did you think about how every young man who's every shot up a school has been diagnosed with mental health issues, & did you think about the differences in behavior between mentally ill young men & young women, which could result of biological factors in our sexually-dimorphic species! No? Then I guess blaming Schwartzenagger for making boys want to be able to hold a fully automatic machine gun in one arm is perfectly reasonable, and don't give me that "Ableist!" crap when I bring up mental health issues as a factor, because if I'm perpetrating a stigma against mental illness, then Sarkeesian's perpetrating a stigma against the male identity! I hate double-standards. Varian French Fry (talk) 14:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Sarkeesian, along with practically everyone else, commented on the news at the time. She's a pop culture critic and, as such, she drew the parallel between the violence seen in the US school shootings - and, believe me, it's extreme - with that which she sees in pop culture and pointed towards an over arching "toxic" culture of male violence. She didn't do a Thompson and go video games lead to violence. She didn't blame video games for school shootings, she didn't blame video games for anything - she blamed what she perceived as the toxic macho culture. As far as I am concerned the "gaffe" is totally one of your perceiving. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 14:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
@Varian French Fry: No, I don't see what's wrong with her comments. Aside from your strange assumptions about what I do or don't think, your whole rationale for "how dare she say that" just keeps looping back to "I don't agree with her". You haven't justified why talking about these shootings in terms of culture & gender should be more objectionable (in a broad sense, not just to you personally) than talking about them in terms of mental health; nor why a feminist should be expected not to take a feminist view of them. WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Holy crap Varian French Fry, that is one nasty false equivalence bro.BlackProg (talk)17:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Explain.Varian French Fry (talk) 18:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
She isn't assaulting male identity, if anything she is pointing out how society and how it not only glorifies guns and violence but ties them to what being a "man" is, is an incredibly toxic line of social conditioning. She is broken up, but people's need to say "He was insane, only insane people do this" promotes a lot of stereotypes against the mentally ill that isn't true. (It's also interesting that only white males get the "mentally ill" card, minorities are always just seen as default bad people with agency when they shoot up somewhere.) Mentally ill people are generally harmless or are more likely to be a threat to themselves than anyone else, it's ableist to shift all of the blame on mental illness when that isn't the only cause and ignores the social systems in place. We can't have a culture that promotes violence, murder, gangs and guns only to then act surprised when people take these to heart. Also, biological determinism in this issue is a really shitty appeal to nature bro.
Men aren't oppressed either, so there is that. People with mental illness are.
You're giving Sarkeesian way too much power, she is only pointing out that the way our culture promotes violence and the objectification of women. It's you MRA's and Gamergaters who literally go batshit insane and start making these wild conspiracy theories. BlackProg (talk)-22:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
When did I say anything about race? Varian French Fry (talk) 20:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, people with mental illness are oppressed, so lets let all the paranoid schizophrenics out of the assylums! Yeah, I know that's a grossly offensive characterization, but that doesn't change the fact that people with mental illness can be dangerous to others, especially when they can get guns, & that men do have problems in our society that are unique to men, whether it be making up 93% of workplace deaths, receiving far heftier prison sentences than women for the same crimes, or making up the vast majority of homeless individuals; I know that doesn't prove men are oppressed, but can you say that women are oppressed in this day & age? Varian French Fry (talk) 20:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
You, sir, need to pull your head straight out of your ass, because I am neither an MRA nor a Gamergater. Varian French Fry (talk) 20:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
You seem to know the MRA's talking points quite well and I can say women are oppressed in this day and age. Paranoid schizophrenics are usually not violent people, they are actually usually withdrawn and would rather be left alone man. They can be dangerous, but the large majority of schizophrenics and mentally ill people aren't a threat. I mentioned race as a side note, nothing more. I apologize for that.-BlackProg (talk) 21:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I do not think women are oppressed in the modern first-world, but that's just my opinion. I am not an MRA, though I've also left feminism behind me, so I guess I just want equality. Varian French Fry (talk) 21:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
That's what most feminists want too! Just some equality! (talk) 21:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't know about that, the root of feminism is feminine, which is clearly a gendered term. Not only that, but I have many issues with feminism, in particular, the feminism promoted by Sarkeesian & her supporters. Varian French Fry (talk) 15:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
(EC) We can talk semantics about what "oppressed" means all day, but when you get right down to it, we do have our issues within the first world, the most prominent of which would be the career disparity, part of which is the glass ceiling, and the wage gap (adjusted one). Which is why people say feminism is not much more than equality-striving when applied to current conditions in society. Nullahnung (talk) 21:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
See? You cite all these misandric issues, but when someone points out that the problematic way our culture conditions men can mentally destabilize and emotionally detach them, you go all on the defensive. It's a misandric issue too! (talk) 21:20, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, branding all teenage boys as potential Harris & Klebold imitators without any real proof is good for our young boys, declare them possible killers without evidence & watch their self-esteem soar! Varian French Fry (talk) 15:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Wait, how is pointing out that macho culture's conditioning of men causes some men to become mentally unstable and emotionally detached bad to men? This is culturally enforced misandry! Seriously, the MRAs should be all over this. (talk) 15:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
What's with the strawmanning and unfounded generalizations throughout this discussion? For one thing, Anita didn't even mention "media", she just mentions our culture's perpetuation of toxic ideas of masculinity. If you insist on broadening the oh-noes-violent-video-games-are-making-people-violent moral panic to a oh-noes-our-cultural-upbringing-is-influencing-people-in-potentially-bad-ways moral panic (and assume because it's a moral panic it can't possibly be true), you're effectively claiming people are immune from being influenced by their surroundings. Can't you see how ridiculous that is? (talk) 14:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I drew the connection between blaming media for violence & blaming "macho culture" for violence based on the fact that she's a culture critic who makes a living by critiquing media, & her gaffe was making unproven claims about what causes school shootings when one had just occurred, but why should I bother? You're all so convinced that Sarkeesian can do no wrong that you're stepping up to justify a tactic that RationalWiki has tradionally opposed when it came from the likes of Thompson. I can't argue why what she did was wrong now, I'm too emotionally involved. I'm just going to get frustrated & lash out if I keep trying. I'm done with RationalWiki & feminism now. Varian French Fry (talk) 15:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I just love it when single-issue editors sling around accusations of closed-mindedness. It's almost as delicious as when they fail to stick the flounce. Queex (talk) 15:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Well it looks like I'm not done. So let me get this straight, you're going to try & mock me by calling me a "single-issue editor" when every single editor on every single wiki ever, started by editing a single issue; & by doing so, you proceed to make new editors feel unwelcome on your little wiki, & thus, would seem to be against new perspectives finding their way into your special little echochamber, based on how much you seemed to relish my retirement from editing this wiki, & you also seem to be mocking me for not sticking around & trying to explain to ideologues why an ideology does not justify a lack of sensitivity to sufferers of a school shooting, is that correct? Varian French Fry (talk) 16:05, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Look, the thing here is you're not the first, and you're not the last, to come in, find a single article, obsess over a "slant" that fits with the overall mission of rationalwiki, go "you're all so stuck in your ways about THIS, and it undermines my appreciation of everything else on raitonalwiki". That's almost SOP for rednames. The advice I have for everyone in your position is find an unrelated article to the one you're stuck on, and see if you can't find a flaw to improve on it instead. Heck, try the random article button. Ikanreed (talk) 16:39, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps I am getting obsessive about the fact that noone but MRAs seemed to care that she used a school shooting as an ideological soapbox. Varian French Fry (talk) 18:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Okay I've read these properly and I think your problem is that she is straight out saying what the reasons for the shooting are rather than using studies or presenting her opinions as questions? However she links to an article in the first tweet that does support her viewpoint. After that she is noting content that is in the article. I would agree that masculinity is not going to be the only reason for shootings such as this one, although it is the cause of a lot of violence. Everything considered twitter isn't a good medium for starting debates --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 18:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I 100% agree that Twitter is no place to have a debate, that place is just a breeding ground for toxicity. That said, I read the article she linked to, & I must say that I did not find it convincing. There were no studies, just an opinion posed as a question(& it might as well have been rhetorical), based on a statistic, but despite that, Sarkeesian seemingly took that essay as a statement of fact. However, if you've been paying attention, I more had an issue with her simply jumping to interpret a school shooting as a means of promoting her ideology so soon after it had happened, but I brought up issues I had with her rational when they stuck out to me. Varian French Fry (talk) 19:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
"If you've been paying attention, I more had an issue with her simply jumping to interpret a school shooting as a means of promoting her ideology so soon after it had happened". So if I only try to refute a part of your argument then I am not paying attention? How exactly do you expect people to dialogue with you? I do understand to a degree. I hate it when people try to capitalise on things like this, but the whole of America does this. She is just tackling it from another perspective. This is more of a moral issue than anything else. It is important to critique why these shootings happen and what the causes are for them. There is clearly a degree in which society is to blame. I again agree that the article does not go far enough, but it's an interesting idea and I don't think I'm persuaded otherwise by the timing of the posting. Hopefully more study will go into this. Either way you really need to work on the way that you communicate with people if you hope to win anybody over --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 19:59, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
"I hate it when people try to capitalise on things like this, but the whole of America does this. She is just tackling it from another perspective." So is it okay because everyone else does it, or because she chose to do it from a different perspective? That said, I do need to work on how I communicate with people, & I'd also like to see this "toxic masculinity" hypothesis properly tested & critiqued before anyone else tries to claim such an opinion as fact. Varian French Fry (talk) 20:51, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Well no, it isn't okay because everybody else does it. The best way to critique this is in an article post on the phenomenon as a whole, not on the talk page for a feminist critic on an obscure wiki. You're not going to change the way the American media deals with school shootings by attacking feminist critics, it just comes across like another person trying to attack Anita despite her not being particularly radical in her views. I suppose I see "toxic masculinity" as fact because I see it pretty much every day here and where I grew up too. You don't think masculinity is the cause for aggressive behaviour by men? Why do some men act aggressively and others don't? It's not biological, I'm perfectly adept at controlling myself. I think you will find it is tied to masculine identity --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 21:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
So should I take this to the School Shooting article? I brought up what I considered misconduct on Sarkeesian's part here because I wanted to see if it would be recognized as misconduct, but I was surprised to find that several stepped up to defend this sort of action, & promote a hypothesis that hasn't been properly studied & reviewed, & I was implied to be a denialist because I did not accept her opinion as fact. Varian French Fry (talk) 15:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
It's more about you trying to stake a claim to 'more rational than thou' when your preconceived notions are so obviously on display. Maybe it's all in good faith and you just happened upon a hot-button topic for you first, and for whatever reason you're not quite taking on board the responses as much as you should, but the odds are against it. Queex (talk) 17:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't really staking a claim to 'more rational than thou', so much as sharing my righteous indignation at Sarkeesian acting as a political vulture, & now at the double-standards that RationalWiki's staff seem to have in regards to the abuse of tragedies. Though I did make some attempts at logic, if only to make you aware of how I've come to associate her with Thompson(yeah, I know I keep bringing him up, but it seems like such a perfect match, Thompson attacked violence in media from a conservative angle, & Sarkeesian attacked it from a feminist angle). That said, maybe I'm not being too rational, maybe I just got pissed. Maybe I should step back for awhile... Varian French Fry (talk) 18:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh, stop it with the Jack Thompson comparison already. It's not the same. Jack Thompson actually believes that playing video games on its own causes people to be more violent. Anita Sarkeesian has said no such thing, afaik. You keep going back to: her being a pop culture/entertainment media critic + she thinks our culture promotes violence in men = must mean that she thinks the entertainment media on its own promotes violence in men. That is not a perfectly logical conclusion. It is spurious reasoning, one side of this equation does not guarantee the other. Calm down and think about it. Nullahnung (talk) 18:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Well in that case, if she's a pop culture/entertainment media critic, then she's not qualified to say jack about what causes school shootings, is she? Seems a tad out of her jurisdiction, no? Maybe she shouldn't be asserting her opinion as fact when all she has to back up her claims is an article, which is itself an opinion piece by an ideologically-minded one, yes? But whatever, I shall now refrain from making anymore references to Jack Thompson. That said, entertainment media is a part of culture & plays an important role in shaping it(she's admitted as such in her first episode of Tropes vs. Women in Games), so if politicians were to take her claims about a "culture of toxic masculinity" seriously, where do you think they'd start? Varian French Fry (talk) 19:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
They might come for our balls! Ohmy.gif WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Hardy har har... — Unsigned, by: Varian French Fry / talk / contribs
Well, it's good that you now see how the Jack Thompson comparison doesn't apply. Yes, entertainment media plays an important part in promoting all sorts of cultural aspects. That doesn't mean they are to blame, however. We don't blame the air for conducting the soundwaves whenever we shout at each other either. Nullahnung (talk) 19:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I did not say the comparison didn't apply, I've just overused it. That said, censorship of media is so much easier than, say, lending an ear & a sympathetic shoulder to troubled kids, or providing healthy outlets for male adolescent aggression, & Sarkeesian has claimed that media reinforces cultural stereotypes harmful to women, so I'm just making what I believe is an educated guess when I suggest that Sarkeesian would try to tie her opinion of what causes school shootings together with her work in media critique. What's more though, I'm still fairly certain that making claims about what caused a particular school shooting shortly after it had just happened, is in rather poor taste. Varian French Fry (talk) 20:10, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
What makes you think Sarkeesian would advocate censorship or oppose lending an ear & a sympathetic shoulder to troubled kids? ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, I suppose I don't know for sure, but I know that she's mostly involved in media, so that's where my mind led me. Varian French Fry (talk) 20:39, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Do you know that she's mostly involved in censorship of media? Or are you still confusing her with Jack Thompson? WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
@Varian: Will you come off the whole "wants to censor entertainment media just like Jack Thompson" thing already? I have yet to hear anything about Sarkeesian seriously advocating such censorship apart from wild guessing and "my mind led me to believe" from people who don't think things through. Step back for a minute, calm down and stop assuming such things about Sarkeesian. She is criticising tropes about women in video games, by no means is she suggesting that we censor such tropes, only that we take a critical look at them and maybe consider the metric buttload of other tropes that are waiting to be explored instead, possibly ones that represent women in a more balanced manner which will result in diversification of taste. Nullahnung (talk) 20:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
*Sigh* You're right, I'm not thinking straight, so I'm going to go ahead & step away from this subject for a bit. Varian French Fry (talk) 20:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Happens to all of us. I'll give you credit for seeing and admitting it. Nullahnung (talk) 21:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Then you haven't read the school shooting article, which states there doesn't exist a predictor (cultural or otherwise) besides being male. --Someon (talk) 00:47, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Where did I posit the existence of additional predictors? 'Being male' and 'being male while living in a culture' are largely indistinguishable, you know. (talk) 00:54, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Ah, the "I'm so vague I don't even know what I'm saying" stage. How exactly are you going to shoehorn your views to fit when video games, movies, etc. do not have an effect? --Someon (talk) 12:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Ah, the "Let's draw wild, generalizing conclusions way beyond the scope of the research" stage. Playing violent video games doesn't cause people to act more violently outside of the games, therefore all environmental input has no effect whatsoever on any individual. (talk) 12:29, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, you are just dodging the question. What might that input be? --Someon (talk) 21:59, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Dodging? I'm pointing out that the basis for your question is completely ridiculous. (talk) 22:25, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, dodging. And what's ridiculous is that a few lines up you are pretending to be so certain but down here you can't answer a simple question. --Someon (talk) 18:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Look, your whole objection is based on the idea that the totality of all culturally-charged sensory inputs throughout people's lives don't have any effect on people at all. If you can't see how obviously bogus that idea is, that's your problem, not mine. Ciao! (talk) 22:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm a little late to this party and I'm jumping back a few paragraphs but to call school shootings "rare" is a little mindblowing. The US averages more than one a month. FFS, that is not "rare" by any measure. The fact that it can be considered rare by some says a great deal about how much gunplay the US is prepared to put up with. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 22:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Sure, look at the US. But then also look at South Korea, which averages 0 school shootings per year (I don't know if they've ever had one, in fact), and they are much more avid about video games over there. Nullahnung (talk) 01:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
WTF? This isn't a even a conversation about video games. Do you think if it involves Anita Sarkeesian it must be all about the Gamergate? Also, as per Wikipedia, "South Korea has one of the most restrictive gun policies in the world": privately owned guns are heavily restricted (for hunting or sport only) & stored in police custody when not in use. Makes school shootings kind of an unlikely occurrence. WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 02:05, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
How did you come to the conclusion that I was talking about Anita or Gamergate? I wasn't I was simply adding a point to the whole school shooting in US and what they have to do with violence in video games topic that this thread (as in, this particular side branch that was just started) seems to be about (which has barely anything to do with our article here other than the Jack Thompson comparison). Nullahnung (talk) 02:19, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
If you weren't talking about Anita Sarkeesian, you're on the wrong page. This is a thread about comments she made about "ideas of toxic masculinity in our culture" (not specifically video games) contributing to mass shooting. See OP for the relevant links. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 02:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
But if someone here branches the discussion off to somewhere that then has barely anything to do with Anita, I can participate in that, no? I don't pretend to be well-versed in etiquette here, so if you prefer I don't do such things, then ok I'll try not to. Nullahnung (talk) 02:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't know what branch you're talking about. A couple of people mentioned video games as examples of cultural influencers, but the strawman you're tilting at (that video games directly cause killing sprees) isn't something anybody has said or implied. Your comment seemed to be a response to Doxys Midnight Runner, who wasn't even talking about games at all. ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 02:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Someon brought up the it's-been-proven-violent-video-games-don't-make-you-more-violent thing and then used it to argue that cultural media have no effect on people at all. I think that's where Nullahnung got it from. Or he was thinking of this discussion. (talk) 03:39, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, is right on that one. There was also the confusing indentation which got me, which has since been fixed. I'll try to be more careful next time. Nullahnung (talk) 09:17, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Speaking of why there's such a great discrepancy of school schooting occurrences between countries, I think one of the major reasons is because in most countries, there's no (or hardly any) precedent for the act. But the fact that school schootings are "a thing" in America sadly lowers the treshold considerably for troubled youngsters to commit the act. Well, that and the availability of guns in America. (talk) 04:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
It comes down to gun ownership. US (90 guns per hundred residents), Switzerland (45.7), and Finland (45.3) are the top 3 rich Western countries (Serbia and Yemen are the real #2 and #3, but the first has been in much political turmoil and the second is even currently almost a war zone). In 2000-2010 there were ~50 US school shootings (, or a rate of 50 / 300 ~ 0.17 shootings per million residents and Finland had 2 ( for a rate of 2 / 5 ~ 0.4 per million (ofc that statistic is much more noisy). Switzerland (as far as I can tell) had none, but that is also very embarrassing for Sarkeesian's argument, seeing how Switzerland didn't give women the vote until the 70's (in stark contrast to Finland) ('s_suffrage_in_Switzerland) and they are one of the few countries where women are still a minority in higher education: ( I suspect the real reason the Swiss don't get school shootings is that gun ownership is lower in the age group of school shooters, because they are competitive in gun deaths ( US 10.30 per 100k, Switzerland 3.84, Finland 3.64. --Someon (talk) 18:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Sarkeesian didn't make any comment about Switzerland, nor draw any connection between school shootings & female suffrage. There are enough cultural differences between these countries (& way more when you add in South Korea, Japan, etc) that you can't really put them in all the same bag. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel
Now you are just being ignorant and simple. If I trust the OP she explicitly blamed the patriarchy for school shootings. Japan and Korea have essentially no guns in the hands of private citizens, so it's moronic to use them as examples. --Someon (talk) 21:05, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Sarkeesian commented on "ideas of toxic masculinity in our culture". Where you're getting that she was including Switzerland within that statement, or should be "embarrassed" by Switzerland's lack of school shooting, I have no idea. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
If you are really failing to see the connection, I'll have to keep insisting you are mentally handicapped. But to make it plain: Sarkeesian's ramblings are blatantly self-serving to start with, and every stone I turn makes them seem more laughable. There is little evidence to support them and plenty to counter them. Why you want to hang out on such a sinking ship nobody knows, though I have an idea. --Someon (talk) 22:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
How are you countering Sarkeesian's claims by citing another country which has fairly high levels of gun ownership & where mass shootings are virtually non-existent? Doesn't this tend to support Sarkeesian's argument that the root causes are cultural & undermine your own claim that "it comes down to gun ownership"? €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Sure. But then she would need to show how the US instills an especially "toxic" form of masculinity to account for all the school shootings. Good luck with that, like. Robledo (talk) 23:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Well what else accounts for all the school shootings, when you actually think about how other countries that do have fairly easy access to guns somehow don't have this problem? We've seen vague talk of testosterone & biologically determined mental illness. Are there sound reasons for believing such factors to be more prevalent in the US than elsewhere? Or is the possibility than the main differences are cultural really so outlandish? WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 00:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm sympathetic to the idea of a cultural component, and not blind to the fact that most violent crimes are committed by men. However, any cultural component is likely to be insanely difficult to delineate, and even harder to address effectively. FWIW, my money is on the near-idolatry of the right to bear arms as both a symbol of freedom from oppression, and as an echo of a founding mythos rich in tales of lone gunmen blowing folks' heads off for great justice. Frankly, clearer heads would begin with trying to reduce US teenagers' easy access to firearms and ammunition. Robledo (talk) 01:41, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
That's assuming all toxic forms of masculinity would motivate people to commit the specific act of a school schooting. There are plenty ways it can express itself, and in America school schootings have apparently "caught on" as a particular extreme way it can express itself. (talk) 23:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Is this the right thread to post my opinion of gun control in Switzerland and and how different cantons interpret it?--Coffee (talk) 20:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Sure, knock yourself out. That's not something I hear about everyday. Nullahnung (talk) 20:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Does this gigantic conversation even have a point anymore?[edit]

Personally, I'm inclined to think it doesn't. We're basically stuck in an argument about Vivian's views about what feminism is, rather than anything constructive to the article. I'd like to see that part, if it really is only part, of the conversation taken to a debate or forum namespace. Ikanreed (talk) 15:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Not particularly, it's meandered quite a bit. I'd vote to moving the whole thing to a debate, unless we are done with it --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 15:42, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
It's a "someone is wrong on the internet" discussion. To quote Varian Yeah, I made this post because I was angry at her making a school shooting all about her politics, but now I want to see if I can prove her wrong! so he's now playing what I call Sarkeesian Gotcha - a common game among her detractors.
I'd let it stand. Varian, like Phoar, that other guy we had a few days ago, is one of those "reasonable" types who, when given enough rope, hang themselves. More and more his true colours are coming out. I was quite impressed by his having left feminism behind. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 16:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I actually bothered to talk and explain to him and got him to see how one of his beliefs was misled (the Jack Thompson comparison). I have a feeling if more people bothered to communicate and educate and less people went about trying to discover faults in others and harping on about them "hanging themselves", society might make progress at a faster rate. Nullahnung (talk) 17:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Did it ever? You guys might as well put a notice on the page advising that dissenters are MRAs and nothing they say will affect the article. Nutty Roux (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Sure, the original "point" was an trivially shot down misrepresentation of something she said. That got handled and then spun out into a giant "feminism is so evil" debate. Ikanreed (talk) 19:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
@Nutty Roux - the thing about all these dissenters is that they completely miss the point. This article is not so much about Ms Sarkeesian as about the way she, and by extension, other women, got treated by the gaming community - not just those who abused her but also by those who stood by and did nothing. I doesn't matter one iota about her scholarship, or whether she's a true gamer, or whether she's made some gaffe. I don't want to sanctify her, I don't even agree that much with what she says. But I won't stand quietly by when people try to make out that the abuse didn't matter - or that, somehow, she deserved it.
That's why I talk about Sarkeesian Gotcha - it's exactly the same as Thunderf00t trawling through her masters thesis. Why are they so keen to attack everything she says or does? Why does it matter so much to them that they're prepared to spend so much time and effort arguing over minutiae? I suggest that it's to justify, in their own minds, what has been done to her but, surely as eggs are eggs, whatever she's done she cannot justify those level of vilification. It's not all about ethics in games journalism. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 19:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Why? It's because their masculinity is so fragile that a woman saying something bad about men or suggesting making what they consider "men things" more accessible for women is apparently a very major threat to it. So they lose their shit and try to assert dominance through threats and violence. I'm probably generalizing a bit too much here, but sadly I think it's about accurate for a lot of them. (talk) 19:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I'd say that's definitely generalizing a bit. And that it's doing so in a kinda stereotypical way. My own view is that the threats and violence are a natural consequence of any extremist exclusionary identity politics. There's plenty of completely unrelated examples out it there. It's not some undiscovered character flaw that can really otherise them that much. It's just any time a major group announces that so and so is coming to take away your way of life, some people in their group go "Yeah! And I'm going to stop them!" Ikanreed (talk) 20:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Another goddamn pointless discussion[edit]

"Why? It's because their masculinity is so fragile that a woman saying something bad about men or suggesting making what they consider "men things" more accessible for women is apparently a very major threat to it."
Why what and who? If it's people like Thunderfoot, then you're full of shite muyte. If it's the anonymous trolls, well, a portion of them certainly. Your disclaimers noted :D
"My own view is that the threats and violence are a natural consequence of any extremist exclusionary identity politics."
They're also a natural consequence of various other things.
"that so and so is coming to take away your way of life"
Case in point - when something like that happens, no additional ideological views are required; they're just defending their space. In the case of the attackers, of course, the way they go about it is as unethical as it is ineffective :) (talk) 20:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Just because you're not sanctifying her, doesn't mean others don't - and a lot of others, in fact, do. When they're not outright sanctifying her, they're acting like her points and agenda are completely valid and her dissenters are reactionary bigots. If you find it puzzling that this motivates people to mock and pick her apart more than they would otherwise, then maybe you ought to get out more.
Thunderfoot's latest video was mostly satire (he does that often), however, it had a point - the "exposing" of her agenda as something significantly kookier than what it appears as on the surface.
If the article isn't about her but only the "vile backlash" - then why does it spend so much space on explaining her various points, as well as on dismissing video responses and criticisms as ad homs or "nonsense claims"? And what matters it what "this article" is limited to, if related pages spend paragraphs defending her points?
As for the vilification, and especially if that's what this article is claimed to be all about, the perspective would be much improved if:
1) the serious threats were separated from those that are commonplace on the internet, accounting for her increased prominence and inflammatory statements, and
2) it was conceded that only a portion of those have to do with sexism or any other real-life attitudes, while the rest is just assholes,
upon which an attempt was made to capture both proportions.
The internet is full of trolls and part-time assholes, and gaming culture in particular is known for its heavy trash talking. Any attempt to demonstrate a new claim such as "it's also full of male chauvinist pigdogs" that doesn't take those factors into account, is pretty much pointless (or serves an agenda).
And if you wanna talk about people saying that the "abuse didn't matter" (or not enough to emphasize it this much), you should exclude all those who're saying that on the basis of having received abuse themselves and shrugged it off - or it becomes laughably rather quickly.
As for Gamergate, I don't know much about it as a whole, but until you stop counting the anti-feminist segment of it "among the baddies", many arguments made about that topic will be severely flawed as well.
To sum up my point: thoughts like "I suggest that it's to justify, in their own minds, what has been done to her" = part of the problem, bad for the article(s). (talk) 20:28, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
This argument lost its credibility the moment it claimed that our article justified any of her points. We list a few highlighted points of hers at the beginning and that's the end of that section. Ikanreed (talk) 20:47, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
At the bottom, there's a section called "nonsense claims made against her" which attempt to rebuke a couple of such criticisms. Also there's a couple of sentences here and there that dismiss criticisms in general as ad hominems. Stop lying.
Also, I said her points are being justified elsewhere (on the Thunderfoot page) and that I don't see any reason not to consider it a case of outsourcing.
Also, you list a lot of those points, so the article isn't just about the attacks - however, I don't have any problem with those details staying there :)
Wanna keep saying this page in no way defends her against critics, remove those bits where it does - simple. (talk) 21:16, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't defend her against constructive criticism, or other valid criticisms. It only defends her against nonsense, or what we think is nonsense anyways. Nullahnung (talk) 21:19, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Bottom line, the article defends her against criticism even though someone here claims it doesn't. The fact that you's think it's nonsense is of no concern - a lot of what is considered "nonsense" around here actually isn't, and you wouldn't try to rebuke criticisms that you think are valid in the first place. (talk) 21:49, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Oooooooooooh, you're an idiot, that helps me understand your position a lot better. Have you considered the following alternate remediation to your concerns: reading what is actually written in that section? Ikanreed (talk) 21:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Already made a Talk section about that, been there done that kthx. (talk) 21:49, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
No, see you said that section somehow represented a defense of her points, this is about now you reestablishing credibility as having an honest point. Saying you were critical before doesn't mean you actually provided evidence of your absurd claim you just made. I have a thing for intellectually honest arguments, and you better get on board. Ikanreed (talk) 21:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I said no such thing. It reads: "which attempt to rebuke a couple of such criticisms" - in this case, criticisms made against her credibility and general agenda (which actually is one of her "points", but I'll be lenient here for once). Seems legit to me... (talk) 22:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
What are the problems with her "general agenda"? I get the impression she just wants there to be more video games aimed at women rather than mostly ones aimed at men --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 22:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
In this context, it's: "She's claiming that sexist tropes in video games make gamers more sexist, it's just as bullshit as Jack Thompson"
As I've pointed out in the "no-nonsense" section, the rebuttal below goes on to merely rephrase that as "perpetuating" sexism, thereby confirming it. No, she doesn't support censorship, and yes, she does claim that. So this page does defend her against a piece of criticisms, and a couple others - people should stop claiming otherwise ;) (talk) 02:41, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
But it's not the same. Jack Thompson claiming that violence in video games will make people more violent is not on the same level as saying that sexist tropes are reinforced through the medium of video games. Nullahnung (talk) 08:21, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
So it's not a nonsense claim then :p (talk) 10:47, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
(EC)Well, it doesn't have "zero sense at all", seeing how people will fall for that line of thinking, but it's a comparison that was not thought through properly, hence nonsense. Nullahnung (talk) 11:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
They are two entirely different things. It's one thing to become violent because you consume a certain media, another for it to influence your values or make you more sexist --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 11:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
They are different things. Still, it is plausible but not certain, that video games have any significant effect on influencing values/causing sexist attitudes. Personally, I find the argument more persuasive that sexist tropes, because they are so prevalent and there's not enough alternatives, hold video games back via stagnation/as a barrier to diverse tastes. Nullahnung (talk) 11:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
My take has always been that the Thompson-esque theory was that people (and particularly children) blindly go out and copy what they did in games - one thoroughly discredited. The tack taken by Sarkeesian is more that entertainment can influence how we think and can shape our attitudes, which in turn affects are behaviour in non-direct ways. A game about punching someone in the face might not inspire me to deliver a knuckle sandwich to anyone, but it might make me view fisticuffs as more generally acceptable. The evidence that this indirect effect exists is pretty much overwhelming, although of course it's power depends an awful lot on pre-existing personal and societal attitudes and the way that the entertainment is presented. There can be discussion as to how much of an effect a particular class of portrayal has, and which population sub-groups might be more responsive to it, but to claim that such influence doesn't exist at all is to want to throw out decades of psychological research. Queex (talk) 11:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I think that's a good way of looking at it. Still, the uncertain nature of this influence means that, while it is definitely deserving of consideration, I find other arguments, like the diversity one, more convincing that we should try to encourage better representation of women in video games. Nullahnung (talk) 11:41, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
May I quickly remind y'all that this is about whether this page takes any stance on the validity of Anita or her critics, and my point that it does remains valid? Thanks.
At the end of the day, there are parallels between her and Thompson as well as differences, and there are valid things that can be said about "the influence" as well as invalid ones. And, as anyone who's spent some time looking around the web regarding this topic should've caught, people have made different kinds of arguments against her along these lines - so some of them are valid, others nonsense.
This Talk page might end up cleaner if further discussions about this went to the proper section :) (talk) 12:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

To all who want to post here[edit]

Please, please, go back and re-read the article. In particular re-read the Jim Sterling quote which, quite frankly, says it all.

OK, now read the artical again. Note how we're pretty neutral on her views and, in no way, go out to sanctify her. As such we are not particularly interested if you have discovered errors or problems in her work. That is not the point.

So, what is the point? As far as I am concerned she has become a symbol of much that is wrong in the world of gaming. Rational, even tempered discourse has become increasingly hard as the voices of reason are drowned out by the screams of vile hatred against those who dare to criticise and, in particular women. I know it's not all gamers and I know that some of it is part and parcel of the rough and tumble of the internet but to any reasonable observer the villification that Ms Sarkeesian, and Zoe Quinn and Brianna Wu have received is so far off the scale as to be hard to credit.

So, yeah, if you want to discuss the article then go ahead. But, quite frankly, if your only point is to criticise her scholarship or to say that, somehow, she is "wrong" then, as far as I am concerned, this is not the forum. As Jim puts it

But we can't talk about that anymore, because the debate's not about whether she's right or wrong. The debate was invalidated when people tried to ruin her life en masse. The chance to debate her on merit was lost once people started threatening to rape her.
—Jim Sterling

But, OK, these are my views and not necessarily the views of the RW community Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 17:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. That needed to be said. Nullahnung (talk) 18:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
These are exactly my views too, this should be at the top of the page consistently --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 20:51, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Appeal to emotion on a RationalWiki. Pretty much tells me everything I need to know. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs
"Oh look, a miniscule portion of editors on a site edited by many happened to make a miniscule portion of comments on a site that has many in a way I did not expect, that must say something about that site!" Nullahnung (talk) 09:56, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Lol that’s just your own version of “I’m not racist but”. Or maybe “token Sakeesian critic”.
Quit defending her against “claims” or dismissing the critics as “half-assed” or ad homs or mansplainers and then come back here.
No, no one’s being “drowned out” by the harassment, only by you and the press – the reasonable criticisms can be easily found by searching YT or Google, and are likely to cover the entirety of the first couple of pages; some of those coming from notable web personalities to boot. Both this circumstance, as well the fact that Sarkeesian still keeps making videos and giving talks about her subject, and I believe was employed by some video game company to give advice or something, kinda make this Sterling guy not entirely right on this. Sterling is not right!
By obfuscating or denying anything that is wrong with her message/agenda, you just reinforce the image that this harassment stems from misogyny (or hostility towards "just merely criticism") in gaming culture when, in fact, a lot of it is accounted for BY the problems in and inflammatory nature of her statements... which, ironically, stands in the way of capturing the extent of both the bigotry element of it as well as its "off-the-scaleness" in general.
However, far be it from me, an aspiring non-ideologue, to whine about you “reinforcing images” – just quit defending her on the page if you wanna claim neutrality, or in the talk section if you don’t want people to object and start discussions.
Seems logical to me.. (talk) 00:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Congratulations, I don't think you could've missed the point more severely than you have. (talk) 01:00, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
All points have been dealt with brilliantly. (talk) 22:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Antagonistic feminism at its finest[edit]

I hate to be the one to say this, but Anita Sarkeesian is hurting feminism so badly that unless another huge rape comes along sometime soon (preferably one that actually happened, you know, for real and wasn't just made up), feminism is going to die.

As a man, I might have to be the one to bite the bullet here. Feminism is losing support and people are starting to turn on it. But deep down, I do believe there's a real honesty in it that has been suppressed by extremists like Sarkeesian. So I don't want feminism to die.

In other words, I might have to go out and rape someone -- for feminism. To save feminism, butt rape must happen. In fact, I'll go as far as to say that all of women's rights depend on me taking someone by force while dressed like a clown. Everything feminists have fought for from the beginning to now: it all hinges on whether or not I jump out of the bushes at some hot chick. But no fat ones. Ew.

But anyway, I'm glad that feminists don't intentionally behave in such a way as to draw the ire and venom of anyone who encounters them on purpose for a reaction. They would never do that, and neither would I. And because they haven't done it, they wouldn't recognize it even if they saw it happening. I don't know why, though, because antagonizing people always brings out the best in everyone :) I'm amazed Anita hasn't gotten more support!

For feminism. Parogar (talk) 19:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to add that she shouldn't have been dressed that way if she didn't want me to jump out of the bushes like that. Praise Jesus and Merry Christmas. Parogar (talk) 19:50, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Troll (Seriously, don't.) Nullahnung (talk) 20:32, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Credibility of the threats[edit]

1. The local police department made no mention of receiving any report from Anita about the supposed threats she received. You know, the ones that made her leave her home? Apparently, these didn't warrant mentioning to the police.

2. The speech she cancelled? Apparently, "there was no credible threat to students, staff or the speaker, and (...) this letter was intended to frighten the university into cancelling the event". Anyone else thinks this deserves to be mentioned in the article? There's a long stretch between a bomb-threat and an actual bomb. --Norman (talk) 16:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Why are you rehashing months old gator nonsense? The gator blog you linked in your first point is completely wrong as usual: see link. As for your second point, that was not a bomb threat but a shooting threat, so what are you even talking about? Typhoon (talk) 17:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
1. This article does, indeed, show that she received threats over the internet. Just like Christian Weston Chandler, I guess, except that people actually care about her, for some reason. 2. My bad. It was a shooting threat, as you yourself pointed out, prior to asking me what I was talking about, which was pretty unnecessary considering you already corrected it... well, rationality works in mysterious ways. --Norman (talk) 21:17, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Correction: All the first article shows is that it's likely she received threats. --Norman (talk) 21:19, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Let me repeat Typhoon's question: Why are you rehashing months old gator nonsense?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Because this site keeps repeating even older anti-gator nonsense. --Norman (talk) 22:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
What nonsense is this? Is it that she reported her threat to the authorities but someone contacted the police department and the police department accidentally gave them wrong information? Or that she decided despite the fact that USU felt that there was no threat she felt safer to cancel because anyone in Utah can open carry?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
No, I'm talking about the fact that this article consistently portrays Sarkeesian as a modern feminist-superhero, for some reason. And that the GamerGate article completely failed to mention the threats made to Yiannopoulos or the harassment coming from anti-gators. You know, stuff like that. --Norman (talk) 00:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
That's because people are more likely to believe someone who can show the fact that she has been harassed on a daily basis for close to 2 years and now requires a security detail rather than someone who works for a newspaper that regularly lies to cast their political opponents in a bad light, was sued for withholding pay for his employees, and recently published a book of poetry full of plagiarism.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:08, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
We can thank Gamergate's hilarious overreaction for Anita becoming a "modern feminist-superhero". The relentless harassment from GG will continue all the way until she becomes President of the USA. Typhoon (talk) 00:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
With luck, by that point all of the GG/MRA/whatever clowns will all have gone seasteading, sunk, and drowned. Queexchthonic murmurings 13:24, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
And what about all the other gators who have been harassed? Did they withhold pay from their employees, too? This one's really great in particular, I think: Link. Please mind that it's the anti-gators who have started throwing around words like "sexism" and "harassment" in the first place. --Norman (talk) 12:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
The last time someone directed me to that particular tumblr, I was astounded at the complete lack of any harassment on display. I note that the latest post on it is a tweet from November, and does not include anything remotely resembling harassment. You get much worse from GG about every twenty minutes. I think what we have here is another demonstration that GG, in general, does not understand the difference between harassment and insult. Queexchthonic murmurings 13:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Harassment is baaaad, but insults are completely alright? Stuff like advocating genital mutilation, calling someone a slut and a whore that deserves to be raped, threateningly telling someone you hope her windows are locked, threatening to stab and shoot someone, calling for use of deadly force against individuals affiliated with #GamerGate, threatening people over the phone, doxxing and threatening someones family and and much, much more. Is that alright? --Norman (talk) 14:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
No, it's not okay. Nowhere do I say that, or anything like it. What I do say is that it is much, much, 'much' more common flowing in one direction than in the the other. Hence trying to draw a 'they're just as bad as the others' equivalence is either profoundly stupid or greatly dishonest. I suspect that a lot of GG are, in fact, aware of the disparity which is why so much of the stuff on that tumblr is weaksauce - they're trying to pad the numbers so that it isn't so obvious. As in that November example I specifically talked about, instead of whatever I seemed to be saying in that weird conversation happening inside your head. Queexchthonic murmurings 16:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
If it's much more common, then why do I only ever read about abuse happening to Quinn, Sarkeesian or Wu? These are a total of three people. Aside from that, what I'm reading are mostly petty remarks and insults, no death threats. If you want to argue with the numbers, then go ahead, prove to me that GamerGate is harassing, threatening and insulting at least as many people as Anti-GamerGate. What puzzles me is why we're talking about numbers in the first place when you explicitly contended the quality and not the amount of abuse that happened. Oh, now I remember: Because you just changed the topic mid-conversation and pretended it was always about the amount and not the quality of abuse. That's just cheap. --Norman (talk) 18:12, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Educate yourself: Gamergate on this very wiki gives a good rundown of some of the other targets. Not that it even matters for this point, because we were talking about the amount of harassment in each direction, not the number of targets. It's pretty obvious you were never intending to argue in good faith here, given that your first point was attempt to call into question the fact that she had received threats. When you were shot down on that, you then tried to play the false equivalence game. When you were called on that, you're trying to pretend that it's everyone apart from you who's changing the subject. It's not working. Queexchthonic murmurings 19:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
This site has demonstrated its "good faith" when it created completely one-sided articles about a topic that couldn't be more controversial. Believe it or not, I wouldn't mind a neutral, objective article on the topic, one that isn't a propaganda piece for GamerGate. This article is not neutral or objective, however. It lists terrible things gaters have done, while completely ignoring how gaters have been harassed, how they have condemned actions undertaken under the label of GamerGate and how anti-gaters have gone out of their way to stop any discussion about the whole affair dead, which - surprise! - hasn't exactly helped potential gaters stay out of "bad neighborhoods". Now that that's out of the way: Yes, I did question whether Anita received threats. When I was presented evidence that she did receive threats I adjusted my view, which was clear from my very first reply. Yes, I was still snarky (like every single article on this wiki, by the way), but I corrected the one error in my view that I felt needed correction, just as I changed my opinion about Brianna Wu when I found out that the aspie-hate she was supposedly spewing came from a troll-account. That doesn't mean that any shady website-owner or journalist jumping the anti-GamerGate bandwagon has any of my sympathy or support, though. --Norman (talk) 21:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
You've changed your opinion on the threats and on the troll's attempt to libel Wu -- that's good. The next step is to realise that the narratives of 'both sides are slinging death threats at each other!' and 'anti-GG are trying to close down discussion!' both come from the same unreliable sources as the earlier canards. GG advocates have already demonstrated a fast and loose attitude to the truth on occasion, as you've conceded. Why then, should you take their interpretation at face value in other matters? Why would an article about Anita Sarkeesian -- specifically the harassment she has received -- include any broad tu quoque assertions by her harassers anyway? Unless she herself has been harassing people, it's way off-topic. The only reason GG is controversial is because of the harassment it generates, as it continues the crooked work of earlier misogynists wailing against perceived enemies in some sort of culture war. It's not controversial in a 'these two sides are at loggerheads while sensible people look on in despair' sense, it's controversial in a 'no-one can quite believe how messed up this bunch of blowhards is' sense. The sort of neutrality you seem to want would have to bend the truth to breaking point to avoid making the GG movement look as bad as it is, and would be exactly the kind of false neutrality that gives succour to vaccine denialists and other cranks. GG is a crank movement, and should be given the same treatment on this wiki as any other. Queexchthonic murmurings 10:05, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The real question here, is why when faced with direct evidence that your statements are falsehoods, you double down, rather than rethink your position. Like how shitty and broken is your brain where that isn't important to you?

Like you've framed this into a world where Sarkeesian is a liar, who's out to manipulate everyone. Your evidence for this is now nothing. Why do you persist?

You don't get the nuance here that no one at rationalwiki views her videos as uniquely insightful or anything, and her only reason for discussion on here is the actions of her detractors. We're certainly not vociferous defenders of her positions. Ikanreed (talk) 14:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, you're not? Must be why you went out of your way to mention her academic achievements right at the beginning of the article, then went out of your way to mention her highlights (yes, you even called them that), and, in general, portrayed all her findings as objective truths, as opposed to mere opinions. --Norman (talk) 14:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
"you... discussed... facts about her! That belies a pro-position bias!" Are you going to say we're in favor of this douche because we mention he's descended from Mohammed? Or this crazy because we mention he has a PhD? Come on, bro. Highlighting her actual points is crucial context for establishing why her crazy attackers are crazy. Ikanreed (talk) 15:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
The tone makes a big difference, you know? Anita is "explaining" and "pointing out" things in this article, as opposed to "trying to explain" them. The article also says that she has to keep working, which implies that her work has any merit. I could go on, but I think I've made my point. --Norman (talk) 15:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
You've come in here blustering about completely untrue statements. Then you've twisted around to claim that it's about being explicitly in support of her videos, then you further spun that as if you were making some ambiguous-as-fuck argument about tone all along, which you then terminate with "I think I've made my point". None of this addresses your personal mistakes along the way.
Should I give you a line-by-line critique of that article? I could. I could take every single sentence and show you exactly how it portrays her views as objectively correct. I'm not going to do that, however, because I don't feel like wasting my time. If I do that, this page will be locked, plain and simple. At best, another anti-gator will give me a two-liner calling me dumb or sad or whatever mean adjectives you have that are just mean enough to sound slightly insulting but not too mean to get you banned. Maybe you'll even confront me with the "fact" that GamerGate has destroyed billions of lifes and then cite Sarkeesian as your one and only example. --Norman (talk) 18:12, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
It's a sad, sad life you live where this is important to you. Ikanreed (talk) 16:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Right, I forgot: We are not allowed to criticize her work after all that was done to her! Instead, we must praise it. Do I get this straight? Is it a new rationalwiki-policy to praise victims because they are victims? --Norman (talk) 18:12, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Assuming that your point was you're far more biased than you claim the article is and love tendentious argumentation, then yes, you have. Queexchthonic murmurings 16:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with tendentiousness per se, which probably puts me at odds with most people, but I do expect it to be done from an intellectually honest position. Ikanreed (talk) 17:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
In my short time on this website, I've seen two discussion-pages get locked. Do you call that intellectual honesty? --Norman (talk) 18:12, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes. I do. You know that page was locked (just from anonymous and very new users mind) because of boring repetitive comments. I know that. Pretending there's some deeper suppressing of free speech issue is exactly the kind of intellectual dishonesty I was saying I don't like. With all that in mind, do you have any non-counter-factual changes to suggest here, or are you just taking your pet persecution complex for a walk? Ikanreed (talk) 18:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Nice loaded question you have there. Do you honestly expect an answer to a loaded question? --Norman (talk) 19:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, that's a no on having some meaningful change to suggest to the page. I'm honestly glad you can identify a false dilemma. It's a good skill. But you need to work on identifying sarcasm. Ikanreed (talk) 20:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

And you have to work on noticing when people are willfully ignoring your sarcasm. --Norman (talk) 21:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Start having a point. Ikanreed (talk) 21:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


Disgrace to rationalism[edit]

“We” have a article full of what is nothing more than opinions masqueraded as fact for dimwits to further regurgitate and further re-inforce. Knowing this is one of those matters where rational people have to thread on eggshells I was very careful yesterday doing some small, editing merely removing and rephrasing a small (small because of time constraints not lack of opinionated texts and propaganda) portion of texts that where clearly opinionated The text where under the laughable header “Nonsense claims often made against her”, my editing, giving more thorough citation of Anita saying “I am not a fan of videogames”, with a thorough explanation of context which seemed to be required by the powers that be. However clearly “we” is not looking for truth since the text is now reverted to the opinionated explanation of the the dissent. I also more clearly made the case of the juxtaposition that has been made to Jack Thompson and his arguments vs Anita Sarkeesian and her arguments, again this was removed and a opinion was re-instated in the wiki. So I’d like to remind “we” of what it is you claim to stand for, from the main page; “Our purpose here at RationalWiki includes: 1. Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement. 2. Documenting the full range of crank ideas. 3. Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism. Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media.”

Now statements such as “You can make an argument that she sometimes says nonsense because she doesn't understand the game she's talking about (talking about being able to kill NPC's for money in GTA SA, or NPC corpses disappearing in-game which happens for technical reasons), but again, we aren't really interested in how well Sarkeesian critiqued X cultural product, we're only interested in the disproportionate backlash she's received, which often don't consist of well-meaning constructive criticism, but rather just bile.” This is, so disgusting so horrible that it makes me very very angry, now this may perhaps make you very glad since I am a man, however, I’m not angry for the ideas that you perpetuate but rather because of the principles of which you violate in the name of supposed rationalism. You quiet clearly state to anyone smarter then a rock that ”we” have an agenda. So overtly that even a rock can at least given time infer it from your actions. ”we” who claim to be RATIONALWIKI. I am incredibly disgusted by this behavior and I will leave it at that. I will add I use the word in no way lightly or frivolously. So to brake this down, you complete disregard peer-review, you do not document the full range of ideas wheatear or not they are in your opinion a “crank” idea. But I do give credit where credit is due and perhaps number 3 is spot on, you do explore authoritarian and fundamental ideas but perhaps, exercising would be a more suitable word, maybe edit the main page? Thank you have a good day. — Unsigned, by: Hurdur / talk / contribs

Your edits were reverted because they were a significant change in stance for the article and you didn't discuss the change on the talk page first, which is standard editing procedure on this wiki. The reason we are not discussing the mistakes she makes when critiquing cultural products is because that's not what she is notable for. There are thousands upon thousands of sloppy critics of cultural products out there that make mistakes during their work. If that was a topic that we discuss on this wiki then we'd have more articles about cultural critics. It isn't. Sarkeesian is notable for the disproportionate rage and hate that her rather harmless work received. And no, it doesn't make me glad that you're angry, just sad. Nullahnung (talk) 09:08, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
To make the second point (the "not a gamer" thing) clear in the "nonsense claims" section I added another reference ( and explanation which you may find clarifies the point a bit more.
About the juxtaposition of Jack Thompson to her, it is not a fair one and the comparison is inappropriate. "Video games cause violence" is not comparable to "video games perpetuate sexist tropes". Also, Jack Thompson advocates censorship of video games based on his "analysis" of them, Sarkeesian advocates no such thing, or at least I haven't heard her say so yet. Nullahnung (talk) 09:55, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
It always kind of gives the game away when someone tries to pass off a huge change to an article as an m revision, doesn't it? Do they really think that an axe-grinding edit against the prevailing stance of RW is genuinely minor? Do they think that marking it as m somehow makes it more likely to slip past other editors unnoticed? Either way, it's a very strong indication that the edit was in bad faith, no matter how much whining is done on the talk page after the fact. For someone staking a claim to 'More rational than thou', it demonstrates a stark lack of thinking skills. It's fascinating. Queexchthonic murmurings 12:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

There's nothing rational about instigating that all MRA's are "misogynist" in their nature, yet the very same thing is implied when she's supposedly "hated" (not critiqued?!) by "MRAs and other misogynists on the Internet". The whole article is full with questionable wording like that, which only few people seems to take an issue with. It's also disgraceful when the article is supposed to reflect on the "disproportional backlash" she's receiving, while never even mentioning the critique of her "work". It makes it look like people only disagree with her to be "misogynist", while never even mentioning valid criticism, which in many places shows her lack of knowledge on the topics she's supposedly "researching". If the "hate" she's receiving is supposed to be the topic here, then her part in that cycle certainly deserves mention too, because a lot of that "hate" has been the result of her questionable conclusions and flat out lies about what's possible and supposedly motivated in modern media. (talk) 17:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Instigating? Do you mean insinuating? Which is still the wrong word, because we more or less state it directly. And yes, hated is the right word for death threats. "I'm going to kill you" has never been a critique. Sorry. And the "backlash" is the only thing worth noting here. Random disagreements on the internet are plentiful and not noteworthy. Ikanreed (talk) 17:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Game being deleted[edit]

So, rather than reverting, I thought I'd bring up the BoN's change here for discussion. Is Newsgrounds' deletion of the game from their servers relevant to the topic? The key point here is that someone affiliated with gamergate made the thing in the first place. What a third party did with it seems tangential, but I don't want to unilaterally declare that. Ikanreed (talk) 20:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The game is likely available elsewhere, so it really doesn't matter. Revert away. Zero (talk - contributions) 21:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I thought of that. I went with the first few pages of google results, and didn't see it mirrored. Ikanreed (talk) 21:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I've got, shall we say, dark contacts. It's still around. Zero (talk - contributions) 21:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

A legitimate criticism section?[edit]

As somebody who takes rationalism very seriously (being a theoretical computer scientist and all), I would really love it if the criticism section gave a legitimate section of criticism. At the present time, it is very one-sided and not for the right reasons. It would be splendid if that were prepared, just like for any other figure on RationalWiki. No person should be immune to actual criticism against their ideas or views. It would be great if RationalWiki had an actual area to include this, if such a page exists on RationalWiki. The fact that the article keeps reverting back every time an actual criticism section is introduced is a sign that some are reverting versions without considering the rationality behind the statements made. To be fair, a lot of things she has said are not supported by any good evidence, and should be questioned. — Unsigned, by: ‎ / talk / contribs

Wikipedian protester.png Kidding aside, you have presented no argument or statements to support your claim. Zero (talk - contributions) 22:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Also, what has computer science got to do with rationality? Compsci is about systems with (short-term, granted) predictable behaviour and easily-tracked states. Acting as though the world has similar qualities is a recipe for bad modelling and bad conclusions. A significant proportion of the pseudoscientists RW covers got that way because they started trying to apply their own narrow speciality to the world in general. Queexchthonic murmurings 23:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I say that if you read RW:MISSION and can write a criticism section that is applicable than more power to you. The problem, as I see it, is that deconstructing feminist cultural criticism is pretty far from what we do here. What we do cover is authoritarianism, which the anti-feminist reactionary backlash to Sarkeesian clearly falls under; not to mention the cranky conspiracy theories about her motives and connection with some nefarious plot to bring down Western Civilization. In my opinion the reaction to what she says is much more interesting than what she actually has to say. Her criticism of sexism in video games is pretty standard feminist media criticism, huge volumes of which can be found for literature and movies. The fact that some portions of the internet throw a collective fit about her is the strange part. Marlow (talk) 23:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I suppose some may argue Ms. Sarkeesian's opinions on gaming may fall (barely, stretching it) into fundamentalism. However, I wouldn't go so far as to say that should be a primary focus of this article. брэндэн (talk) 00:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
We could but most of the arguments against Anita are:

- Ad Hom - Tone - Built around misunderstanding her point - Built around a conspiracy - Red Herring - Obvious misogyny - A rape threat

I have never seen an intelligent argument against her claims.BlackProg (talk) 00:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Some would definitely argue that she's a fundamentalist. They'd be wrong, but they'd still argue it. We have articles on wacky fundamentalist feminists like Cathy Brennan who frequently stray into authoritarianism and even association with the religious right. Someone like Brennan's feminism contrasts with Sarkeesian's very mild from is fucking striking. Marlow (talk) 00:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

You can make an argument that she sometimes says nonsense because she doesn't understand the game she's talking about (talking about being able to kill NPC's for money in GTA SA, or NPC corpses disappearing in-game which happens for technical reasons), but again, we aren't really interested in how well Sarkeesian critiqued X cultural product, we're only interested in the disproportionate backlash she's received, which often don't consist of well-meaning constructive criticism, but rather just bile. Nullahnung (talk) 01:12, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I actually have researched legit criticisms leveled at Anita Sarkeesian that I will parrot here.

- The idea behind her argument that Mattie Ross, from True Grit, is not a feminist character hinges on the idea that Ross promotes more "socially-accepted" masculine values of revenge and violence as opposed to "feminine values" of cooperation and peace. This is a pretty narrow slice, since there is a downside to the more "feminine," cooperative values - such as meekness and submission - which result in women who adopt them having less power and influence, which ultimately hurts women more than it helps them. -She cites Fallout and Dragon Age as examples of a male character exploiting female sex workers, yet both games allow male and female player characters, and both games have male, female and even transgender sex workers. -She shows a double standard toward male and female singers in her criticism of the song "All I Want For Christmas Is You": when it's sung by a girl, it's about how women "only" want/need a man to be happy; when it's sung by a guy like Justin Bieber, it sounds "stalkerish." That's sexist on both accounts. - She lists Dracula's female minions as anti-feminist because they demonize female sexuality. This is a valid critique.... that loses its edge once she makes no mention of how Dracula himself is the embodiment and personification of rape. She critiques the demonization of female sexuality, but doesn't do so for the male character when she was explicitly talking about evil seducers as a topic. -She regards female antagonists, and even anti heroes like the main character of Revenge, as anti-feminist, regardless of whatever the characters' in-universe reasons are for their behavior. This leads to the implication that that her ideal female characters are the "saintly and pure" types, ala Katara from Avatar. -Her praise of non-violent resolutions lead to her associating those instances with femininity, because - as a pacifist herself - she values cooperation and peace more than violence or revenge. However, associating cooperation and peace with feminism isn't the right way to go about it, because these values have always been around in male-dominated societies and aren't necessarily associated with feminism. Hence, her augment is effectively "feminine is good and masculine is bad." -Several inaccuracies in her critiques. For example, she complained about the Powerpuff Girls' use of the "Token Misogynist" trope in a feminist character, while forgetting that said feminist character was not a feminist at all (and the girls point out the irony and hypocrisy of the character in question). -Or dismissing Clarice Starling on account of Starling being overshadowed by Hannibal Lector, even though Starling has the most screen time in the film, has the story arc revolving around her, is an independent thinker, and is the character that viewers identified with. Jodie Foster and Anthony Hopkins both won Oscars for their roles, yet she saw Starling as an inadequate main character and feminist icon anyway. It's virtually impossible to describe the plot in a way that makes Hannibal seem anything like the lead character, but Sarkeesian says the exact opposite of this. -Claiming that Bayonetta was a single mother, and literally saying that is the only positive thing about her character. The inaccuracy comes from that Bayonetta is not a mother at all - the little girl seen following her is actually a younger version of Bayonetta herself from the past, ala time paradox. She later edited the video removing the parts in which she talks about the game itself and left only her complains about the marketing campaign in Japan, which were much more legitimate. -Instances of plagiarism - she took footage from a lets player and did not credit them with the footage. And so forth. Stuff like that can be used for legitimate criticisms. Serocco (talk) 10:49, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

See the comment by Nullahnung immediately above. Sure there are many valid criticisms of her work - there are of anyone's work but this article is not about that, it's about the vile and abusive way she was - and is - treated by many in the so called gaming community. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 11:38, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Jim Sterling put it best. The reason we aren't talking about her points is because it's no longer about her; it's about the assholes who keep throwing sexist remarks at her, subconsciously or otherwise. I still wish we did critique her points, but hey. Serocco (talk) 03:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
The page is about her. Saying it's not about her any longer is anti-thesis to even having a section about her. If you want focus on one subject then it would be prudent to actually make a page specifically for that subject. This page, however, is for the individual known as Anita Sarkeesian and examination of her claims belongs here. Where else would it go? So far it's just a bunch of sycophant pandering with accusations of misogyny thrown at people for giving criticism. This looks more like the Food Babe army at work than a rational wikipedia page. The polarization of information given is audacious and insulting to rational individuals who can quite plainly see the accumulation of bias. - VS
Seconding that. The page is about her. She's hailed as a hero, not presented as a mere victim, and heroes need to be criticized. --Norman (talk) 15:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

It's very sad to see Rational Wiki have this much of a bias towards someone and refuse to criticise the beliefs they put out into the public. Many refutations online have been put forward on many online mediums. Shame on you. (talk) 02:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Please, tell us what to criticize. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 02:51, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
The fact that her videos rip out footage from other lets plays, the fact that the camera quality hasn't improved despite receiving money. Getting plot details wrong.

Non-misogynistic, non-ad hominem, strawman free, preferably cited, criticism section[edit]

Have at it. If you want it, write it. Nobody here is going to do your work for you. - π 03:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Lets she she ripped out other lets play footage for her videos, supported gender segregated trains, got plot details wrong for games like Bayonetta, everything Serocco said. User:LordYAM
Show me the evidence. Zero (talk - contributions) 02:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Could vandalism under "Continued attacks" be reverted?[edit]

It seems to have slipped under the radar prior to the article being locked, but the phrase "Why so scared?" is still there, which seems like a bit of chan-style trolling.

Would an admin remove it? Mycohl (talk) 01:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

The statement was added in August 2014 before Gamergate was a thing [3]. I think it's asking why her detracters are so scared.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps it could be rewritten to reflect that, then? If I was confused, it's a safe bet that other readers are going to be, as well.Mycohl (talk) 21:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


I feel like this page makes all gamers look misogynistic. I am a gamer and a gamer gater, but I am against misogyny and the death threats she has received— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs 17:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Could you please point out some specific wording in the article that "makes all gamers look misogynistic"?--ZooGuard (talk) 17:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
(EC)That's nice of you, but as to your concerns about misrepresentation, the article scarcely mentions gamers at all. The only statement I can guess you're referring to is this one: "Sarkeesian has taken ownership of the abuse and marshaled it to demonstrate the prevalence of sexism in the gamer community." Which certainly doesn't say anything about all gamers. Just that sexism is prevalent in the community. Ikanreed (talk) 17:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The 2014 bomb threat[edit]

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)

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

Men are important too...[edit]

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. WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.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)
You must mean both sexes. Genders come in packs of a dozen these days. (talk) 15:01, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Lacking history[edit]

A complete absence of mention of her previous work, let me's not relevant to accusations that she's a scammer to point out that she objectively was a scammer (selling seminaros on NLP, graphology, manipulating the media, 'get rich quick by selling seminars', etc) between college & kickstarter?— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

I'd be interested to see evidence of any of that. And I should probably point out that Brietbart and MSPaint red arrows do not count as evidence. Queexchthonic murmurings 14:07, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Also, I'm pretty sure I've seen her work from between college and kickstarter. She did videos about feminism in topics other than video games. Oh no. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:23, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
I always wonder about people who repeatedly lie, and then expect others to believe everything they say. Like it makes them more credible. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 14:55, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
I remember the videos on clichés and pop cultural trends. Also may the figure who did the first post please sigh their signature.--Aile Dhoo (talk) 15:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
@ECW, they "lie" because they see someone post it on the internet, believe it, and then uncritically repost it. This wiki is all about how things propogated by a narrow set of liars can become common beliefs, reshared, rehashed, and mindlessly regurgitated. Antifeminist stuff becomes even easier for people to do this with because it's about more people and society, not science. Which is honestly a lot harder to suss out the more flawed modes of thinking in. Suffice it to say, I'd level a good 80% chance that our dear IP believes everything they just said, and they're likely to view our disagreement as fueled by a insurmountable bias. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:24, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
I can see your point, but to me both are being dishonest. Putting blinders on and refusing any possibility of being wrong just adds arrogance and stupidity. I know I have a low tolerance for people with these kinds of issues after a long history of getting debunked. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 18:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
I need to keep reminding myself that gullibility is not a moral fault. I think you should do the same. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar~) 18:13, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Gullibility (or getting caught up) in a situation is not, it happens to everyone, doing it repeatedly and doggedly many times is. Not anything to do with morality, it is a personal fault because they are an idiot (excluding mental illness). -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 18:49, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Undent for clarity, as I'm replying to all of you in general. A few things - re "I know I have a low tolerance for people with these kinds of issues after a long history of getting debunked." I am consistently on the same side of debunkments, and not the debunkee side. I didn't use a signature as I have no account, and didn't expect this to be a 'conversation', I genuinely wasn't anticipating any denials, merely dismissals as irrelevant, as what I mentioned is not in dispute...although she really goes out of her way to not mention it & has suppressed almost all sources, and I'm sure she wouldn't describe what she did as 'scamming'. I would very much endorse ikanreeds (2nd*) comment on this issue. Subjects that are emotive, and/or tap into indentity politics, and/or bring in one or more stupid & controversial groups (such as 4chan or tumblr pseudo-feminists)...well, emotive is the word. To start acting on instinct rather than rationality, to jump to assumptions, be chauvin on steroids for whichever group one has most social overlap with. To get to the point wrt evidence, her business was at (which has long since been erased, but you can find in the archive). It's extremely vague, and most of her collabs were discreet as an individual rather than as that brand anyway, so ones instinct is to now admit the bare minimum it mentions but deny any more, but does at least show that she was involved in an inherently dodgy business.

Better perhaps, is straight from the horses mouth: this advert she did for none other than Alex Mandossian.

Yeah she was doing feminist stuff before kickstarter, but it wasn't her main source of revenue: her job was dubious seminars. (talk) 04:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay but what does this have to do with anything. Like all this proves is that she was a victim in a pyramid scheme.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:31, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
I suppose that's an entirely legitimate interpretation of strictly the minimal information in that video, but it can hardly apply to the graphology stuff can it? (talk) 16:21, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
What "graphology" stuff? Don't you individual Gamergaters get to a point where you even realize you're grasping at straws?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:37, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Calling me names won't help. "What "graphology" stuff?" I am referring to her working on graphology seminars, which is not, I'd have thought, a difficult to understand claim, and also, to repeat myself: is not actually in dispute. This is just straight up stuff from her CV. This is not an argument, this is her work history. (talk) 01:11, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Is "Gamergater" a name now? And like there's no proof that she was involved with anything you're accusing her of. This is shit that has been debunked since before Gamergate was a thing. And was further debunked while Gamergate was well underway (it's all in the update well at the bottom of the page, but even most of it is questioning the validity of the claims to begin with).
But let me break it down for you in a tl;dr version. The only thing you have right about any of this is that Anita Sarkeesian worked for Bart Baggett. She was a PR representative for when he was doing self-help seminars for audiences of mostly older women. She never once worked with him in any nature on his forensic handwriting criminology or his pyramid scheme graphology course garbage.
Picking apart her CV and accusing her of malfeasance without anything to back up those claims is spurious at best and libelous at worst. As well is relying on a video that had to be obtained in completely asinine and spurious manners in order to cast blame on her and paint her as a scam artist, which is the general Gamergate accusation, as if she hasn't done what she promised to do as a result of her Kickstarter campaign. Several dozen news organizations have come before and examined all this shit for themselves and come up with nothing on her part that she's done thats been illicit or otherwise. It's only the "real gamer" types that feel like perpetuating this myth that she's either a scam artist or she's out to censor the whole industry with her basic criticisms of the medium.
Grow up you fucking babies.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:39, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
She worked for this guy Ryu. The first article you list "debunking" this claimed that Baggett was one of the most well respected Graphologists in the world. That's akin to saying he's the world's most prominent reiki master. The person then goes into a laughable verbose word vomit engaging in ad hominem against her critics (they used MRAesque language and that's dark and ominous and therefore they are wrong) and outright denial of the fucking video where she flat out promotes Baggett's con-job by claiming Baggett is anything other than a sleezy conartist; which he is. Graphology is a debunked, pseudoscientific load of bullshit that Baggett does IN ADDITION TO self-help seminars and telemarketing. Let's be very, very clear on what he is: a con artist. To suggest otherwise is just stupid. That she had a working relationship with this man for years, as your second article confirms, says volumes about what kind of person SHE is. When people point out that this woman who worked for a con-artist and helping promote his scam, in addition to the overwhelming array of red flags indicative of manipulative behavior, appears to be a con-artist her self they are not being sexist they are just being smart and pointing out the empress has no clothes. Each thing by itself can be dismissed but put it all together it paints a very ugly picture. This is especially so when you look at how her work has no merit and she appears to have done no research whatsoever, along with a producer who has openly discussed how easy the news media is to manipulate by spinning narratives that play to their bias. I'm sorry but these are clearly very dishonest and deceitful people with a long and suspicious track record. The only one that needs to grow the fuck up is you Ryu. -- (talk) 18:13, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
She worked for someone who has pseudoscientific shit about him. That doesn't mean she was complicit. Also, there's an issue with the word "graphology" being mistakenly used as a synonym for forensic handwriting analysis rather than the pseudoscience. And really, this is still a fucking stretch. "Anita worked for someone who turned out to be a scam artist. Therefore, Anita is a scam artist."—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:19, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
And let's repeat that she worked with Bart Baggett for things that weren't even at all related to his supposed con job. Zennistrad (talk) 22:06, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Some changes needed to be "rational"[edit]

This article pretty much completely focuses on her status as a victim and not her agruments and skills as a critic. Despite being "rational" it does not name any rational arguments actual critics have brought up about her series. Also it actually presents false information. The article states that she did not day videogames make gamers more sexist. That is false. She did say on her website that they amplify sexist and downright misogynist ideas about women. Read the transcript on her "help fund tropes vs women in video games" page. That means that statement is clearly false. If this is about being rational delete that information and amend the page. Otherwise this is propoganda— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Because her skills as a critic aren't particularly relevant. The dumb hate movement surrounding and attacking her is part of RationalWiki's mission(authoritarian and conspiratorial movements). The videos themselves are middle of the road tame cultural criticism that's not particularly noteworthy. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
The people who criticized Jack Thompson weren't part of some monolithic anti-Jack movement. As a snarky aside, I would have never guessed during the GTA drama that a decade from then the stigmatization of video games would primarily seep from the radical left.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 19:08, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
You're a goddamn idiot. We're talking about a person who posts videos. Online. We're discussing paranoid shitheads in an article who imagine her as varyingly: part of a communist plot, an attempt to destroy video games as we know it(why? who cares!), comparing them from someone who pushed laws promoting censorship and made spurious lawsuits to that same end, it's just beyond the pale.
We don't have articles about the plethora of youtube vloggers who do non-feminist centered reviews of games and game design, because that's not our mission, and extraodrinary dumbasses like yourself haven't made it their stupid-as-fuck mission to destroy people for, again, middle of the road tame cultural criticism. It's really messed up how obsessed you are with her. It's not healthy. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:23, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
I also find it humorous you think you're in a position to talk about good health and obsession. Edit: Since you seem to be confused, I'll add that, if I'm not mistaken, this is the first or second time I've brought up Sarkeesian here. You seem to be jumping at shadows.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 19:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)] t explicitly).--Arisboch (talk) 20:11, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Oh look it's the "literally who" shtick. You pay no attention to your own edit history and go "nuh uh, I didn't make a page about the 'lies' rationalwiki has devoting two subsections to her". Look, you can lie to yourself all you want, but lie to me again, and I'll ban the fuck out of you. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
(I won't actually ban the fuck out of you, it'd be going too far for the minor crime of being an annoying shithead) ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
No, your making a false equivalence between the legitimate criticism that you claim doesn't exist but does: this. In none of these critiques does any of those critics engage in anything remotely approaching misogyny, most of the time people just point out that her own critiques lack any semblance of possessing internal logical consistency. For an exhaustive approach to the glaring flaws in Anita's pseudoscientific "research" you can't get much better than CainJW's work. Really, this actual scientist's, who happens to be a woman, criticism that Anita is simply spouting an unsupported opinion and not anything remotely approaching real research. -- (talk) 17:50, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
What do you guys not get about how she does shit? She puts citations for things she brings up in the video descriptions and in the accompanying page on her website. MaybeI was wrong to describe her as a social scientist but she's just being a fucking media critic. How do you make stretches this bad?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:54, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Thompson, really? Get back to me when Sarkeesian engages in frivolous litigation against computer game companies, like Thompson did. Until then, she's entitled to her opinion, which is what her criticism is. Get over it, Nacraycray. --Castaigne (talk) 20:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Not to mention that Mr Thompson has voiced favour for GG, so the obsession by Gaters of Sarkeesian as "the next Thompson" is ironically humorous. Also may I take the opportunity to address the title with "I thought this was suppose to be RATIONAlwiki!" Drinks --Aile Dhoo (talk) 22:38, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
There's absolutely no criticism of her videos that isn't steeped in the anti-feminist hate that she uncovered by saying video games weren't perfect. Besides, the page already does mention some of her biggest "critics". Namely dunderfuck and skull boy.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:57, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
No, she's knee deep in pseudoscience. That's why people hate her. The hate mail she's presented doesn't compare to that received by either Justin Bieber or Dawkins, both of which have gotten a remarkably large amount of rape and death threats despite being men. -- (talk) 16:15, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Stop posting your shit out of order. She's not "knee deep in pseudoscience". She's done nothing with regards to the Tropes vs. Women videos that comes anything close to pseudoscience. It's media critique, through a feminist lens. Does this mean Siskel and Ebert were pseudoscientists now?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:20, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, she is. She makes an array of bizarre and illogical claims that have been thoroughly debunked and uses an array of intellectually dishonest tactics in order to make those claims. She falsified research, made false claims about causality, misused and abused basic theoretical and rhetorical terms, failed to provide basic definitions to a variety of terms she employed, and failed to cite many of the sources she used while presenting them as her own. All of this is done while presenting herself as an academic researcher, not a mere opinion columnist. That is knee deep in pseudoscience and intellectual dishonesty. -- (talk) 03:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Feminist critique is not pseudoscience no matter how many times you repeat it. Put up specific proof of your accusations or shut the fuck up.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I did put up specific proof for my accusations, indeed the proof is iron clad. You continue to try to doge the accusations by claiming they rest upon the erroneous conception that any critique of Anita's utilization of feminist sociological theory and research methodology is secretly a conspiratorial critique of feminism in its entirety rather than simply, as it purports to be, a critique of Anita's utilization of feminist sociological theory and research methodology, the serious blunders of which make it out to be nothing more than ridiculous pseudoscience. While there are plenty of rambling nonsensical bullshiters out there -- Milo the Witch for example -- Rational wiki takes aim at *popular* bullshiters, [Silver Ravenwolf] for example, without hesitation and with great gusto and I see no reason why Anita doesn't fit that bill. Your only response to serious, objective, and honest critique towards Anita's *objective* ARGUMENTS is to dishonestly claim that all such arguments are secretly and conspiratorially rooted in an intense, pathological hatred of her vagina. Considering that your argument makes no sense whatsoever, it leads many to note the double standard, the irrational standard, in the current article on Anita. For some reason her nonsensical bullshit that pretends to be a rational theoretical well researched (nearly a quarter of a million dollars in a public grant devoted to said research) scholarly scientific critique of popular culture seems off limits.
The only reason that Rational Wiki offers in its defense is that her stupid little series was subject to nasty and even violent criticism and this criticism is due solely to the fact that she is a woman and not because of the insane, irrational, illogical, incoherent, fringe ideological, pseudoscientific, bizarre nonsense she is vomiting in public. While instinctively at face value this seems to hold water upon a more rigorous analysis of the facts one finds it is blatantly false. Demos found that Piers Morgan, Ricky Gervais and Katie Hopkins, two men and one woman, were the most abused public figures on twitter, the majority of which were from men (we can either assume that this is due to toxic masculinity or that men are, by nature, more likely to be aggressive and stupid than women - take from that as you will), and targeted specifically on ideological and political grounds. This concept, that people are more likely to be targeted for ideological and political reasons (think about the vitriol slung from both sides over creationism or alternative "medicines" such as homeopathy, anti-vaxers, etc) runs very much counter to Anita's claim that she is the target of an "online harassment campaign", conspiratorial nonsense as it claims that the people attacking her are doing so because she has a vagina instead of the disgusting and patently false vitriol she flings at a variety of media genres and fandoms, instead of the fact that she is a controversial public figure. Further backing up this assessment would be the noxious harassment the female scientific researcher, gamer, and vlogger Rabbit Plays Games pointed out (see 2:30-7:20 where she lists her main objections to Anita's lack of scientific and intellectual rigor and general absurdity via the re-reading of her comment she left on Anita's Colbert Report video) her very clear, concise, and exceptionally kind and respectful critique of why Anita is completely full of worthless shit (I'm rehashing her comment in the nasty and snarky manner that RationalWiki SHOULD refer to Anita's work in) was met with violent harassment by Anita's FEMALE fan base. Disgraceful and further pointing out the fact that most harassment nowadays is not driven by gendered considerations but by upon ideological and political grounds. In other words it's not sexism but the old adage: never discuss politics or religion and expect polite conversation.
Now, you may disagree with me on the whole "harassment" issue, and that's fine, but what we are discussing ultimately is the nature of MY criticism of Anita's utilization of scientific feminist sociological methodology, her "research", and her adherence to scholarly standards which lead one inevitably to the conclusion that she is either a pseudoscientific huckster or a pseudoscientific idiot. Rational Wiki can indeed avoid the more rational, logical conclusion of the former and go with the much less credible conclusion of the later but it should provide a serious scientific refutation of her inane, insane, unscientific gobbledygook. -- (talk) 18:11, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
BoN, I'm only going to respond to you here cause I'm tired of having the discussion in two separate threads on this page. Sarkeesian is a film critic. Nothing she is doing with regards to video games resembles scientific evaluation in any way. Therefore, nothing she is doing can remotely be defined as "pseudoscience". It is her subjective interpretation of the content of these video games' stories. Also, as has been explained many times, this page is not a defense of her subjective analysis. It is an explanation of how people like you have reacted to her attempt to critique video games. Her views aren't even radical. All she's done is say the "damsel in distress" trope is trite, not bothering to design a female character other than slapping a hair bow and lipstick on the male character is lazy, and maybe female background characters don't have do be senselessly murdered to advance the story. As far as I'm aware, no one even bothers addressing that shit. It's just ""logic"" beats ""opinion"". So come back to me when you have something that isn't some random jack off on the Internet saying things to appease the hate mob.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:19, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Once more Ryu you continue to conflate two different genres: opinion piece and sociological analysis. Anita specifically says the purpose of her series is to bring the whole of academic feminist theory to a broader audience. As such her series of critiques claims to meet academic standards and advertises itself as an educational tool, not in any way is she claiming to be creating an opinion piece despite your frantic claims to the contrary. Anita specifically claims in her original kickstarter that the purpose is to apply feminist sociological theory to various aspects of popular culture. Her series specifically claims to utilize and apply various feminist theories in order to produce an objective and academic analysis of pop-culture in a series meant to introduce the general public to general feminist sociological concepts and how they are to be applied. That is, by any definition, purporting to be a work of applied sociological science. You're attempt to excuse her work on grounds that it is inane, stupid, pointless, irrational, crazy, insane, illogical, laughable and generally offensive does not help your case. Anita is claiming to do a series of feminist sociological analysis of various forms of pop culture for the general public with the SPECIFIC assurance that it is indeed an academic work adhering to basic standards of scholarship and containing original research. THAT IS SCIENCE! This is genuinely remarkable the lengths people will go to defend this woman even in the face of overwhelming evidence of intellectual dishonesty, which is the cornerstone of any form of pseudoscience. She claims to produce and advertises as such her work as an academic series of applied feminist theory producing an objective sociological, read scientific, analysis and instead produces an incoherent piece of intellectually dishonest, and very often offensive, gobbledegook. There is nothing wrong with rational wiki writing up her serious academic and intellectual misconduct with all the nasty, vile, snarky gusto one can muster. I can't imagine why you would have a problem with serious revisions to expose this insane lunatic for what she is.-- (talk) 21:10, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Find some 'serious academic and intellectual misconduct' first. Then we'll talk. Also: hilariously over-the-top rhetoric such as "insane lunatic for what she is" makes you look a kooky as the people who turn up to complain about the Freemen on the Land article. Which, to be fair, you are. Queexchthonic murmurings 21:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I think we're dealing with a STEMlord here who doesn't know how social science works and how it's still her own personal interpretation of both feminist theory and the games.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:02, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
We love STEM here, just to clarify, just not dipshits who don't understand functionally distinct realms of academic thought, why they're distinct, and why the varying approaches within them have settled into place. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 00:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
McIntosh and Sarkeesian have made it very clear that they intend their videos to be educational and academic in quality:
  • From FemFreq about page: “Feminist Frequency is a video webseries that explores the representations of women in pop culture narratives. The video series was created by Anita Sarkeesian in 2009 and largely serves as an educational resource to encourage critical media literacy and provide resources for media makers to improve their works of fiction.
  • The original video states:“Each video in this new series will be between ten and twenty minutes long with well researched, indepth analysis.
  • From her update video:“Obviously each video in this series requires a tremendous amount of research, writing and production time so we are planning to release one video per month.
  • From her Rolling Stone piece: “Feminist Frequency started in 2009 when I was in grad school. It was my way of pulling feminist theory out of academia into a more public space for a wider audience."
  • From her IGN interview: "I started my webseries in early 2009 while still in grad school at York University in Toronto partly because I was frustrated with how academia tended to present feminist theory in disconnected or inaccessible ways. I wanted to try and bring a sociological feminist lens to the limited and limiting representations of women in the media... As a result the project has been expanded enormously to now include over a dozen videos as well as a free classroom curriculum."
It is clear from their comments that McIntosh and Sarkeesian wish to market the Tropes vs Women series as academic and educational in nature. It is to be used as an authority piece. It is worthy of being an educational aid to be used in educational settings, using academic terms, and not as a representation of creativity such as literature. As this is the case, Feminist Frequency must be judged by academic standards to be worthy of academic, educational use as a piece of research.
Some note that academic and educational do not mean the same thing. This is an attempt to parse semantics. It is clear that McIntosh and Sarkeesian intend their work to be used at all levels of education. If a work is to be used academically, it must meet the rigorous standards of an academic setting. They have stated that their work is also research-oriented. Accordingly, the work must meet the bare minimum standards of academic and intellectual honesty.

Pseudoscience describes any belief system or methodology which tries to gain legitimacy by wearing the trappings of science, but fails to abide by the rigorous methodology and standards of evidence that are the marks of true science.
Promoters of pseudoscience often adopt the vocabulary of science, describing conjectures as hypotheses, theories, or laws, providing "evidence" from observation and "expert" testimonies, or even developing what appear to be mathematical models of their ideas. However, in pseudoscience there is no honest attempt to follow the scientific method, provide falsifiable predictions, or develop double blind experiments.
Although pseudoscience is designed to appear scientific, it lacks any of the substance of science. (From the Rational Wiki Pseudoscience page)

The ONLY defense of Anita I have seen proffered thus far is that Anita's work is not meant to be an academic educational work on the nature and application of feminist sociological theory. By her own statements to the press, in her videos, and from the mission statement on her own website I have shown you definitively that it is most certainly the case that her work is meant to be an academic educational work on the nature and application of feminist sociological theory. Even as an opinion piece her work is a laughable absurdity, but as it currently stands it's an outright abomination. Rational Wiki needs to treat Anita with the same nasty rigor with which it deals with Lucy Cavendish, Doreen Virtue, Deepak Chopra, Sylvia Browne, Esther Hicks, Steve Pavlina, and all other such peddlers of snakeoil bullshit. -- (talk) 01:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
It is not to be used as an "authority piece". In one of your various quotes you pull it points out that it's an introductory look at feminist theory when applied to video games. Also, as Ikanreed points out, you're applying the trappings of hard science to a soft science. And all of the woo practictioners are either deep into parapsychology or alternative medicine which are pseudosciences. Feminist theory isn't science, idiot. She isn't going "Bigfoot is a radical feminist who can help you talk to your dead grandmother." She's saying "these are feminist approaches to critiquing popular video games". As Queex said, give us explicit claims that support your point instead of making a broad and baseless condemnation against what amounts to ~2 hours worth of videos.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Not using her own footage[edit]

I think we could write that comment a bit better. I don't like the source that is used since it links to a bunch of other trash videos and parrots all kinds of other nonsense, but I'm going to consider that less important. I also think it might be worth pointing out how some of her detractors not only stole let's play footage but didn't actually play the games in question (thunderf00t for example has admitted to this in his first "busted" video). How about this instead:

  • While true, this does not invalidate her argument and under fair useWikipedia she can use the footage legally as she is criticizing it. As the end of her videos say: "The multimedia clips included in this video constitutes a 'fair use' of any copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of U.S. Copyright law which allows for criticism, comment and scholarship."

Thoughts? Zero (talk - contributions) 20:25, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:27, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

This article feartures no objective representation of the criticism against Anita's claims[edit]

The writers of "Rational Wiki" call #GamerGate a hate movement--when in reality it's criticism of corruption in game journalism and the erroneous arguments of ideologically driven third-wave feminists--and they write an article about Anita Sarkeesian that doesn't objectively cover the criticism against her arguments. A rational person would be more concerned with logic and facts, rather than defending the ideology of feminist journalists.

The only rational conclusion is that the ideology of third-wave feminism is your religion and you have become Religious Apologists.

Let the rational community know when you decide to care about cold hard logic again.

IrrationalWiki (talk) 07:50, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

There is very little criticism of her arguments out there that are not mired in abject hatred of feminism. But good job trying there. Also she's not a journalist. She's a social scientist.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Oh my fucking God. Anita is a social scientist. OMG! Wow! Ryulong you are indeed crazy. She is at best a critic and a laughably terrible one at that. -- (talk) 16:09, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Having a Masters in a field like "Social and Political Thought" seems to suggest she's a social scientist. Stop being a cook, BoN.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:31, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
First of all: Drink! Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:34, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Of course, if you can provide sources of actual criticism of Anita Sarkeesian that do not match any of the following criteria:
  • Something saying feminism isn't necessary or whatever bullshit you spewed at Talk:Feminism#RationalWiki is intellectually dishonest
  • Anything by thunderf00t or a similar YouTube pundit
  • Something saying she didn't get a minor fact about a video game right
  • Something saying she stole artwork
Then by all means show us.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:19, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
That's an extreme self-aggrandizement of A+ and just because GG is full of cunts doesn't mean, that you're right.--Arisboch (talk) 08:26, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
I think you've misunderstood me. I want the concern troll who opened this to provide the alleged criticism of Anita Sarkeesian's opinions that do not match any of those criteria.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
He wasn't even talking about A+, why you'd bring that in? What has this product of a pissing contest among New Atheism to do with anything he said?--Arisboch (talk) 08:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
I've seen it brought up by Gamergaters here and elsewhere so I just wanted to cover all bases.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:38, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
"But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! Typhoon (talk) 10:35, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, this is my first edit, so I'll probably get the formatting wrong. There is an article criticizing the use of cultivation theory and tropes from Anita: (and part-3). I don't really know if that qualifies due to your broad dismissals(are people posting videos on YouTube not possible of providing an argument?). I'm interested in collecting some of the sources behind the article(she doesn't cite them directly), but not so much if any work I do would just get dismissed out of hand, so I'm asking now before I do it.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Liana Kerzner's sour grapes doesn't count.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:12, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
They don't count for you. You dismiss everything out of hand without actually dealing with any of the substance of the arguments since you can't banhammer or remove the comments of everybody you disagree with. Here:
Each of these goes in depth at the serious factual issues with Anita laughably stupid series that you seem to believe qualifies her as a "Social Scientist" despite the fact that she's engaged in a variety of intellectually dishonest behaviors. Of course I realize for you the assessment of the facts is irrelevant in this case because a harassed woman, or any woman that claims harassment, must be protected and shielded from rational assessment of her statements of fact. In fact you guys have precisely that exact statement on her page so I understand you'll just engage in one of your logically fallacious handwaving to ignore the meticulous degree in which the above author obliterates any shred of dignity Anita's work had and makes a remarkably strong case that she ought to have her masters degree taken away for blatant intellectual dishonesty. -- (talk) 16:09, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Also, I really enjoy that this woman is spouting that things like this and this are perpetuating a pernicious cultural cycle of sexism, violence, and misogynistic hatred of women, without any evidence whatsoever. And no, really mean comments from the internet trolls do not fit the bill kiddos. -- (talk) 16:47, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
The saltiness is staggering, BoN. Here's the thing. She's not famous for her views. Her views are Feminism 101 deep. She's famous for people like you saying she's a fraud, a scammer, etc. RationalWiki is not presenting her views as sacrosanct and 100% perfect. We're presenting them as a part of who she is and why people like you seem to be intent on dragging her through the mud for no reason other than she decided that she'd talk about video games. It's in fact ridiculous to think that one unnamed person who is obviously biased in Gamergate's favor should be believed that the videos are intellectually dishonest and she should have her Master's revoked. This is patently ridiculous. And finaly, her videos are simply there to critique the use of these sexist and misogynistic tropes in the media, as media reflects the social conscious of its creators and the world at large. If the media, as a whole, keeps perpetuating these tropes, then that's bad, as it perpetuates the ideas in general. She's not blaming video games for anything. She's simply using them as an example, as she used to do for TV and movies before her Kickstarter.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:31, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
No, it's not feminism 101. It's not that it's shallow. It's not that it's basic. It's not even that it's banal. It's pseudoscience that is crazy, incoherent, and wrong. She claims to be producing an academic and educational work without even remotely adhering to even the most basic standards required for such a work while parading her Masters thesis. She falsified research, made false claims about causality, misused and abused basic theoretical and rhetorical terms, failed to provide basic definitions to a variety of terms she employed, and failed to site many of the sources she used while presenting them as her own. Do you have any idea how serious all that is? It does not matter how silly or trivial the subject matter that is being covered, when you aspire to present yourself as an academic research, or a "social scientist" as you call her, you are held to those standards. Even if she is a complete ignorant fool who is clueless as to what actual academic research requires, she is still guilty of intellectual dishonesty and should not possess the Masters degree that allows her to do so under a thin veil of legitimacy. Aside from all that, her critiques often times contradict one another within the same video. She is either a complete idiot who has no idea what she is talking about or a scam artist leveling bizarre nonsense at various media in the hopes of getting a rise out of people, in either case she has NO place in the public eye as a serious feminist pop culture critic. Despite her many, many, many, failings and intellectual dishonesty her work is presented in public without reservation for the sole reason of being a public figure online and getting mean tweets. She has no place in the public classroom, the universities, or the public in general. You've failed to address any of the damning and valid critiques leveled against her, you've just written a word salad with bizarre insults. -- (talk) 03:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Social critique is not pseudoscience. She's a fucking film critic who uses feminism as a lens on her criticism. Her Master's degree was in examining female characters in SFF. How does any of that scream "intellectual dishonesty" to you? And, again, people are free to disagree with her criticisms. But when it gets to the level you're sinking to it's beyond reproach because you're criticizing her rather than anything she's done. You're not bringing up anything specific. It's just a hate-filled rant.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I did indeed give you an exhaustive set of sources that meticulously show that she is guilty of:
  • She falsified research
  • made false claims about causality
  • misused and abused basic theoretical and rhetorical terms
  • failed to provide basic definitions to a variety of terms she employed
  • failed to site many of the sources she used while presenting them as her own
She is not merely a film critic like Roger Ebert who is producing what amounts to an opinion column that is itself an art piece. What she claimed to do, and claims to do, is a series of scholarly research pieces that use feminist sociological theory to examine pop-culture to produce educational work fit for use in the classrooms of primary, secondary, and higher education. I gave a series of meticulously well researched, well cited sources that show beyond a shadow of a doubt Anita is guilty of each of the five forms of intellectual dishonesty I've stated she is guilty of. After establishing beyond a shadow of a doubt she is guilty of intellectual dishonest the next question to ask is if this intellectual dishonesty was done in bad faith or not. Either A) she is an idiot so stupid she is incapable of stringing together two coherent thoughts or B) she knows what she is doing and is actually quite intelligent. Unlike you I do not think Anita is an idiot. You are trying to claim that the substance of my critique of Anita rests on ad hominem. You are trying to say that my claim that her intellectual dishonesty was performed in bad faith is ad hominem therefore the proven case of intellectual dishonesty can be dismissed because it rests on the claim it was done in bad faith when in fact the claim of bad faith rests on the intellectual dishonesty which was made irrespective of her character. Logic motherfucker, do you speak it?-- (talk) 16:04, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
If what she's famous for is the criticism she received, should that criticism not be part of the article? The article has two sentences of "Nonsense claims often made against her" as all the criticism, which is, in your words, what she is famous for. Do you think that part should be expanded? (talk) 12:25, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
That's not at all what I said, BoN. I said she's known for being maliciously attacked for daring to say video games aren't perfect. Maybe you should read the quote from Jim Sterling used on the page to get the point.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:35, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Erm, what is a BoN? I quote you here: "She's famous for people like you saying she's a fraud, a scammer, etc." is that not criticism? I read the Jim Sterling quote and I disagree with your interpretation of it - IMO, the reason why you can't "discuss what she's said" is because a public discussion would get drowned out in insults flung back and forth regarding the harassment she received. But that doesn't have to be the case here - surely we could have a more reasoned debate? At any rate, there is a paragraph on "Nonsense claims often made against her", what would the problem be in devoting some space to criticism that makes more sense? (talk) 15:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Because they aren't criticisms, they are unsubstantiated accusations. That's why we don't say anything about fraud or scamming because there is no shred of evidence about it. Zero (talk - contributions) 16:10, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, but I never argued that we should include unsubstantiated accusations. Do you agree that criticism should be on the page, or not? Do you think the criticism I pointed out at the start of this is unsubstantiated accusations? (talk) 17:04, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
What part of "we aren't discussing or upholding her point of view, but rather discussing the completely irrational way people have responded to her merely having an opinion" don't you understand? And wow, you're completely misinterpretting what Sterling said. The harassment she has received has completely negated any possibility that one camp could theoretically criticize her work. They lost the argument as soon as they began to attack her personally. Also, anyone that does say, "I don't exactly agree with Anita" is raised on a pedestal by these assholes and used as a weapon rather than simply acknowledging two people don't have to have the same point of view.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:37, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
What part of "it's pseudoscience and intellectually dishonest" do you not understand? The whole "The harassment she has received has completely negated any possibility that one camp could theoretically criticize her work" negates any THEORETICAL criticism of her work, not ad hominem fallacies launched against it. You do understand that? No, of course you don't. This is RationalWiki and it's suppose to critique pseudoscience. There are many, many, many, many, many, many, many excellent critiques of how insane, incoherent, and utterly bereft of any scholarship (by even the most basic academic standards) her work really is that never resort to personal attacks. In what way to mean trolls and gendered insults negate valid criticism of her work or place debunking her pseudoscientific nonsense outside the scope of RationalWiki's MO? Seriously, it seems that the only real reason RationalWiki won't do a basic takedown of her bullshit and instead devote an entire page to shielding her from any and all criticism is solely because it wishes to give HER special treatment because SHE has a vagina. In otherwords sexism. -- (talk) 03:44, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Feminist critique is not a pseudoscience no matter how many times you say it is.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Ryu, you are rambling nonsense in a desperate attempt to dismiss the series of offenses of intellectual dishonesty Anita has been proven to have commited. I have no problem with Feminist critique. It is part of the soft sciences and various feminist theoretical epistemologies can indeed be useful for the production of scientific knowledge. I do have a problem with Anita claiming to produce, not series of art criticism, theoretical critiques of art and culture using feminist methodologies when her work not only falls below such standards but in fact engages in a litany of shady intellectually dishonest behaviors that are not minor but in fact VERY serious.
  • She falsified research
  • made false claims about causality
  • misused and abused basic theoretical and rhetorical terms
  • failed to provide basic definitions to a variety of terms she employed
  • failed to site many of the sources she used while presenting them as her own
  • failing to adhere to logical consistency within her work leading to logical inconsistencies within her own videos (this one isn't technically intellectually dishonest but it is one of the reasons why Anita is knee deep in pseudoscience).
Contrary to your feeble attempts to sweep these instances under the rug without dealing with them they ARE serious, especially so for someone like Anita who is claiming to produce a work of serious Academic critique and RESEARCH of culture and yet fails to adhere to even the most basic standards necessary for such a work. Utilizing feminist theory in an academic critique and research, as Anita claims to do, can yield scientific knowledge and scholarship but this is not the case with Anita who has produce work that pretends to the title of sociological scientific research and scholarly critique but is instead the opposite: pseudoscience. -- (talk) 16:04, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Hoo boy. Anyone else get the feeling that Anita's critics would be a lot more respectable if they didn't derail into conspiracy theories and ridiculous rhetoric? Here's a tip: Treat Ms. Sarkeesian's errors as ERRORS, not 'PROOF THAT SHE'S AN SJW/THE NEW JACK THOMPSON/CON ARTIST/FRAUD/PSEUDOSCIENTIST/LUNATIC/DELUSIONAL/TOXIC AND WE'RE TOTALLY JUSTIFIED IN HATING HER AND DEVOTING A HUGE AMOUNT OF OUR TIME ATTACKING HER/DEFENDING HER ATTACKERS/DISMISSING HER HARASSMENT, THEREFORE WE CAN REJECT EVERY SINGLE ONE OF HER POINTS!'— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Nutpicking detected.--Arisboch (talk) 22:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
No, she is the new Jack Thompson.
From one of her more recent lectures -- "When I say that media matters and has an influence on our lives, I'm not saying it's a 1:1 correlation or a monkey-see, monkey-do situation," she said, "but rather that media's influence is subtle and helps to shape our attitudes, beliefs and values for better and for worse. Media can inspire greatness and challenge the status quo or sadly, more often, it can demoralize and reinforce systems of power and privilege and oppression."
This is pseudoscientific bullshit, this theory has no empirical backing and despite the litany of weasel words she employs it's still pseudoscientific bullshit and anyone promoting this concept is an idiot. This is also exactly the logic of Jack Thompson. Thompson sought to limit the types of media in circulation through direct legal action to prevent forms of media he disapproves of from being accessible to consumers. Sarkeesian seeks to limit the types of media in circulation by preventing the media she disapproves of from being produced in the first place. She is the new Jack Thompson. When people draw direct parallels between Thompson and Sarkeesian they are just pointing out the obvious.--Tallyrand (talk) 19:29, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I haven't seen any criticism of Sarkeesian that equates to anything but "How dare she engage in cultural criticism against our sacred cows?!? CLEARLY SHE IS AN AGENT OF THE SJW CABAL SEEKING TO DESTROY OUR INSERT MEDIA HERE!" --Castaigne (talk) 22:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
It's not nutpicking if one "side" is an orchard.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, it feels like it should be it's own fallacy. The assumption that 'criticism' will and should somehow destroy your opponent in the space of one blog post, one video, one forum comment, and that it what's expected of criticism— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I believe someone upthere asked for some sources of criticism that weren't nutzoid. Did someone get on that? Hipocrite (talk) 19:55, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

First edit, knowing myself I WILL get the formatting badly wrong - if not, I'll be surprised. Anyway, yes, someone actually gave links to non-nutzoid criticism of Anita: cainejw's Medium series. Scroll up and look for the links with "dishonesty feminist frequency" in them. It's not light reading despite the crystal clear language - there's A LOT of material, making the posts quite heavy and dense. From what I can tell, though, it seems to be spectacularly well-researched. Unfortunately, people like Ryulong will never acknowledge it, they won't even take a closer look. But you should. Find a few spare hours of your time (yes, hours, these posts are LONG) and decide for yourself.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs
That's the thing. No one wants to spend hours reading these things. Just like no one wants to watch a fucking hour long video of people like Phil Mason attacking Sarkeesian. The point here is thusly: we're not here to debunk her claims because she isn't making any claims. She's criticizing these video games like people to do any other work of art. She's applying the most basic feminist lens to these. The only reason it's remotely polarizing is because she is a woman and the only people mad at her are the neo-Nazi MRA libertarian 4chan rejects who feel this unwavering desire to counter her arguments as if that negated them in any fashion.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:28, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
the only people mad at her are the neo-Nazi MRA libertarian 4chan rejects- Ryulong I get a strong Dubya-vibe form this ("Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.")--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 02:53, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure there's anything inaccurate with what I've said. Her detractors are inordinately of a certain reactionary demographic because everyone else realizes she's benign. It's getting annoying that you keep playing devil's advocate to these stances, Arisboch. Anita Sarkeesian is not a quack at all. She's not like Phyllis Schlafly or Vani Hari such that her stances deserve debunking. The only reason she is covered on RationalWiki is because of the irrational ire towards her.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:53, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Dubya-vibe is intensifying. You seem to think that just, because some of her critics are cunts, that she's right.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 10:34, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
No. I'm saying her critics are overwhelmingly assholes and generally have very little to say other than reveal that they're assholes. And drop this demonic advocacy BS.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:38, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Demonic advocacy? I'm not talking about Harry Potter XD--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 10:40, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Using "devil's advocate" twice in a row would be a faux pas.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:47, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
"Benign" does not mean "right," Arisboch. It just means that the anger is... Ridiculous. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar~) 10:44, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Wait, Ryulong, so first you claim that "there is very little criticism of her arguments out there that are not mired in abject hatred of feminism". Someone gives you a viable option and you don't want to even so much as acknowledge it simply because you're lazy and hide your laziness behind a blanket "nobody". So now, "easy to read" is an unstated co-requirement for you to acknowledge any criticism of Anita as viable. That's just not fair. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs (signed by bot) 07:57, 02 August 2015 (UTC)
This thread has been going on for a fucking month and a half BoN. And you already read the criticism. Summarize it for us instead of demanding we spend hours pouring over it ourselves.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:28, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Skimming through this shit is throwing off red flags left and right. "Anita used this fan art without permission." Last I checked, she apologized for that. The writer is criticizing them because they didn't cite the statement "video games are fun" or "video games improve motor skills". And as I get deeper into this first one it delves into nonsense attacks on feminism and the fact that they don't define terms like "sexism". For fucks sake I just scrolled to a Valerie Solanas name drop. If this is the tone JW is setting in all of these, I'm afraid you're SOL.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:35, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Also it seems that there's already been a decent discussion of CaineJW's writings elsewhere. Also, he mistakes the use of super muscular men in video games as being offputting to heterosexual men in a sexual sense when they're a power proxy.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:44, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
And it's nice that CaineJW repeatedly always refers to the creators of Tropes vs. Women with McIntosh listed first.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:47, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
That's something you took from the ridiculous name-calling on the first link you gave? The actual critical post at the top is decent, if insulting (for the record, I also happen to disagree with the way CaineJW describes agency from a purely out-of-universe POV, but then turns around to describe power from a purely in-universe POV, which doesn't make much sense), but the comments below are from all kinds of people, including stupid ones... and the accusation about the name order is pretty fucking stupid, indeed. All Caine's doing here is writing their surnames in alphabetical order. Which is STANDARD PRACTICE in academia. The links you gave do a much better job criticizing Caine than you do. Narky Sawtooth has a decent point, also. To you, Ryulong, all I can say is grow a fucking brain, please.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs
"Caine's writing their surnames in alphabetical order" that is a fucking stretch. The fact that McIntosh is listed first when everyone and their mother knows that Sarkeesian is the one who everyone actually knows about is really disingenuous. It's showing that he thinks, much like every Gamergater, that McIntosh runs the show and Sarkeesian is his sockpuppet that lacks agency. There's literally no fucking reason to go "he's listing them in alphabetical order". And that criticism comes straight out of the GamerGhazi threads I found that discussed cainejw's writings. And just as they point out, cainejw's pieces are full of pseudointellectual garbage crafted in a way for other Gamergaters to eat it up. You want to see some actual legitimate critique of Tropes vs. Women? Here. A guy pointing out that much of the unflattering depictions of female characters in video games from the 80s and 90s stems from the regressive nature and rigid conformity of Japanese society, while American-created depictions of the same characters were arguably more empowering for women. The main difference here is that he's actually critiquing what she said instead of spending multiple pages and postings going "Jonathan McIntosh and Anita Sarkeesian are intellectually dishonest".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Goodness gracious, Ryulong, you really are crazy. Caine does not state anything about Sarkeesian's and Mcintosh's relative importance, so why jumping to conclusions all of a sudden? First of all, in the credits of her videos, while she alone is listed as the director, BOTH are listed as writers. This means that, from an academic standpoint, both have to be mentioned. As for the name order, placing surnames in alphabetical order is a standard practice that universities beat you over the head with. As an undergrad studying Russian philology I understand that much, at least. He's not mentioning them in any supposed order of importance, he's mentioning them in alphabetical order... just like any other time he mentions multiple names. Second, if you CTRL+F "McIntosh" through all five pages, you will find out that occasionally he slips up and puts Sarkeesian's name first. Had Caine been such a conspiracy theorist as you describe, such a mistake would be out of character. Instead, it seems to suggest that Caine actually perceives Sarkeesian as more important and that perception is strong enough to occasionally interfere with a standard academic practice. Third, the fact that he's trying to prove intellectual dishonesty of Sarkeesian's videos does not mean he's attacking her personally. He never does. He goes through their videos point by point, trying to refute wrong claims, request for more and better sources and question lapses in logic. The problems, in Caine's opinion, are so large that intellectual dishonesty is the only reasonable explanation. He doesn't assume any motives for such actions, nor does he claim that this makes them bad people. He simply wants them to step up the quality of their work. Whether Caine's own writings are any good is not even relevant at this point, because you're describing them as a personal attack, which it clearly isn't. You're implying that he isn't working with her arguments, which he does - your opinion on the results may differ, you may think he's being entirely inaccurate to the point of pseudo-intellectuality, but implying that his writings are based on personalities first and on arguments second is just plain wrong. Lastly, the link you gave can be basically summed up as "yeah, she's correct but for a different culture". The core of her arguments is not actually challenged.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs
Gamergaters as a whole think Sarkeesian is some puppet operated by McIntosh. The fact that cainejw specifically lists him first and her second is telling of that. In actual academic circles, authors are listed as they are in the paper being cited. The first author is always considered to be the primary author/investigator, and anyone that comes next is considered to have less influence on the composition and study. Sarkeesian is listed before McIntosh on their shared about page, which suggests she's the primary author and should be listed first.
I'm not saying he's attacking her personally. I'm saying that the desire to say she's intellectually dishonest is misplaced and not indicative of anything she's actually done. Pointing out mistakes and claiming that she doesn't provide sources (which are included on every single blog page she writes to accompany the videos) is not dishonesty. As Narky said, cainejw has spent so much time on this saying "I'd do this differently" and making assumptions about their intent, which is still masked by how Gamergate has turned her into some sort of video game bogeyman out to destroy the industry.
And the final thing to say here is that her videos are not for extreme academia. They're for the general public to understand feminist critique. Feminist academics would find it boring because it is women's studies 101. That's where nearly everything Gamergate hates about her and thinks that she should have her MA revoked falls apart. Cainejw's take down is misplaced and not proper constructive criticism of her series whatsoever.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
I have decided that, possibly, the way my university does things is not the only way possible and I have decided to actually look it up. In short, according to Wikipedia, you have no fucking clue what you're talking about. I admit that sometimes the primary author/investigator is sometimes placed first, but many fields consistently place the primary author LAST, believe it or not.
Furthermore, many fields simply list the authors alphabetically, regardless of their degree of involvement. Wikipedia cites several different guidelines on this. In most of the "purely alphabetical" guidelines, the idea is that the primary author must be underlined. However, because on a web page, links are also underlined, this is clearly impractical and would lead to confusion.
Also, sometimes it's not actually possible to divine the primary author due to disagreement between co-authors. This is not the case here, but it's just one more reason to simply be consistent and use alphabetical order - and many fields do. Considering that any time Caine mentions multiple names, he mentions them in alphabetical order, it seems that he subscribes to this practice in order to be consistent, not due to Gamergate's opinions on the matter.
I will admit that my knowledge of the "name order" subject was limited... but yours seems to be even more so. — Unsigned, by: / talk at 12:30, 4 August 2015
If you're citing people, you follow the order in the publication. Anita is listed first on their website. Most people know of her. Listing McIntosh first is disingenuous at best because it's the coded form of saying he's the brains of the outfit and she isn't. Let's leave it at that.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
It seems I've confused "how you place your own names in a work" with "how you cite others". I do want to note, though, that, as far as I remember the guidelines we're using, my university does insist on alphabetical order even in citations... and, apparently, I'm not the only one.
Still, even if "alphabetical order for everything" is not proper formatting, Caine seems to be doing it all across the board (except for when he slips up by accident), so, at least, he's trying to be consistent here. Do you mean he's purposely using the wrong formatting for EVERY case of citing multiple authors (not just Sarkeesian and McIntosh) to hide a disingenuous tactic? That would be a fairly bold claim - not as bold as the claims he makes about their videos, but still bold enough to make me question your assumption here.
The CAPTCHA is saying "down the rabbit hole", which seems hilariously appropriate. Anyway, if you can elaborate on this claim in a decent way, I'll leave. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs 13:30, 4 August 2015‎ (UTC)
I advise against either of you continuing a conversation based on induction. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar~) 13:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
And sign your posts, BoN. Four tildes. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar~) 13:53, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
And I'd advise them to just swallow their stupid pride and admit how stupid this is. Authorship conventions on academic papers is main writer first, most prominent contributor last, and secondary contributors in between. That's why you do "X et al" citations because X is presumed to be the primary author. Even so, we're clearly not dealing with anything even remotely academic. This is a stupid wiki talk page, and you're pushing a stupid-ass point of view on it. Nothing like academia. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 13:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
"Against" and "mad at" are two different things. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar~) 10:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
(alright, I'm sleepy, so this is going to be disjointed and confusing) To the BoN mentioning those links way up high: Most of the contents of the links is just "this is what they think" backed up with things that the writer thinks they (the writer) would do if they (the writer) thought that way. That is something that should not be done. The writer is taking the shortest path for setting themselves up for a fall. The rest of it is also "this is why *I'd* do these things" reasoning. Never do this, especially not while calling people "inconsistent." Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar~) 10:57, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

"Criticism of Anita Sarkeesoan.' Fine in theory, but in practise it frequently amounts to little more than slightly more eloquent wordings of 'She's a delusional idiotic con artist and nothing she has ever said has any value whatsoever! Destroy her!' Maybe we should put some variation of this under 'nonsense claims.'— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

It's under "Video games".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Anita's Pseudoscience and Intellectual Dishonesty[edit]

So no one has given any reason why there shouldn't be a take down of Antia's insane rantings. She deconstructs media misusing various forms of literary theory and then explores it's impact on society. She makes wild and downright crazy claims about how media influences people and tries to justify her conclusions by abusing empirical sociological studies and statistics. Her work is, by and large, a media effects study.

From her website: The video series was created by Anita Sarkeesian in 2009 and largely serves as an educational resource to encourage critical media literacy and provide resources for media makers to improve their works of fiction.

Anita Sarkeesian is a media critic and the creator of Feminist Frequency, a video webseries that explores the representations of women in pop culture narratives. Her work focuses on deconstructing the stereotypes and tropes associated with women in popular culture as well as highlighting issues surrounding the targeted harassment of women in online and gaming spaces. Anita earned her bachelor’s degree in Communication Studies at California State University Northridge and her Master’s degree in Social and Political Thought at York University.

Anita lectures and presents at universities, conferences and game development studios internationally. She’s been a presenter and panelist at various fan, media and technology conferences and has also facilitated and taught multi-day filmmaking workshops. She has been interviewed and featured in publications such as Forbes, Wired, The Boston Globe, The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times. Her videos are freely available via the Feminist Frequency YouTube channel and widely serve as educational tools in high school and university classrooms.

As any idiot can see she is marketing her brand as an academic educational resource fit for University courses and is implicitly claiming that her work should be held to those standards.

I see no reason why her shady marketing techniques, factual inaccuracies, intellectual dishonesty, and misuse and abuse of scientific research to present her pseudoscientific bullshit assertions about how media affects society as being empirically valid isn't relevant. --Tallyrand (talk) 18:32, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Yawn. You've made the same hackneyed attacks as you did earlier in the month. She doesn't make any of the claims you insist she does, which would be obvious if you watched one of her videos in their entirety instead of whatever garbage hack and slash job Phil Mason or Davis Aurini gave it. Come back when you have something novel that we haven't already debunked because you or others brought it up already.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:20, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Anita states in the Damsel in Distress video that women being weaker than men is "a deeply ingrained socially constructed myth, which of course is completely false" Clearly, this goes against established science, which recognizes humans, like all or nearly all primates, to be sexual dimorphic.— Unsigned, by: ‎ / talk / contribs
It's about ethics in sexual dimorphism --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 02:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
You're ignoring quite a few people. Who says everyone has that magic number 46? WalkerWalkerWalker 13:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Should we update this?[edit]

Anitas made a speaking appearance that supposedly deconstructs her harassers arguments ( I say supposedly because I haven't watched the video yet.) Is the page going to be updated to reflect that? Actually, I kinda think the page should be updated in some way, it's looking a little stagnant. I can't really suggest how... It's just that it feels like a lots happened in the meantime and this article doesn't reflect that. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

I've watched the video and will try to include something. Zero (talk - contributions) 00:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

So Sarkeesian talked about Internet harassment to the UN yesterday, and gators are already mewling about how she's advocating censorship because she considers the perpetual accusations of being a liar being part of her harassment. Any rebuttal to that notion?

The accusations are just another form of self-justification for GamerGaters to spin their own narrative to convince themselves they're doing The Right Thing™. The sad part is that its more likely for people to dismiss Anita Sarkeesian's (or any other woman's) concerns because American culture has a deep unconscious bias about women not being taken seriously, and that men's opinions should be given priority over women's. Withoutaname (talk) 04:05, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Gators is the same.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:36, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Is there a video of the engagement she had at the UN? I have the feeling it might be hours long but I'd want to put it on the background for use. Zero (talk - contributions) 18:44, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
There's a link on the Gamergate timeline to where it was live streamed and somewhere on that page is the recording.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:04, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
The UN? How the hell did some two-bit YouTube-video-uploader came to speak before the United Nothing Nudniks Nations? As a fig leaf for having Saudi Arabia in the UNHRC?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 19:32, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Because idiots yelled at her on the Internet for having opinions while female.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:04, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
So Anita is the living embodiment of the Streisand Effect and came to all her fame and fortune now not due to her being anything special, butu due to being at the right place at the right time.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 20:18, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
The point of her involvement in what happened at the UN General Assembly was because of the attacks she suffered. Same reason Zoe Quinn was there. It had nothing to do with her criticism of video games...directly.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:12, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
She also managed to toughen up and speak out about the harassment. If you think about it, and substitute anyone in place of Ms. Sarkeesian, would they have been able to play out the same role? Would they have been invited to the United Nations for a hearing? Withoutaname (talk) 23:01, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Why should I or anyone else give a fuck about that kinda speculations??--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 23:06, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
The only reason she's speaking at a conference about women facing misogynistic verbal abuse online is because she was a victim of misogynistic verbal abuse online and didn't back down. I'm not sure what bullshit you're reaching for Arisboch. I guess this would be Streisand effect on behalf of the primordial ooze that became Gamergate because they never expected a woman (gasp) to stand up to their verbal abuse and cyberstalking.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:34, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, something like that. These GG clowns wanted to push her off the net, but made her richer and famous instead.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 23:37, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
She already had a following in certain circles for her discourse, but I will concede that she would not have become an expert on violent threats faced by women on the Internet had she not become a target of violent threats on the Internet. Her feminist theories can stand on their own as they had already gotten her $50k without these idiots' involvement.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:47, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
The really big bucks and fame came because of GG.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 23:49, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Recognition outside of whatever small circle of Internet feminists she was a part of came about because of proto-GG. It diminishes her accomplishments otherwise to suggest that GG is the only reason she's successful.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:56, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
It's the truth, though. Without GG she'd be just some obscure YouTuber with moderately successful Kicksterter. Through GG, she came even to speak before the fuckin UN.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 23:59, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
If she hadn't been attacked, yeah that would have been the case. She was attacked and she didn't back down and that's what normal people recognize. Stop trying to take away from what she accomplished by saying it's "because of GG" rather than "in spite of GG".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
What she has accomplished? Uploading some boring YouTube videos?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 00:11, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
And nobody would've heard of Malala Yousafzai if she hadn't been shot in the head by the Taliban. But how is a person struggling against major hostile forces earning that person media attention supposed to be a blemish on their achievements? Unless you somehow consider "getting media attention" a more noteworthy achievement than "standing up for what is right". >.> (By that account, isn't Kim Kardashian the greatest person in the world?) (talk) 00:11, 27 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
Even more appeals to emotion. How lame.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 14:15, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I actually wouldn't of heard of her if you didn't just post that. Looked 'em up, I'm glad I am now aware of them. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (pretentious, unwarranted self importance) (talk) 00:12, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Glad to be of service. ;) "Of" isn't an auxiliary verb, though. >.> (It's not even a verb.) (talk) 00:15, 27 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

Back on track...[edit]

Anyway, the notion that Anita wants to throw her critics in jail is still making the rounds among her detractors, such as this blog post from The Kodu (again). It should be addressed in the Nonsense Claims section. --Paul S (talk) 04:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

"So Sarkeesian talked about Internet harassment to the UN yesterday, and gators are already mewling about how she's advocating censorship because she considers the perpetual accusations of being a liar being part of her harassment. Any rebuttal to that notion?" Well, as usual, it relies on mining a rather vague quote, interpreting it in the worst possible way, & ignoring anything else that was said. Zoe Quinn spoke right before her, & mentioned how people would call her home, employers, etc. That kind of context totally changes the question, because it's not just "some guy called me a liar," it's people actively seeking you out to call you names (including liar) constantly, among everything else they're doing, with stated goals like "driving her off the internet" & "getting her to kill herself," & I can't see how that's anything OTHER than harassment. Also, if the critics had "so many valid points," why would it even bother them if YouTube was thinking of banning ad hominems (which they're not)? (talk) 03:51, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Intellectual Dishonesty[edit]

Early in the year the user Serocco made this point about Anita Sarkeesian

Content cut directly from archives

Some of the things in particular

1.) arguing that cooperation and peace are inherently "feminine" when in fact societies with men have also had values of peace cooperation and non violence

2.) claiming that the powerpuff girls was anti feminist when in fact the entire point is that real equality means that both men and women get treated equally before the law (i.e. if a woman breaks the law they should get the same punishment as any man) and that the character of Femme Fatale is arguing that because women have had a hard time they should be allowed to have a free pass to commit violent crimes. She seems to be implying that there are no feminists like that all.

3.) Claims that Clarice Starling isn't a feminist character even though she has the most screen time, is the one driving the story arc etc. and that Mattie Ross isn't feminist even though she chooses her own goals, fights her battles, drives the story etc.

4.) Arguing that having any female villains or anti heroes regardless of their motivations and reasons is being sexist (even if the women have sympathetic motivations, genuine character arcs etc).

come across as fundamentally dishonest and sexist. What any woman who is violent or dark is negative from the word go? What about complex female protagonists?

— Unsigned, by: LordYam / talk / contribs 03:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I'm readdressing this in a second because it was a pain in the ass to read through seeing as he formatted it horribly and you did as well when you copied it from him.
All of this really boils down to how she equates fantasy violence with toxic masculinity.
But the real thing to gather here is this article is not about her views, it's about the batshit insane reaction people had to her decision to critique video games. Her opinions are only being presented in contrast to the ridiculous claims people make against her.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
That just seems like an excuse to avoid talking about her. She wants her work to be published in universities so that means her work itself needs to be analyzed and if it has flaws to have those flaws laid bare. Saying that "it's not about her" is foolish, since articles about people such as bill maher go into both the absurdities of his views and analyze the nitty gritty. Saying "it's just about the reactions" is cowardly and seems to imply that the site doesn't want to actually address that her views may be flawed in many ways. In that regard people who criticize her are dead on. What's wrong with listing counter arguments to her points or pointing out that she herself is sexist? — Unsigned, by: LordYam / talk / contribs 06:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
No. She wants her video series to be used as an educational tool for laypeople who don't know shit about feminist critical analysis. We aren't examining her video series. We're discussing the fucked up way people reacted to her announcing her plans for the video series and the constant vitriol sent her way because of that video series. What she says with regards to feminist analysis of video games is not really of any importance to RationalWiki, nor are the nuances of her personal opinions and personal interpretation of feminist theory. What people irrationally say about her is what matters. And also, any possible critique of her work has been made impossible due to this hatred towards her. You and Serocco are just trying to weasel in these miniscule nitpicks you have against her just because it's all that there is. And finally, she isn't sexist. She just hates violence.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:58, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
And quoting Jim Sterling, "The chance to debate [Anita Sarkeesian] on merit was lost once people started threatening to rape her."—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:03, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Excusing people from criticism, 'cause they were the victims of internet harassment? What the fuck kind of bullshit is that???--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 13:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
It's the kind of bullshit everyone else gets because none of the garbage that LordYam has brought up is even criticism. The well is poisoned so much that this is the best people can come up with.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:58, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
*sigh* Aren't there other places on the Internet that you could use to discuss her points? Even the Forum is better for you than this. Withoutaname (talk) 08:44, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Cause the article about Sarkeesian is totally not the place to analyze stuff she said, amirite?Sarcasm.gif--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 13:27, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
People do, but it just has to be on this page apparently.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:04, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Does the phrase 'Intellectual Dishonesty' sound really pretentious, or is it just me? Going from the examples, all I'm getting is that she has opinions on feminism I don't entirely agree with, but I'm not sure why that's a massive problem. Besides, they really oversimplify the problems. I'm pretty sure she just listed 'Femme Fatale' as an example of the 'Straw Feminist' that gets used a lot and has the connotation that feminism is unnecessary now (whether or not it actually is). Cooperation and peace as inherently feminine is a reflection of how 'manliness' get connected to violence and toughness and it's opposite is applied to women. And while Mattie Ross is more contentious than Anita make her out to be (although she's not incorrect in saying that she's basically a girl acting like a man in order to be 'tough') Clarice Starling is also a little more contentious than he makes her out to be, particularly with her allegiance with Hannibal Lecter. There's a good roundtable here that highlights the matter: But yeah, not really seeing the deal breaker here. Her interpretations disagree with mine, sure, but that's it.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Even if she isn't entirely wrong on Mattie Ross (I disagree but whatever) her saying that female anti heroes and villains are somehow sexist does create the implication that the only female character she approves of is a saintly and pure archetype even if that's not what she intends. Another main issue is that Femme Fatale is someone saying "I'm oppressed I should have the right to be a criminal" when in fact actual feminists want equal treatment (meaning that if you break the law you don't get a lesser sentence because you're a girl). That was one of the points of the episode and Anita completely overlooks that. Another element is the fact that as the person who ran the kickstarter she would have approved all the comments that appeared, including the hateful ones. That leaves open the chance that maybe she deliberately approved the criticism that was hateful while not approving criticism that was more reasoned. The fact that her movies are the exact same quality after receiving money also implies that she didn't use the money to improve her series despite that being the point. But the final element is the idea that being on the receiving end of death threats means she's above criticism. She wants her work to be used in university classrooms and as academic tools. That means they should be subject to the same scrutiny as any other academic tool; if someone were to find something wrong they should be allowed to say that she's wrong. Just because some people were vile doesn't mean that are work is above reproach. Saying that because someone sent vile death threats her arguments can't be criticized or have problems pointed out is like saying that because the US right wing blatantly overexxagerated the threat of communism that Communism isn't a stupid and ultimately unworkable idea. Sure some of her points may be legitimate but that does not mean that her work is beyond reproach or analysis --LordYam (talk) 20:58, 9 October 2015 (UTC)LordYAM
LordYam, feminism seeks to change how women are marginalized in society in comparison to men. Basing your arguments against Anita Sarkeesian's opinions based on video she made 4 years ago is poor as hell. People didn't post messages to her on her Kickstarter. They were coming from everywhere else and directed at her, so this comment of yours is coming close to saying "professional victim". And, again, the RationalWiki page on Anita Sarkeesian is not discussing her analytical skills but rather the irrational hate towards her. Do not keep making your same argument predicated on her stance on violent media.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:11, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
"The RationalWiki page on Anita Sarkeesian is not discussing her analytical skills but rather the irrational hate towards her" is also coming close to saying "professional victim". WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:16, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
That's how it's been treated long before I ever. The irrational behavior directed at her is what the page is about rather than whatever stances she personally has because critiquing feminist theory isn't something any one of us really has the skill set for. Also LordYam said that she is to blame for being attacked because she didn't properly moderate her Kickstarter comments section.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:24, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Anita's problem with Femme Fatale is not that nobody in the world is anything like her, but that she is being portrayed as a typical feminist, and that she's part of a larger pattern of 'straw feminists' in the media. There are over 7 billion people on this planet and you can find someone that will believe in just about anything you can think of; Anita is not saying "no-one in the world acts like this". "She seems to be implying that there are no feminists like that all" is a misrepresentation of her point, which is that the vast majority of feminists are nothing like this. —Bilorv (needs a slap) 21:47, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand how this Ryulong person keeps saying the page is only about the insane reaction to her rather than her views. Lots of people get insane reactions to the things they say online. Anita is certainly about more than that. There is calm and reasoned criticism against her, but this is ignored and subsumed under batshit insane and therefore not worthy of discussion. That's incredibly lazy and biased. Where the article deigns to discuss such, it's clear no real research is even attempted. Hitman's female characters are nothing but eye candy? Incorrect. Context matters, and if you willfully ignore it how can you call yourself rational? (talk) 04:30, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Because RationalWiki is not directly covering her views. It's covering people's views of her. Because she's not a radical voice online. People just have irrationally reacted to her decision to talk critically about video games. The whole Hitman situation is just pointless cherrypicking to say "she's wrong about this so she's wrong about everything else". Also these are her opinions. Opinions are not for tearing down. You can have opposing opinions and that doesn't make either yours or hers any less valid. When will Gamergaters realize this? Particularly how she's not advocating for censorship of anything but more varied games about different subjects.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Except she also implies that having any female villains or anti heroines is somehow sexist. No matter how complex they are or their motives it's sexist. I'm sorry but that's nonsense of the highest caliber. And the idea that Anita's views can't be ripped apart or critiqued is absurd, not to mention cowardly. LordYam — Comment made by, who may or may not be the same person as LordYam. —Bilorv (needs a slap) 09:32, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

People can criticize her but that's not what this page is for. And the point is that public debate turns into something to attack her personally with rather than start any sort of actual discussion on feminist theory when applied to video games. The obsession you folks have with wanting to debate this woman's opinions is unhealthy. What she says doesn't have any personal impact on you or anyone else. Her condemnation of Lara Croft's breasts doesn't mean in the next Tomb Raider she'll have undergone a double mastectomy.—Ryulong (talk) 11:24, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
People can criticize her but that's not what this page is for.- Ryulong 'Cause this is the article of praise and glorification of our Holey Saint Anita teh First?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 18:31, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
But... But... someone is WRONG (in other words "has another opinion") on the INTERNET! --Irian (talk) 12:17, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
They gotta protect their waifu tiddies and completely fail to understand the difference between the things a government can and can't do and things private entities can and can't do.—Ryulong (talk) 13:24, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
If (hypothetically) a private website banned you indefinitely, you wouldn't complain because you understand the difference between "things a government can do and things a private entity can do". Is that right? Sarah (HH) 22:08, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
...Ryulong was pretty clearly talking about Anita's ability to actually ban games, not making an argument that it's only censorship if the government does it. He may or may not be believe that latter claim (which, if so, is bull), but...for fuck's sake, at least try to figure out what people are actually saying.KrytenKoro (talk) 22:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
I understood what he wrote just fine... maybe you have insight into what he was thinking new-user-who-only-edits-pages-ryulong-also-edits? :) Sarah (HH) 22:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
No but I know you're thinking I'm being a hypocrite for suggesting that private websites can do whatever the fuck they want without it being called infringement of someone else's rights to free speech by slyly referencing the fact I was banned from Wikipedia. But the problem with your analogy is that I never accused ArbCom of infringing on my right to free speech or that I was censored.—Ryulong (talk) 22:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Why Google linked me to this feminist biased article?[edit]

I want to know why. Any user online to reply me?. (talk) 14:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Why not? I didn't think GGers cared about her anymore anyway. Shouldn't you be focused on ethics in game journalism?Petey Plane (talk) 14:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Why don't you go to Google and whine to them?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 14:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I am not a gamer and Anita Sarkeesian still relevant because she wants to censor the internet to avoid "online harassment". Everyone whines to Google, even you SJWs. (talk) 15:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Making the case that many online communities breed misogyny in front of a group that has little to no control in the actual content of the intertubes is not trying to "censor the internet." Also, i didn't realize Google forced you to read every page that they link you to.--Petey Plane (talk) 15:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Dear sir or madam[edit]

(Who are we kidding, dear sir)Google uses a couple of major algorithms to determine what to link you. The most familiar of which is known as "PageRank". PageRank uses what people link to on the internet in order to determine what pages are relevant for any given search term. In general, this means you got this page because essentially a plurality of people talking about Sarkeesian on the internet think this article is a relevant one. Another major algorithm is called "TrustRank" which google essentially uses to determine how likely a given page is to be loaded with bullshit, by measuring the frequency of untrue (or apparently untrue) statements on a website. This is likely the reason you aren't seeing many pro-gamergate links near the top of your results. There is nothing anyone on this wiki has done to SEO or otherwise cause google to uprank this page. It's just the internet thinking you're full of shit.

Best regards ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposed new "Nonsense Claim" to address: "She's a scam artist! She promised us this amount of videos in this amount of time!"[edit]

I have a handy rebuttal to make. If people like this, I request that this be added to the article.

Her detractors seem woefully unfamiliar with a whole load of perfectly reasonable arguments about why such funding campaigns for projects tend to arrive late. This is an invaluable article about why this sort of stuff happens: . Particularly relevant to Feminist Frequency are the sections within the article entitled "Sheer Scale" and "Changing Scope", which relate to what happens when any Kickstarter Project receives more than its original target goal. Long story short, the people running the Kickstarters that they deliver on wind up needing to expand their projects beyond what was originally intended and making it bigger, which of course leads to delays. As we can see with Tropes vs Women In Video Games, this was quite evidently the case, for a myriad of reasons.

Her critics often focus on the "12 videos/episodes" thing as well, but this amounts to cherry-picking since it ignores other relevant numbers from Sarkeesian's Kickstarter: . Sarkeesian was initially only going to examine a "handful of examples for each trope" when she started her Kickstarter. But as pointed out in this update , she now looks through hundreds of games, including referencing "182 games in our coverage of the Damsel in Distress trope alone (and) have also catalogued and documented over 548 examples of the Damsel in Distress throughout the history of video games." Let us repeat this for emphasis: Five Hundred and Forty Eight. Beyond maybe a handful of those examples, the overwhelming majority have not been addressed by her so-called "critics".

Also, her videos were only initially going to be 10-12 minutes long. Now, because of the expansion of the project, it means that of her episodes, "Damsels in Distress" went very nearly 1 hour and 15 minutes, "Ms Male Character" went 25 minutes, "Women as Background Decoration" went just over an hour, "Women As Reward" went just over 42 minutes (includes the special DLC "mini-episode") and "Positive Female Characters in Video Games" is, so far, clocking in at just over 18 minutes, with more videos due to come for that episode. We can also include the smaller videos in the series - "The Legend of the Lost Princess", "25 Invisible Benefits of Gaming While Male", and the "Assassin's Creed: Syndicate" review - that clock in at a combined 15 minutes. So what happens when we do the math for all this? We get, at the time of writing, a total of around 3 hours and 55 minutes (or 235 minutes) of video footage, divided by Anita's initial goal of having videos that lasted 10-12 minutes, then essentially within the series she's produced the equivalent of 19 to 23 videos by the initial standards she set. And of course, that's not even including all the speeches at conferences and television appearances she's done too since she began the Kickstarter:

It's utter insanity on the part of the mob opposing Sarkeesian to think that an absurdly literal reading on how many episodes she needed to have apparently released now is somehow the only thing that matters when determining the value for money her backers have gained from supporting her project, when in reality we would imagine her backers are actually delighted about how much the project expanded, and that Sarkeesian is out there very efficiently raising awareness about the issues of sexism in video games and in the gaming industry, catching the attention and support of high profile people and organisations and especially game developers. And unlike the people that her critics latch onto (Sargon, Thunderf00t, Roguestar, the Sarkeesian Effect creators), Sarkeesian has actually released a financial report for everyone to see, and of course she's also submitted tax forms to the IRS as part of being a non-profit, so it ultimately takes tin-hat conspiracy theories for anyone to believe she's somehow hood-winking the IRS.

And of course, there's the fact that even if one is not a financial backer or in general a supporter of Feminist Frequency, the fact of the matter is that one can still watch their videos for absolutely free on YouTube and there is nothing making them either watch and/or donate to any Feminist Frequency produced video if they want to watch it, and for that matter her videos are also free of advertisements, so there's no need to worry about netting Sarkeesian more money through those means. Whereas if one looks at the recent example of the Sarkeesian Effect, one can see that this "documentary", at the time of writing, exists behind a paywall so you can only watch it if you give Jordan Owen more money. Somewhat ironic and hypocritical considering that documentary's own claims about Anita being a "scam artist", and yet there has not been nearly the backlash towards Jordan Owen and Davis Aurini that Anita has received.

Please let me know what you think, make any edits if necessary, and let's see if we can get this in the main article. Jon91919 (talk) 17:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I support! FuzzyCatPotato of the Overwrought Poop scoops (talk/stalk) 20:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Anita's Irony vs Anita's law[edit]

I would change this myself but I'm too new and the page is locked. In the synopsis, the second paragraph reads in part:

> This transformation from mild mannered cultural critic to massive target of misogynistic hate gave rise to the term Anita's irony and brought...

It looks like the entry in Feminist internet laws has been renamed to Anita's Law, so the hash link needs updating accordingly.

Good article BTW, Squiggleslash (talk) 18:01, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Done, thanks. I will set you up so you can edit the page. Hold on a second. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 19:15, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! Squiggleslash (talk) 19:27, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

“Nonsense” Claims Gish Gallop[edit]

6.1 Sexist video games = violent video games trope[edit]

You began them weeks ago. But, for humour value, let's take your 6.1: It's clear you haven't understood that section at all. The error is not about any equivalence between 'Games can make you X' for different X, but in assuming that if it is disproven for X1 (violence) then it must be disproven for all X (sexism, compulsive behaviour, jumping on mushrooms, etc.). In fact, it is proven, not disproven, for X2 (sexism). If she was beating that drum as a hypothetical possibility, then scepticism might be warranted, based on how similar to X1 you considered X2 would be. In the presence of disproof, then the comparisons to Jack Thompson would be warranted. But neither of those is the case - it's proven. Hence your criticism swings and misses completely. Then there's some nonsensical bullshit about a hidden assumption, which in this case is just a fancy way of admitting that you're trying to put words into her mouth because what she actually said doesn't fit your characterisation. Queexchthonic murmurings 15:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
The hidden assumption are in the article about what consequences should be drawn from the findings that are being asserted. The article portrays Jack Thompson as wanting to persecute devs, and then contrast this with Anita Sarkeesian who "just/merely" likes to point things out. But is this even the criticism? That's a strawman. The criticism is that people claim video games have harmful effects on consumers. In this regard Thompson and Sarkeesian are similar, case closed. If it the dispute that one thing doesn't have an effect (violence) but the other does (sexism), then THIS claim must be addressed and Jack Thompson is irrelevant. Aneris ✻ (talk) 16:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Bloody hell, even when the point is hammered home you miss it completely. "If it the dispute that one thing doesn't have an effect (violence) but the other does (sexism), then THIS claim must be addressed " It has been addressed - that's what the studies show. Violence no (although the jury is still out on aggression), attitudes to sex and gender, yes. Case closed. The reason it is a false comparison is because of that difference in whether science backs up their claim. Fuck me, you're argument is a mess. Queexchthonic murmurings 19:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
That's not the dispute. :Rolleyes: The article makes claims about the parallels between Thompson and Sarkeesian which are dubious, not the claim that sexist video games make people sexist (which may or may not be true, I didn't bother with that). Aneris ✻ (talk) 20:49, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
...The science is the reason why the comparison is faulty. How can you not see that? Queexchthonic murmurings 20:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Look. If that was the message, which it is not, the article would state: "A study by so-and-so shows[1] this and this, by contrast a link between games and violence could not be established". Sprinkle in Jack and Anita, Done. It's anyway a bullshit inference to assume that one thing that doesn't carry over automatically means that nothing carries over. This is also obviously (and trivially) false. You don't need studies for that. Maybe it's atrocious writing that the comparison is made, and the article then says "No" as if Anita Sarkeesian does not assert "that sexist tropes in video games make gamers more sexist" which she obviously does. And she obviously also does appear like a Jack Thompson style character who makes structurally similar points. You can't go in with "No". The article then goes onto a long tangent and spends most space with the alleged consequences from the findings, which are -- as written above -- based on strawmanning and unique motte-and-bailey doctrines (i.e. advocating for social justice and change, but then tactically pretending that no consequences are intended, which is just disingenious). Aneris ✻ (talk) 04:48, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Jack Thompson wanted to enforce legislation to ban video games like GTA and such despite the studies that point out how violence in video games does not cause people to become more violent (it increases their aggression but that's something else entirely). Meanwhile, Anita Sarkeesian cites multiple studies that show sexist portrayals in media reinforce sexist ideas in those who consume the media and at no point does she ever discuss wanting to push legislation that would ban video games featuring sexist depictions of female characters. Stop being full of bullshit.—Ryulong (talk) 04:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Here's a handy cut-out-and-keep comparison chart:

Jack Thompson Anita Sarkeesian
Claims that games can influence behaviour Y Y
Claims that that has caused and is causing an epidemic of criminality Y N
Wants to hold devs criminally responsible for crimes committed by gamers Y N
Wants to restrict the sale of games Y N
Has claims backed up by science N Y

You're showing, yet again, that you struggle to read for comprehension. "It's anyway a bullshit inference to assume that one thing that doesn't carry over automatically means that nothing carries over. This is also obviously (and trivially) false." It would be a bullshit inference, so it's a good job I didn't make it, then. I even said that, absent of contrary evidence, you can make a case for the conclusion to carry over. But what GG advocates have done is try to muddy the waters by pretending that part of the evidence doesn't exist, in order to fall back on that weak inference. The only reason to make that comparison between JT and AS is in order to tar AS with the same brush, to make the implication that her claims concerning behaviour should be dismissed as JT's are. The moment someone raises the spectre of the contradictory evidence, if they don't try to fight over the validity of the research (often by attacking social science in general, which is a curious tack to take when the exculpatory evidence for violence that they rely on comes from the same field), they try to argue for a weaker comparison- i.e. perform the same motte and bailey manoeuvre that you're performing now. Queexchthonic murmurings 11:32, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh lookee, lookee, when Aneris decided to quote from the section of the article about the comparison between Sarkeesian and Thompson, he conveniently decided to omit the entire parts about:

  1. The academic sources Anita keeps in the transcript for her video that more than back up her point.
  2. The fact that at no point during E3 2015 did any of the Feminist Frequency team advocate for banning video games, despite the bullshit that their detractors would have people believe.
  3. The fact that literally all her statement proves is (with some exceptions like Half Life 2 and Mirror's Edge) she's not that keen on "violent video games".

But nooooo, no quote-mining on Aneris's part. No siree! Jon91919 (talk) 11:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

✻ Why would I, since I don't dispute these things? By the way it's fairly easy to either abstracize or specify so that the right amount of comparison is achieved for one's argument. I could claim my glass of water is not all like yours, because my molecule arrangement is very different. Taking your example "Claims that that has caused and is causing an epidemic of criminality". She does argue that media perpetuate or reinforce harmful tendencies in society, patriarchy and all that and there is of course the "rape culture" idea. You can of course play up JT on one side, and pretend feminists do their activism just for fun and are "merely" saying, but that's obviously false. Aneris ✻ (talk) 17:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Because the crux of your argument here is that somehow Thompson and Sarkeesian are comparable in their actions when he wanted to ban certain video games because he thought they caused violence which was based on no scientific evidence supporting while she is just critiquing them and pointing out research which says sexism in the media perpetuates sexism in society and it'd be better if there was more media that wasn't sexist. "Both of them say things about video games I don't like" isn't a venn diagram worth discussing in the real world.—Ryulong (talk) 03:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Which is again fallacious, as usual. The point is not at all that they "say things about video games I don't like" because I restate for the n-th time: I agree that certain games culture is sexist, and DON'T dispute the research. You are simply such ideologically blinded that you cannot grasp simple ideas when they don't align with your SJ bot program. Aneris ✻ (talk) 03:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
What the fuck are you trying to accomplish then? That it's perfectly fine to compare a disbarred lawyer who tried to legislate censorship of video games with a woman who you constantly conflate with Nazi German censorship programs when she's not advocating for anything resembling censorship?—Ryulong (talk) 03:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

6.4 Hitman: Absolution[edit]

Debunked this garbage with the latest edit to that section. Jon91919 (talk) 21:10, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
You didn't. Aneris ✻ (talk) 04:30, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
She made a whole fucking talk about all of the bullshit claims you've made about her Hitman critiques. The point is that here it's a strip club and the female characters in question are there to titillate even though they can also be killed by the player.—Ryulong (talk) 04:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but merely saying "you didn't" doesn't work, and reeks of the stench of trolling. Either provide actual details, regardless of how shit your argument will prove to be, or fuck off out of this site. Jon91919 (talk) 08:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I debunked your claims with my arguments. And no, Anita Sarkeesian and the article argue about characters as background decoration, or do they not? And what are extras in film then? Or virtually every character that is placed in fiction for some purpose? How are they not objects, or merely background decoration? If her argument was that you can't show scantly clad characters in that fashion, you must make that argument. She also still uses a sandbox to purposefully attack specific characters, drag them around for effect, when this is not representative of the game at all. In reality, there's all sorts of things wrong with the art direction of Hitman Absolution--they do a wannabe Taratino and work with exploitation tropes which are sexist, so you don't need to be disingenious and do entartete Kunst. Her explanations she later offered are also complete hogwash, too. She makes the comparison to GTA where one steals cars and is allegedly penalized, which isn't true. It's a core game feature, and central to mission, where you occasional have to rid police chasers. Assaulting scantly clad dancers and dragging them around is not what you routinely do in Hitman, nor meant to do. It's all explained above. But all you apologist know is thought terminating clichés and authoritarian deference Aneris ✻ (talk) 17:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Her argument is that the women in the scene are exclusively there because their scantily clad, and also there's the option of killing them or knocking them out to advance the level just like you totally have the option to shoot every fucking civilian you can in GTA and then fight off the ensuing cops and military vehicles they send your way to apprehend you. Also stop fucking comparing her to the Nazis with your completely ridiculous accusations of her applying "degenerate art".—Ryulong (talk) 03:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Also if you actually looked at any citation you see she goes into detail of how her point is that the game's developers intentionally included an option to attack the stripper characters, just like every other characer in the game. Their presence is not integral to the game's story. That's how they're background decoration. They solely exist in the framework of the game for the sake of being a pair of digital tits.—Ryulong (talk) 05:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

6.5 Stealing Let's Play footage[edit]

Your assertion that her use of these videos is not fair use because she's commenting on the content of the videos rather than the alleged work put into editing the videos by the original uploader is weak as hell and irrelevant.—Ryulong (talk) 04:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

6.5b Stealing Artwork[edit]

She apologized for this and ceased using the artwork in question. Now shut up.—Ryulong (talk) 04:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Video games ARE art[edit]

Yes. But what is the role of the player in realizing that art? In my mind I'm thinking this somewhat parallels a relationship I'm more familiar with; to quote a wise man:[4]

Nothing I have written here is meant to imply that the composer who conducts has nothing to learn from the noncomposer-conductor who performs his work. On the contrary! It is not easy, especially when a work is new, for a creator to have sufficient perspective to know in every respect how his composition should be interpreted. A conductor of instinct can suggest tempi adjustments, especially in transitional passages; better balances in orchestral textures; more precision in metronome markings -- always a major hazard for the composer -- and even, at times, changes in emotional inflection of a work. Conductors may play a role somewhat similar to that of a stage director with a playwright or a sympathetic editor with the author of a book. Obviously there is more than one way to read the lines of a play and more than one way to interpret a musical composition. A conductor, whoever he may be, understands a work through his own temperament, background and training. Any composer would do well to keep an open mind when listening to a gifted performer "reading" his work.

WalkerWalkerWalker 21:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Anita Sarkeesian's blatant sexism[edit]

I'd be interested to see how this extremely biased wiki is going to get around this, but I assume it'll be with the same sociologically and linguistically inaccurate 'explanation' shown in the above link. But my main question is: If Sarkeesian's ignorance and sexism isn't relevant to this article, how come it is with anti-SJWs? If you're going to use satire as an excuse to shield morally corrupt people, at least be a little more creative about it. Now, go ahead and call me a misogynist (I'm a woman, but don't let that stop you) instead of addressing my main arguments.

Or make me and everyone else reading this very happy and try to claim that whole 'sexism is power + prejudice' argument, which, no matter how many times you ban me, won't work. See, language is a social construct. Words only mean what the majority of the population thinks they mean. If I asked 100 people (outside of a college campus) if you can be sexist towards men, I promise you that the majority of them would say you can. Therefore, by definition, that is what the word means, full stop. Claiming a small group's subjective interpretation of a word is more valid than the majority of the population's collective interpretation of a word just shows you own bias and ignorance.

If this wiki had any shred of decency or non-bias, it'd be talking about the inappropriate things Sarkeesian has done, instead of hiding behind the fact that she's been harassed. Newsflash: Being harassed online doesn't mean you have the moral right to by a sexist- sorry, 'prejudiced' asshole. <3124.176.156.17 (talk) 11:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

With all due respect, a stipulative definition must understood as such. In this case, it's rather silly, because her definition of choice lacks the utility of the common definition, but I can at most file this under wrong in its definitions, not sexist. Well, and guilty of ignoring some of the very few societies in the world where her factual statement is wrong. That's the more serious error. WalkerWalkerWalker 11:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
And you must remember to apply the same definition throughout: because sexism is defined as not merely a prejudice, she isn't saying one cannot be prejudiced against men, or that one can't mistreat men, c. c. That also would be a grave error - but it isn't the one committed. WalkerWalkerWalker 11:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
AND ANOTHER THING: how is there an objective, only correct definition of a word if language is strictly, as you say, a social construct? By the test you propose, wouldn't all shifts of definition now accepted as valid have been errors all the way up until they reached majority acceptance? WalkerWalkerWalker 11:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
It's an academic definition that's gaining coin. Like all academic definitions, it only has utility within the framework in which it's meant to be used. On the other hand, pushing for a greater understanding of what that definition implies is a strong way of ramming home the point that the consequences of (colloquial) sexism are very different depending on which way it's facing. Criticising her for making that point in a tweet, where you can't include the proper caveats and explanation, is fair but it's hardly a serious error. Calling what she said 'sexism', however, is gratuitously idiotic. The only ignorance revealed here, 124, is your own. Also, read up on Argumentum ad dictionarium. Queexchthonic murmurings 12:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
You didn't address my main points. I never said Sarkeesian claimed you can't be prejudiced towards men; I said she claimed you can't be sexist towards them. Worse still, she presented her subjective (and heavily disputed) definition of a word as completely objective. My main argument is that her opinion that men can't face systemic oppression at all is, in itself, sexist and ignorant. We may live in a society dominated by rich, powerful men, but that doesn't mean poor, powerless men can't experience oppression by those same people too. To state that male victims can't face oppression because they have the same gender as their oppressors is extremely sexist and ignorant. And no, before anyone asks, I'm not an MRA. I must say though, if your response to anyone who expresses concerns for men and doesn't kiss the feet of morally corrupt women is, "You're an MRA!" that might show how little rationality mainstream feminism has nowadays.
As a woman, I know what sexism feels like. In fact, only last weekend, my two friends and I were sexually harassed by a drunken old man. Sarkeesian has obviously faced harassment from sick people as well, although the fact that she compares death and rape threats to people saying she's a liar and she sucks doesn't really help her much. Regardless, I want the assholes who threatened her to be arrested and face punishment for what they did, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to be critical of Sarkeesian, or that I'm not going to get annoyed when she calls everyone who refutes her misogynistic harassers.
And sorry, guys, but you either misunderstood or didn't want to understand my statements about language. I never even mentioned dictionaries, so I'm not sure why they were brought up. I mentioned PEOPLE. Dictionaries are merely tools created by people to monitor the most recent developments in language. While they're more reliable than some teenager on tumblr, they're still not completely indisputable. Language is a social construct, so society defines it. Sure, you can come up with your own interpretations of words if you want, but if no one else agrees with them, you'll only be derailing the conversation when you use them.
The only people who use the 'you can't be sexist towards men' argument are people who don't want to acknowledge that men AND women have problems in this society. For every horrible thing that happens only or mostly to women, I can name you something that happens only or mostly to men. Instead of dehumanizing one side, why don't we work together in getting morally corrupt sociopaths out of power? And I'm sorry, but if your defense of disputed definitions is, "Well, a few rich, far-left teachers do it," then that's pretty sad. I mean, these are the sort of people you're talking about, right? Not really people I'd want to trust important matters with, to be honest. Academia's definition is still widely disputed (as it should be), which means it is 'incorrect' for all intents and purposes. If a word you're using is going to make at least 9 out of 10 people do a doubletake and misinterpret your meaning, then it's time to rethink your use of the word instead of trying to force it on everyone else.
Also, since neither of you addressed this the first time I asked: On this website, why is it okay to mock assholes who disagree with your political beliefs but not okay to mock assholes who don't? That seems extremely biased, honestly, and I'd like you to address that concern directly. (talk) 13:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Note that she didn't say men cannot face systemic oppression? You're inserting !your words into her mouth. Try harder. WalkerWalkerWalker 13:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
If you think the advocates for Power+Prejudice are exclusively 'rich', you are moron. If you think they are 'far left', you are a moron. I think you've tipped your own hand, there. And your dictionary error is in asserting 'Definition A for a word exists, therefore Definition B cannot exist', which a quick trip to the OED page for 'so' would reveal to be self-evidently nonsense. "The only people who use the 'you can't be sexist towards men' argument are people who don't want to acknowledge that men AND women have problems in this society." And yet, every single person I've heard espouse 'you can't be X towards Y' expressly acknowledges that both Y and Z face problems; they're merely pointing out that the situation is not symmetric. So on that point you're either crushingly ill-informed or flat-out lying. Queexchthonic murmurings 13:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Wow, it must have taken a lot of reads and rereads of my comment before you could find something to cling onto. Well done. If you want to be overly pretty, you're right that Sarkeesian didn't literally say men can't face systemic oppression. However, when your side argues that men can't face sexism, you always rationalize it with, "Sexism and systemic sexism are different." So, if your argument is that Sarkeesian didn't even bother to clarify her heavily disputed, bigoted re-interpretation of a word with 'systemic,' like some of the more self-conscious people in her group do, you're absolutely right. ...You do realize that this doesn't help your argument at all, right? Also, could you please respond to my other points? This is how discussions work.
"If you think differently than me, you are a moron." Wow. Flawless debating skills there, buddy. Have you considered joining a college debating team? If you're a woman, you'll be treated like an inferior weakling who can't even hold her own in discussions. Personally, I find that very misogynistic, but that's probably because I'm actually talented and intelligent, and so don't need to use my gender to help me in life. <3
Oh, I'm not saying the definition can't exist. I'm just saying that if you use a heavily disputed definition for a word, you're going to be derailing a lot of conversations. Unfortunately, society at large doesn't seem interested in playing along with your childish games. So, unless you want to confuse and annoy a lot of people, you're going to have to start using 'sexist' the way most people use it. Or you can keep whining until the people in higher power fix your problems for you. Either or.
And actually, men can be systemically oppressed. If the accepted definition of systemic oppression is 'oppression by those in higher power,' that is. I'd argue that being denied access to one's kids, being arrested as the instigator in domestic abuse cases even if you're the victim, still being required to sign up for the draft, and being sentenced to shittier prisons for longer than a women are for the same crime is pretty systemic. Then again, I'm not a man-hating little snowflake.
Are you going to address all my points, BTW, or are you just going to hope the ones you can't address will go away if you focus on the ones (you think) you can address? Just curious. (talk) 13:36, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  1. She defined it up front; that is the clarification you (wrongly) demand.
  2. You are a moron. It's not too hard to see.
  3. You are not at liberty to demand people use your preferred definition; ironically enough, doing so serves only to derail discussions... the exact same thing you're accusing others of. How quaint.
  4. I'm glad you agree.
  5. Nobody but you finds your arguments "unaddressed" at all. Reading. It helps.
WalkerWalkerWalker 13:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
(EC) You don't have any points that haven't already been refuted here, there and everywhere. PRATT.
""If you think differently than me, you are a moron." Wow. Flawless debating skills there, buddy." No, I'm saying that your characterisation of people that think differently to you is hilariously inaccurate and so at odds with reality that it doesn't even merit further discussion. Your use of 'far left' and 'rich' is a transparent attempt to paint 'people who think differently to you' as either political extremists or coddled and unworldly. Either you can't see how wayward your characterisation is (and hence you're a moron) or you think that you'll be able to slip that mischaracterisation into the discussion without anyone noticing (and hence you're a moron).
"So, unless you want to confuse and annoy a lot of people, you're going to have to start using 'sexist' the way most people use it." or, you know, use that other definition in the context it was intended for - academic discussion of prejudice, like, I don't know, a feminist pop-culture video series. Maybe someone should start a kickstarter for such a thing.
"And actually, men can be systemically oppressed." As Sarkeesian has said, on many occasions. As has just about any feminist commentator. What was your point, again?
"Then again, I'm not a man-hating little snowflake." Aw, bless, it's trying to be snarky! Keep trying, me bab. You'll get there. Queexchthonic murmurings 14:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Re men "being denied access to one's kids, being arrested as the instigator in domestic abuse cases even if you're the victim, still being required to sign up for the draft, and being sentenced to shittier prisons for longer than a women are for the same crime": these are all longstanding patriarchal double standards based on the different roles & characteristics attributed to men & women in a patriarchal society. They're situations where (individually) men suffer because of society's expectation, but this doesn't make them "sexism against men" since they boil down to patriarchal notions of men as the doers within society and women as passive & subservient. €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense Claims Addendum[edit]

This tweet should be added to the "nonsense claims" section. It gets brought up at least as often as the other things there. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay, here's a try: "Anita defines sexism as systemic oppression as opposed to a simple prejudice against men. What is there not to get?" Zero (talk - contributions) 21:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I would like some sources[edit]

That "it's bullshit" is not a reason not to source anything. Carpetsmoker (talk) 09:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

The things ouy want citations for are strawmen arguments and our own attempts at debunking those strawman arguments, and in many cases said argument is included in the references that come after it.—Ryulong (talk) 09:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Sigh. Why is it that every time I do some cleanup (this time in unreferenced Category:Living people pages) no one complains, except you on one of your RBPs (Ryulong Blessed Pages™)? Just add a small reference, "here are some people who claimed this". Very little trouble at all. Carpetsmoker (talk) 10:23, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Because they're paraphrases of hundreds of angry tweets and hour long YouTube videos made to attack her. You must be insane if you think anyone should find citations that will inevitably say "ANITA JEWKEESIAN IS A SCAM ARTIST" just to point out that people accuse her of being a scam artist.—Ryulong (talk) 10:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Even though this petition is hilarious.—Ryulong (talk) 10:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
(ec)It's not insane. How do I, as a reader, know these accusations are accurately represented or even real? Again, it's a very easy thing to do to link to that hour-long YouTube video. Carpetsmoker (talk) 10:31, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
They're hyperbole. And the fact that there are sources following the statements that specifically debunk them it no one should be required to cite that again. It's already cited (like the Joss Whedon one), but you didn't look hard enough.—Ryulong (talk) 10:32, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Carpetsmoker, the only reasonable and rational person in the room, again. — Aneris ✻ (talk) 11:50, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Something that Aneris won't ever have to worry about being called. Typhoon (talk) 13:41, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Most of these citations could have come directly from you, TBH.—Ryulong (talk) 22:58, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

No Valid Criticism?[edit]

A new frontier[edit]

Can't men be also victims of sexism?

"There’s no such thing as sexism against men. That's because sexism is prejudice + power. Men are the dominant gender with power in society."

At very least indirect victims. But also direct. And *even* from women, I dare to think. I've been a man/male for all my life, and even though I don't think I've personally been a victim of direct sexism, except for being slapped in the face a couple of times even though I didn't do anything, and even though I do think that women will by far be the most common direct victims of sexism, I've never been informed that, merely by being a male, I'm in some sort of club with literal privileges that make me more powerful and therefore "invulnerable" to say, women richer than me, who could be my employers, for example, and act in a way that, if the genders were reversed, would be sexist. Perhaps women also don't have prejudices, I don't know.

Biological denialism

I don't recall exactly in which videos (probably previously the ones on games), but once she said something along the lines of "the myth that men are naturally more strongly built than women", and also something about a "myth" of female praying mantis eating males, which is only sort of a partly correct point -- the rate of male-sexual-partnericide is much higher under the lab. However, it's not because there's no such thing and all females are nice and non-violent or only to the extent that it's egalitarian and not also benevolently sexist, and all animal and plants species also conveniently are biologically wired according to feminist/egalitarian ideals despite of the food chain somehow. Instead what happens is that in nature males find more opportunities to be sort of sneaky and run away from the hungry female, like approaching against the direction of the wind and things like that. I don't know what annoys me more, simplistic evolutionary psychology along the lines of "the 50's American values are really based on the latest science", or the "crying myth" reflex-response to "offensive" scientific findings, even if they happen to actually be lousy work in the end. (talk) (block)

Just because Ryulong is afraid of sources doesn't mean you should be. Cite it.Keter (talk) 04:23, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Complaining about the concept of privilege isn't going to win you any arguments, BoN. Nor is being completely vague about your other point. Keter, shut up and go back to /r/GGdiscussion or /r/WikiInAction.—Ryulong (talk) 10:23, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Let me elaborate on these points so I don't have to deal with either of you complaining:
  • The concept of privilege and prejudice plus power is that of systemic or institutionalized (in this case) sexism wherein that there are ways in which men are given preferential treatment over women overall. That is not to say that an individual or interpersonal situation cannot be contrary to this. It's just that such situations aren't the ones that Anita Sarkeesian, as a feminist, is addressing. You can be slapped in the fae by a woman and it might be for a sexist reason, but that is not indicative of how society as a whole treats men or women.
  • You should really point out whatever video you think references any of this content that you believe is an example of "biological denialism" that isn't pulled from thunderf00t's complete lack of understanding of anything outside of biochemistry. Much like Mason, you completely misinterpret her statement, considering the only thing I can find in any of her video transcripts resembling this topic is from "Damsel In Distress Part 1" where she says, "The belief that women are somehow a “naturally weaker gender” is a deeply ingrained socially constructed myth, which of course is completely false". She does not say "it's a myth that men are stronger than women". Her argument is "it's a myth that women are inherently weak and need men to protect them at all times". Also, the praying mantis analogy seems to come from her criticisms of Buffy the Vampire Slayer in the episode where Xander is nearly eaten by a woman demon mantis thing.
  • And for my third point, Keter, the reasons you began contributing to this website are obvious with the IP address you began contributing from. All you're doing is making a strawman out of me when you and every other "neutral" can't be bothered to actually produce arguments that actually address concerns. Your agenda and stances are clear.
I hope that clears everything up.—Ryulong (talk) 11:25, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I get a new IP every time my router restarts due to weather cutting it off or I have to change IP provider. At least you've stopped dropping locations whil doing that, Ryu.Keter (talk) 22:04, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Why you always lying—Ryulong (talk) 00:23, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't contradict anything I've said, Ryu. After all, I decided to make an account. Also, you get pretty mad at me for asking somebody to source what they're saying.Keter (talk) 01:19, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Doom 4 and Fallout 4[edit]

The article says this to defend Anitas criticisms: "She's expressed similar opinions with other violent media, saying she didn't find Mad Max: Fury Road a feminist masterpiece which others disagreed with, but there's no MadMaxGate out to get her. Imagine that." Can you tell me if, when the first Mad Max movie was released, was there an organised campaign to get the movie banned, along with people saying that anyone who enjoyed the movie was a dangerous psycho who might snap and kill people? Because thats what happened when the firsst Doom was released. Maybe we should take context into account here to understand why this is raising red flags for gamers. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

And of course, God-Emperor Sarkeesian tucked herself into her time machine purely to foment that brou-ha-ha about the original Doom. If you think that video games have had anything like the heavy-breathing censorship of films, or even comics, come to that, you're a pillock. Queexchthonic murmurings 15:23, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Can you tell me about the campaign to get the games banned or name and shame any of the people who enjoy said game as murderous psychos? Zero (talk - contributions) 01:30, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
That's easy: "Hyperbolic comparisons of Gamergate to ISIS, the KKK, fascists, terrorists, Ebola, child pornography, etc., etc." whether it's meant as hyperbole is of course opinion and simply the "meant as joke" card. Make of it what you want. They mean it, or at least say it to create a serious "poison the well" effect, which is just SJW 101. And here's one effect of the campaigns: 'Sexually violent' GTA 5 banned from Australian stores. Also Dead Or Alive 3 won't be released in the west. Their game features bouncy bikini girls playing beach volleyball of sorts, clearly going against American Puritanism 2.0. The developer cited the political climate in the west as a reason. Chilling effects are hard to measure. Also, of course, activist want to bring about change. It's dishonest to pretend otherwise. — Aneris ✻ (talk) 02:44, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Here's the effects: [completely unrelated things] Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar~) 03:18, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Oh, and, here's some in-depth analysis of that article:
  1. Hyperbolic compaisons of GG to ISIS? The article was referring to "Gamergate is literally an ISIS of Hitlers", which you seem to think is from SJWs. Use your brain for a tiny bit and think: What point is that person trying to make? (It's not an anti-GG one)
  2. Hyperbolic comparisons to child pornography? KiA had a donation link at the top of its page to donate to a guy who moved to a place where child prostitution is legal and runs a "technically it's not illegal if they're just or nude or just erotically posed" site.
  3. Screw the rest of the article.
So, yeah. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar~) 03:50, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
You clearly didn't read the same article. "Gamergate must end as soon as possible. The human cost in harassment, threats, stress, and sheer nastiness is too high. People, disproportionately women, are harassed and doxed on a daily basis—in a few cases, even driven from their homes under threat of rape and murder" versus your "What point is that person trying to make? (It's not an anti-GG one)". Let's overlook your tiny brain remark. — Aneris ✻ {talk/ideas} 04:13, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Aneris, this: "which is just SJW 101" is where I stopped reading. If you tried straightforward, no frills argumentation without all the yammering about dastardly "SJWs" and their cabal of nefarious feminists and other "regressive leftists," I could receive your words. Your cant is unserious; the buzzwords annoying. It gets in the way.---Mona- (talk) 04:18, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Which is somewhat comical, since the Slate article says as much. Maybe not that it's 101, but you would know this from just watching the interactions with virtually every such person everywhere. That makes them their own kind, markedly different from every other group you mentioned. But I'm not interested in going into this here. Let's agree to disagree: you have a different interpretation of what's going on. For fun, there's also a generator. — Aneris ✻ {talk/ideas} 05:28, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
That's more of a TiA self-post generator, since it's not fed anything people seriously say. It's just what TiA people think people seriously say because the TiA folk do nothing but post "satire" so awful that the joke was lost ages ago. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar~) 09:37, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
First: I was referring to the "Gamergate is literally an ISIS of Hitlers" hyperbole and what the writer of that was trying to say. Second: I said "tiny bit," not "tiny brain." Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar~) 09:27, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
DOAX3 isn't coming to the West because it's just not financially viable to hire voice actors and translators just to release another crappy eroge in a saturated market. When the first DOAX came out, there weren't as many options for tittilation as there is now, and much superior ones at that. Furthermore, the PS4 is not region-locked AND the Asia version is in English. Hardly the setback the nincompoops at GG think it is. (talk) 21:06, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Are there (gonna be) fantranslations of the game?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 10:45, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
If feminists/"SJWs" wanted to ban all violent video games, then how come I have over 200 hours in Counter-Strike? Frederick♠♣♥♦ 04:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
That gamers have had their toys threatened by political scapegoating in the past does not make their paranoid concerns about academic criticism warranted. Films, comics and music have been targets of actual censorship (in ways that video games never were) and you don't see their communities having a stroke because someone on the internet said they relied too much on prejudice-based stereotypes. (talk) 21:06, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

"Prejudice plus power" ist verboten?[edit]

Why can't this page, apparently, contain any mention of the "Prejudice plus power" remark, even though we have a page on it? Carpetsmoker (talk) 00:51, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

The missionality of this page is built around her harassment, thus adding any criticism to her views would be seen as justifying it. Quite simply, the sheer volume of the harrassment unjustly heaped onto her has made her into a Sacred Cow who must be defended, even though some of what she says is pretty bullshit and fallacious.Keter (talk) 01:22, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
I am unsure if you're serious or sarcastic? At any rate, surely we can defend her when she's correct, strongly condemn her harassment, and criticise her when she's wrong, all at the same time. We do so for a number of other people (Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, many more). Carpetsmoker (talk) 01:29, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

"The missionality of this page is built around her harassment." No, that's a stupid canard promoted by Ryulong. "A Sacred Cow who must be defended." That's simply moronic. She is relevant to RW's missions because of the focus of her work - i.e. authoritarianism, crank ideas & how they are handled in the media. Legitimate criticism is germaine in the article, but when it's a load of ignorant what-about-the-menz mansplaining, we can do without it. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 01:49, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Carpetsmoker, I made my point clear in the other section higher up on the page. Sarkeesian's definition of sexism covering systemic/institutionalized is an irrelevant topic. She did not invent this "prejudice plus power" concept. She is merely explaining it and the concept of privilege. The only reason we should include anything about this concept if it is part of a "Nonsense claims often made against her" section (which FCP changed to "Illegitimate criticisms") to debunk claims that people insist she has said men can't experience sexism.
Weaseloid, the point has been made time and time again, and not solely by myself, that discussion of Sarkeesian on RationalWiki concerns the completely irrational things done to her and said about her rather than any sort of critique of her body of work (which no one has yet to properly do). I don't know where you're pulling "authoritarianism, crank ideas & how they are handled in the media" from. She's not seeking to ban video games (despite what people insist) so discussion of her doesn't concern "authoritarianism" and feminist theory (particularly the bland Women's Studies 101 version she advocates in her video series) isn't a "crank idea".
The videos so incredibly benign and inoffensive that it took a special kind of person (of the crocodilian variety) to take such massive offense at the thought that a woman is calling their favorite toys less than perfect to result in everything that has happened since 2012. The only criticism her videos should properly face are differences in opinion in her approach to the analyses and these don't need to be covered on RationalWiki even if they could be found because it's completely irrelevant to discuss differences in opinion on how to interpret the stories of video games on this project.—Ryulong (talk) 05:18, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
"She did not invent this "prejudice plus power" concept." -> Okay. So? She used it. Ray Comfort didn't invent creationism or many of the arguments he uses.
"debunk claims that people insist she has said men can't experience sexism. " -> It says quite clearly, "There’s no such thing as sexism against men"... Carpetsmoker (talk) 05:29, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm entirely unconvinced this counts as a "legitimate criticism" and suspect you're freely mixing academic jargon and colloquial meanings of words as if they're the same, then being struck by the revelatory nature of your own confusion - David Gerard (talk) 11:21, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Pretty much what David said. Too much outrage from people that fail to understand the context of a single tweet. Typhoon (talk) 16:41, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, perhaps making blanket statements on a medium which only allows short messages is not a good idea in the first place, hm? At any rate, our Prejudice plus power page seems fairly accurate at describing various usages of terms like "Femenism" and "Racism", and recognizes that there are various definitions going around. Sarkeesian single-handedly redefining the term to One True Meaning™ as she did in the tweet is, simply put, wrong. If she wanted to use more context, she should have used a medium which allows this. Perhaps she nuanced her statement in later tweets? I tried looking this up, but I can only view a single tweet, not "all tweets starting with this one" (or, at least, I can't figure out how). Carpetsmoker (talk) 16:52, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
David, you can be insufferably arrogant and pompous. Carpetsmoker is a worthy contributor -- I don't always agree with him, but I'd never carry on like that.---Mona- (talk) 16:57, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Ryulong, I read Weaseloid's comment as saying not that Sarkeesian was promoting crank ideas etc., but that crank ideas (i.e. misogyny / antifeminism / whatever) and their handling in the media are the "focus of her work". I might be wrong, though. —Bilorv (needs a slap) 21:43, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Correctamundo. We have various articles about feminism & feminists because they are relevant to our missions, which are what I cited. The idea that feminists are only relevant to us because of what a bunch of channers think about them or do to them is absurd & insulting. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:01, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

She supports prejudice + power. Prejudice + power has some flaws. This appears to be a legitimate criticism. The truth or falsity of her social criticisms are entirely independent of the vile harassment she received. What more needs be said? Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 18:40, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

"Prejudice + power" is the beginner's intro to the topic. You're behaving analogously to an Internet libertarian who says "but it's econ 101!" and doesn't seem aware there's a second or subsequent years. The closest this comes to a legitimate critique (and one that is commonly made) is that Sarkeesian's videos can be simplistic and are at a 101 level - but that's pretty much what they're supposed to be. (And note that even an intro level discussion of feminism causes misogynist nerds' heads to explode.) Also, what I just said is an answer to a PRATT - David Gerard (talk) 20:27, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
"Prejudice + power" is the beginner's intro to the topic. [....] Sarkeesian's videos can be simplistic and are at a 101 level - but that's pretty much what they're supposed to be.
That's not the criticism. The criticism is that she uses a flawed concept. It doesn't really matter what intellectual level she's using that concept at -- kiddie creationism is as flawed as Comfort creationism. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 20:35, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
The problem with P+P, and some progressives, is their tendency to claustrophobic orthodoxy, a purge mentality and wielding the concept as a sword against anyone who disagrees. We see some of that here at RW. That the GGers are more obnoxious and vicious -- and overwhelmingly reviled in our ranks -- doesn't change this.---Mona- (talk) 21:11, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Are you describing Anita Sarkeesian here? If not, it's irrelevant to this page. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:03, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Some feminists do behave like this, including Sarkeesian supporters. There's nothing wrong with a brief section noting this. Rather obviously, Sarkeesian is central to a huge, Internet-shitfest about feminism and what is or isn't extreme, and so what Carpetsmoker has proposed to include is on point. That is, it is relevant. FFS, as long as it's just a moderately sized section in the article what is the problem?---Mona- (talk) 22:55, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
If you want a rant about how P+P sucks as a concept, this is the wrong article for that - David Gerard (talk) 22:27, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
We have a page on this, which is hardly a "rant", but a thoughtful criticism which explains all sides. Why is it such a disaster to point out that she has invoked this (in a not-so-subtle-way) in a very small section? Carpetsmoker (talk) 22:39, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
It's like criticising the pope when there's a large movement openly talking about bombing the vatican. We souldn't encourage them any further.Keter (talk) 22:43, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Nobody's "encouraging" anything, much less abuse and violence against the article's subject. Carpetsmoker -- and I agree with him -- is simply inserting a brief notice that there is a reasonable POV in contradiction to some of what the subject claims. It's like an article on American Communists who apologized for the the crimes of Stalin -- it is is not justifying those crimes, and apology for them, to point out that, e.g., American communists were almost alone in loudly objecting to Jim Crow back in the day.---Mona- (talk) 22:50, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
(ec) Why is it that all gamergate (specifically, anti-GG) people deserve this special red-carpet treatment from us while we criticise the shit out of everyone else? Do you think that people like Richard Dawkins don't receive death threats and such? (because they do). Carpetsmoker (talk) 22:51, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Because in this case it will only be understood stupidly, and your phrasing of it as a "legitimate criticism" for even using this entirely academic mainstream concept at all suggests you're not the one to do this. You actually think using the respected concept counts as a noteworthy strike against her - David Gerard (talk) 22:48, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
If it's "understood stupidly" it should be explained better. And it's not so "mainstream" a definition as you make it out to be, as many (even those that use this term) agree this is one one definition of {rac,sex}ism, and not the definition. Carpetsmoker (talk) 22:57, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
FFS: "suggests you're not the one to do this" Carpetsmoker is an editor in good standing, and has every right to offer his ideas and critiques. The topic is not esoteric, accessible and understood only in rarefied, academic venues.---Mona- (talk) 23:09, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Fairly obviously I mean "without saying something blitheringly stupid". And I recall another article where your main argument is "academic consensus" - David Gerard (talk) 23:35, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
And fairly obviously, "without saying something blitheringly stupid" is you, David, again being insufferable pompous and arrogant. As for "academic consensus," sure, on contested fact claims. Consensus should generally be the default. The matter under discussion, however, is not so readily resolved empirically; much judgment and opinion is involved in this political issue. Carpetsmoker's observations here are hardly outre.---Mona- (talk) 14:35, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
No, her harassment and her views are deeply intertwined. There's been feminists online before. There's been feminist looks at geeky media before. There's been feminist videos on youtube before. There hasn't been feminist looks into geeky media from the schools of thought Anita subscribes to before as a widely available video format. As much as I would love to see a takedown of the stuff she says that is worth a look into, we cannot do that in good conscience, because it will be used as ammunition to attack her further.Keter (talk) 22:04, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
It's simply unreasonable to foreclose analysis of her positions with quite implausible claims that to significantly disagree with the woman constitutes "ammunition" to attack her. She doesn't need immunity from disagreement, even strong disagreement. (Would she even want that? It is to treat her like a child.) Moreover, no one here is promoting violence or threats against this person; they have been and should be totally condemned.---Mona- (talk) 23:00, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
The 101 nature of it is worth noting in some sensible fashion. Shallowness is a critique I hear from fans of Sarkeesian - David Gerard (talk) 22:27, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
You can of course cite any reasons, but it's plainly visible when you just take a look at any article of a disliked person, where any off-sentence is cited and ridiculed in order to get at the person. In other articles, the RationalWiki will even speculate and downright thoughtpolice what people "truly" believe in, just to paint the person in a negative light. But when it comes to the Saints of Social Justice you cannot even document their heartfelt own opinions in a straightforward manner. Sarkeesian is for example a standard Critical Race Theory adherent and postmodernist 3rd wave feminist, which is the common template for the social justice movement. She also espouses ideas in the tradition of Dworkin and McKinnon (objecticiation, having problems with bikini girls in video games etc and seeing this as "problematic"), and she ports Jacques Lacan and Laura Mulvey's "Gaze Theory" into the video game realm. But none of this is attacking her, even when I have a low opinion of this postmodernist hogwash. It's plain stating of her own convictions. Some people are genuinely into that stuff, and say so. This is like stating that Richard Dawkins is an adherent of atheism and a defender of the theory of evolution. In a Creationist forum, this might come off as an insult, but -- again -- this is just stating a fact, namely that he really does adhere to these things. So why would you hide this information on Sarkeesian? It's more than relevant and missional. There are really no good reasons, and the remaining reasons are the usual ones: obfuscation and denialism around the social justice movement. — Aneris ✻ {talk/ideas} 23:13, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
No no, you were doing fine, and then you turn a fair criticism of what may be a mistake into an accusation of bad faith. Maybe some people here are wary of poring over snippets of opinion to find negative nits to pick when she's been a target of a harassment campaign that uses such tactic as a chief weapon. But no, everything has to be hiding and thoughtpolice to you. If you're hurt because one of your sacred cows has been treated unfairly, I think the healthy thing to do is take it to the page on their article, instead of being a passive-aggressive asshole in the page of someone you dislike. (talk) 12:28, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Aneris is on to something here, tho. What the issue really comes down to is whether Sarkeesian's political philosophy is all within the canon of orthodoxy that Rationalwikians are, a priori, supposed to accept as clearly correct. We don't, for example, consider that there may be a respectable alternative to white supremacism in our articles touching on that. If Sarkeesian's feminism is on par with opposition to white supreamacism then no disagreement should be mentioned as potentially legitimate, if mentioned at all. The core of the dispute here is that not everyone thinks all of her philosophy is unimpeachably correct among moral and decent people.---Mona- (talk) 14:44, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Appeal to consequences? C'mon, anything written on RW can and will be misused. --Kugelschreiber (talk) 00:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

A note for the future: Be careful about loosing sight of the purpose of this article.[edit]

I feel like this is an important statement to make: The article's subject is Anita Sarkeesian, the person, but the topic at hand and why it is missional is not Anita Sarkeesian, the person. Indeed, the person herself and her criticisms would and should be considered delightfully benign and inoffensive.

Rather, it is about the irrational reaction this person has caused from a certain subsection of the internet. The framing is Anita, but the topic is not Anita-- It's about the people who are harassing her, stalking her, and threatening her, trying to force her off of the internet over incredibly inane criticism of video gaming. The article serves the purpose of highlighting this reactionary culture within video gaming and the absurd lengths they will go to discredit people and ideas they find threatening.

Be careful about trying to entertain these people's ideals too much, as it can become easy to loose sight of this focus. A common thread I see some people saying is we shouldn't be shy of criticizing individuals, as we have criticized many atheists like Dawkins, Harris or Hitchens, and while this is indeed the case, Anita as a person is not so much the point here, because we can all agree that she has done nothing to warrant anything she's getting, and entertaining these points of baseless personal attacks can become dangerously close to enabling this harassment. She, herself, while her criticism is valid (though still benign), is not the reason we, as a site, care about her, nor why she is missional. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 00:08, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Would it not be better to rename the page to Harassment of Anita Sarkeesian, or some such, if that's only what we want to cover? Carpetsmoker (talk) 00:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Needlessly verbose and redundant. Naming it after the individual is fine. It would be like naming our article on Richard Dawkins "The Atheist, Richard Dawkins". - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 00:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
(ec) Well, it's not exactly the same thing; the Richard Dawkins page is about more than just Atheism. Surely there are some points that can be made against Sarkeesian (like the Prejudice plus power-thing). If we rename the page to narrow the scope, it would be clear for everyone—readers and editors alike—what the page is about and more importantly, not about. Carpetsmoker (talk) 00:34, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Our article doesn't exist to give credence to people trying to stalk and harass someone off of the internet. It exists to point out that what they're doing is bullshit. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 00:36, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Okay; I'm somewhat on-board with that, but I'm not sure how that answered my reply? Which is, that there is currently a confusion and/or disagreement on what this page is about, and that a rename would perhaps solve this? Carpetsmoker (talk) 00:40, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that's necessary. We just need to make it clear in the content of the article, and I think it mostly already is. The problem is, we get people driving by this page trying to convince us that "no, anita is the baddie here", and that's where all this confusion is coming from. They want to turn it into being about the person, and people get so caught up in refuting that that they forget why this is even important in the first place. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 00:42, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

The purpose of this article, as of any other at RW, is to serve the RW:MISSIONs in relation to the subject of the article. There is no Anita clause that commits us to deal with the subject of this article in any different way. And "loose" doesn't mean the same as "lose". WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 00:30, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Anita herself is not missional. The reaction to her, however, is. And that's why this article is here. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 00:31, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
You can keep saying that & it will keep being bullshit. The article was here a long time before you were. WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 00:35, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
And it was here for the same reasons back then. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 00:36, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
(ec) I'm somewhat on-board when you say "she's never said anything spectacularly wrong, and we don't need to provide ammo"; but declaring her "off-mission" is, to be honest, a bit silly. We have pages on feminism, TERF, and criticise a number of feminists I can't recall the names of right now. Of all the reasons, "being off-missional" is the worst. Carpetsmoker (talk) 00:38, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
That's a mischaracterization of what I've been saying. Anita's personal views aren't missional enough to warrant a topic here of her own, because quite frankly, there's nothing wrong with a lot of them, and at most they're just benign and inoffensive, and overly pacifist. Sure, there's general missionality to the beliefs themselves, but on a personal level, she isn't noteworthy. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 00:40, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, ten minutes ago you said she wasn't missional; now you switch to saying she's missional but not notable. OK then. What would make her notable? ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 00:50, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
"She [the person] isn't missional [on her own]". I believe I went out of my way to emphasize this. My stances haven't changed, I just rephrased them in a more immediately understandable (i.e "skim-read proof") way. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 00:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Anita Sarkeesian is missional because she and her views are at the core of a huge shitfest that primarily occurred online involving feminism and wingnut misogynists. It reached all over, from Twitter, to web sites to Facebook. Sarkeesian's specific ideology, many aspects of it, are discussed in other articles at this wiki. Given that those views are deemed sufficiently missional to merit their own articles, there's no reason they are not also misisonal in this article. Her views drive the animus against her. Addressing those views -- as merely a relatively small portion of the article -- is entirely proper. As has been pointed out, she's no different than the New Atheists we treat here when we discuss why they are controversial. She's a true victim, but that doesn't mean her views are immunized from all critique. No one looking for ammo against her is going to find this site to be the first, second or even 10th best place to find it. The contrary argument has no persuasive power at all.---Mona- (talk) 01:40, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
We don't actually disagree on a lot of things, so I feel the need to clarify what exactly it is I meant here, as to avoid any misunderstandings. The point is that we should be careful to only address what is necessary, and avoid superfluous things that people try to get us to add which have no business being in the article itself outside of attacking Anita as a person. The reason as to why I've said Anita isn't missional on her own is that we already have many articles covering more notable people with the views she holds, so while her views may be missional, I don't think she's noteworthy enough to be missional (to the point where we need to cover her) on her own, outside of that. She's missional only in proportion to the reaction against her, and the reaction to her is what I believe makes this article missional. As she is the target of so many attacks and threats, we need to be careful as to not lend any undeserved credence to these nutjobs. We've got a lot of people who are angry that this isn't a hitpiece against her, who want to turn it into one. We need to be wary of this, and keep the proper focus of the article in mind here.
I'm not sure how much someone's noteworthiness feeds into their missionality, so perhaps it is the wrong line of reasoning here, but if there were a litmus test for being noteworthy, Anita is a good example of when someone who is insignificant on their own needs an article here. As far as I understand it, the mission only extends to people who are considered noteworthy, which is why I took that line of logic.
It's not so much about looking for ammo, as it is deciding not to enable these people to spread their ammo unquestioned, about a living, breathing person who still has to put up with this bullshit day in and day out. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 02:08, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
There's more wrong with the article than mona and carpetsmoker realize, but I found it useful as a "point and laugh" entry to the RationalWiki. I'm with Kitsunelaine. You cannot taint it with reason and rationality, asking questions and being critical and such things. Listen and Believe! The "mission" was already revealed as a farce, since despite overbearing authoritarianism, there are no attempts to describe the social justice movement (including Sarkeesian) at all. Remember, it's a snarl word, but the brogressive is a thing. The RationalWiki decided to be openly apologetic and has revealed plainly that nobody is interested in looking at a situation and describing it as it is, not even with snark. The talk about "ammo" further documents it. There is no such thing as "ammo", because something is either true, or not true (with some caveats). The "mission" is thus revealed to be providing "ammo" for interested sides, which is not science, rationality and reason, but the social justice movement. That's of course widely known by now, hence all these articles are written for that purpose (e.g. timelines) and all of them are hilariously one-sided (because else would provide "ammo" for the wrong side). You couldn't have it clearer. I have no problem with that. Either way works. The SJW path leads steadily downhill and provides lulz along the way, even when I'd prefer to turn it around. — Aneris Ѽ 03:06, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Admin:Could this fit on the page?[edit] .--Leronic (talk) 12:45, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

"Not found" FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 15:28, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Fixed. Carpetsmoker (talk) 15:37, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
It could, but that's much much less central to her main work (social criticism of media). FuzzyCatPotato of the Nigerian Microwaves (talk/stalk) 17:25, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm also not sure. On one hand, it looks like she's advocating segregation of sexes and even race. On the other hand, Twitter is a stupid medium which doesn't allow any form of context or nuance (I am truly baffled why anyone would want to communicate over Twitter). Carpetsmoker (talk) 17:52, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
What she says there is simply true. There are studies showing that girls participate more when in classrooms without boys. Not sure about the racial thing, but I can imagine that voluntary segregation might be better for some minorities who would thrive more without the pressure to "prove" themselves to the majority that claims superiority. Anyway, those mere tweets mean little.---Mona- (talk) 18:00, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
"I can imagine that voluntary segregation might be better for some minorities" -> I say that the wrong conclusion from those studies. Instead, it should be examined why participation and/or learning suffers and come up with ways to mitigate that. Schools are about more than just transferring information from the teacher's head to the student's head.
This is the reason why I'm hesitant to include this Tweet here. The studies may be real, but she doesn't attach a conclusion to is (such as advocating actual segregation). Carpetsmoker (talk) 19:02, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
True, but then again, her tweet in context is not that surprising: see critical race theoryWikipedia, or other people in that movement, e.g. Bahar Mustafar or related ideas like the charge of "cultural appropriation", which is a consequence of this, and identitiy politics. It's not a fluke, and it's not "just saying" either. — Aneris Ѽ 23:43, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Apparently it's okay to turn articles into hitpieces when they don't revolve around My Little Pony. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 09:02, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 13:03, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
There's no reason to include this tweet. It offers little relevant information about the subject. Especially standing alone. People would simply read into it either positive or negative conclusions, depending on their view of the woman and knowledge of the studies she refers to. Unless we are going to digress into this whole narrow, very tangential topic, leave it out.---Mona- (talk) 14:50, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
The entire purpose is to serve as a decontextualised "gotcha", so ahaha no, thank you driveby - David Gerard (talk) 16:32, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Why not contextualize it then? Explain and enlighten, not obscure and hide. And how come this is not important for others. Richard Dawkins' article is filled with discussing his tweets. Can we remove them then, because the "entire purpose is to serve as a decontextualised "gotcha"" — Aneris Ѽ 19:25, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
What do you think is significant about this tweet? WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:35, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
A quick and illustrative example of CRT. — Aneris Ѽ 00:26, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

If you laugh at her, then you obviously support violence against women.-- (talk) 10:49, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

"Sarkeesian is well-known in Internet feminist circles and her work has been used in university classrooms,[1]" There is no evidence in this citation that her "work" has been used anywhere for anything. Shinola (talk) 03:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Fixed. Read-Write (talk) 05:06, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Maddox on Anita Sarkeesian[edit]

My internet hero, lord, and ruler of the universe, Maddox has spoken on Anita Sarkeesian with his friend Dick Masterson RakortheTerrible (talk) 23:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, who cares? He made a video about the wage gap that he got completely wrong, so I have no interest in this video. Or a man with an ego bigger than his car. Zero (talk - contributions) 04:43, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Who is Maddox and why should anyone care? Queexchthonic murmurings 11:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
He wrote an article bashing Garfield in 2004. It was one of the most influential pieces of writing in the entire field of Garfield-bashing. Tallulah (talk) 14:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm surprised you don't who Maddox is Queex, seeing as he is an important part of internet history and culture. Than again, Maddox doesn't have an article on RationalWiki despite being referenced at least once( and I'd be happy to write that Maddox article if anyone is interested).

Maddox is an American from Utah of Armenian heritage. He is a figure well known in 4chan/Something Awful/Portal of Evil circles and was one of the great early internet satirists right up there with Seanbaby and Old Man Murray. He is renowned for his website, "The Best Page in the Universe" or It is a site and created and funded solely by himself, and he uses it as an outlet to speak out against everything he sees terrible in society and culture. He says in his own words: "This page is about me and why everything I like is great. If you disagree with anything you find on this page, you are wrong. " Maddox started out writing ranty long winded over-the-top articles about his life and how Utah sucked, and why the educational system in his High School didn't have good priorities(spent too much on football) in addition to claiming that he was a pirate and a robot. He would go on about how bad entertainment has become and how terrible celebrities like Tony Danza, Ellen Degeneris, Helen Hunt, and John Leguizamo were. He would also write about terrible movies and usually spoiler them in the header of his articles. He reserved some extra hate specifically for the movie Titanic, and leading singer, Celine Dion. Commercials of all kinds were prime targets, and a great quality that everyone can see about his site is that it is notably ad free and loads fast. His flavor of writing is peculiarly testosterone flavored, espousing the virtues of "ass-kicking" and "Manliness" and "Beef Jerky". Sometimes people disagree with Maddox, virulently, and they send him hate mail regarding his offensive manly articles to his seemingly invulnerable robot pirate persona. Maddox has a special place for these poor poor saps in his hate mail section, where he posts the poorly spelt, poor worded, and downright poor emails of poor perspective, along with the email address, and rips the person to shreds in a response below the email. Maddox can be considered a professional troll, a good troll, and the way a troll should be. To this date, no one has ever beat Maddox in an internet debate, because true to his quote, everything he has said was right, more or less. It should go without saying that Maddox is pro-science all the way, often criticizing anti intellectual elements in American society. Maddox, despite coming from a relatively poor upbringing has made a ton of achievements in life. He has

  • Achieved over a billion views on his website
  • Achieved 3 book deals
  • Been around the world a few times, visiting awesome places like Mexico, Japan, Thailand, and the United Arab Emirates.
  • A stable career in computer programming in addition to an occasional columnist.
  • Thwarted a teen suicide in addition to possible other suicides
  • Made a mean sandwich
  • Torched a wedding veil to high heaven in order to spite a content aggregator.
  • Killed Crocs. Remember those ugly plastic women's footwear? Well, he wrote an article about them, and sales for Crocs significantly plummeted shortly after.
  • Appeared on Penn & Teller's bullshit only to be wrongfully portrayed as a crazy oppenent, and 10 years later, pwned Penn Jillette and his assistant Teller, and got them to apologize to him.
  • Mocked crappy children's artwork

Maddox considers his website his best achievement since it his pride and joy. It is a back lash at all things superficial and glossy right down the basic design. It reached the highest ranks of internet views. In a way, you could say that through perseverance, "The Best Page in the Universe" went from a mere joke from an angsty high school graduate trolling the internet, to the actual best page in the universe.

I can also say he has fantastic taste in video games, and can be considered a hardcore gamer given his list of all time favorites. He has written about Contra III too, going into detail on how well crafted it was and lamenting the FPS saturated state of video games back then when the article was written.

So Queex, that's Maddox in a nutshell, the self proclaimed pirate King of the Internet.

and no Zero, Maddox wasn't wrong about the Wage Gap, what he did was point out a discrepancy in a common feminist argument regarding why women are paid less. It's something that needs to be examined, scientifically, as Maddox would recommend. RakortheTerrible (talk) 03:13, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

yeah, that's great, nearly as notable an expert as Thunderf00t. Thanks for your concern! - David Gerard (talk) 12:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Important note: it takes more than being a successful youtuber for a few years to be 'an important part of internet history and culture'. I'll grant that he's more significant than 'where the hell is Matt', but there's still no reason to give a shit about what he says about something unless it's particularly insightful. Good luck to him, as long as he doesn't behave like a complete arsehole. Maybe one day he'll notice you if you keep up the fanboying.
In an excess of fairmindedness, I even started listening to that video. Early quote: "She's a non-gamer who picks on gaming". So, the video is full of shit and so are you. Queexchthonic murmurings 14:09, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Queex, if you think Maddox is wrong, why don't you email him, or post in the comments under his podcast? Think about it, you could be the first person to pwn Maddox in a debate. You would be a true internet hero, that is, if you were correct. Billions would respect you, including me. I could consider you my new internet hero for dethroning Maddox and I would worship you hand and foot and espouse your every word. You would be no Chump Change or Sea Otter Steve, and you get people stop hating on Anita Sarkeesian, thus achieving what all white knights aspired to do. The age of trolls would come to a crashing end, and you would be the centerpiece of such a revolution. You wouldn't have to be edgy or offensive about it. You could just say, "Hey Maddox, there's something you got seriously wrong in your video. Anita Sarkeesian is a gamer, she played Gameboy and an Snes since she was 5 and has been a big fan of Super Mario Bros. She might not find God of War or Halo so great, but doesn't mean she doesn't love and encourage video games." and you could seriously humble Maddox! Also, David, no, Thunderf00t never appeared on TV, been in numerous interviews, or wrote a full fledged Book. Maddox is the MAN, Thunderf00t is a fedora flapping in the wind.RakortheTerrible (talk) 22:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Why would Queex want to debate or even talk with Maddox, who's just some internet rando I've never heard of before you ranted about him? --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Also, Queex, the statement "She's a non-gamer who picks on gaming" was stated by Dick Masterson, an avowed professional chauvinist(although he's likely just trolling), host of and a good friend of Maddox whom he has friendly fierce debates with (Maddox generally wins and calls him "Princess Masterson"). Dick Masterson is another person I could totally write an article about, albeit more negatvely charged. Now, while the statement "Anita, is a non gamer who picks gaming" is kind of false, the explanation he gave was completely valid. He said afterwords about how Anita reacted to Lara Croft's new snow outfit designs, going about how she said something along the lines of "it's about time Lara Croft wore something less provocative!", when in fact, Lara Croft has worn snow outfits before as well as other less provocative wear. A statement like the one Anita Sarkeesian made infers that she either hasn't played much Tomb Raider games, or she has not remembered them that much. A comment about Lara Croft wearing only skimpy outfits implies an outsider perspective. The truth is perhaps while Anita might be insider when it comes to some games like Mario, she an outsider to other game universes like Tomb Raider. RakortheTerrible (talk) 22:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

And the fuck should we care? --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
As a general rule, I don't take the time to write emails to strangers because they said something I didn't agree with. Because, you know, I'm a functional human being and not a member of the green ink brigade. Similarly, debates are complete waste of time because all they do is show who is the better debater; not who was right. Besides, the company someone keeps says quite a lot about their character. So playing host to Masterson means he either doesn't much object to what he says, or he's prepared to signal-boost someone he disagrees with for the extra clicks. Neither option paints him in a good light. At least you've come clean about your regard of Maddox. You should let him know if you find any polyps up there. Queexchthonic murmurings 23:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Castaigne2, Maddox may be some random schmuck to you, but to billions of other people around the world, he means something, he is an internet icon and a voice for the independent as well as a voice of reason. He started out small saying big things that require balls to say, and over time, people respected him for doing what no one else was doing at the time, and never sold out himself hence the ad free nature of his website. From 1997 to today, he has been an independent writer answering to no one else but himself and his huge balls. The greatest appeal Maddox has is the fact that his voice is his and no one else's. You aren't being told information through a filter like you are with Fox News, or CNN, or NBC. Thus you get articles that are challenging to your to point of view. This article written by him demonstrates why people respect Maddox. At rank 5,892, Maddox wields more power and influence than multi billion dollar American corporations. People are more likely to listen to Maddox than they are Mcdonalds, so for people who don't buy into traditional left wing or right wing narratives, Maddox is the person they go to listen for advice. There a good sizable ammount of intellectual independents who don't vote because they are disillusioned with the extremism and the hypocrisies of both parties, and a good amount of those people listen to Maddox. You want them to be more liberal? Than convince Maddox, or try to, and you could convince his readers to be more liberal. TLDR; he's like a modern Johnathan Swift. Can you imagine what it would be like Johnathan Swift espoused something that was wrong? It would be your moral duty to stand up to him and say why.

Queex, the company that people hang out with does not dictate their character, while differing ideals make people hostile, it doesn't always have to be that way. Picasso and Martin Luther King Jr. associated with communists, but they were not communists. Likewise, Stan Lee did Spider-Man comics with Steve Ditko. Lee was liberal, Ditko was Objectivist, and they were good friends up until an arc involving the identity of The Green Goblin character. I myself respect and learn from people of various backgrounds and ideals. Debate is the cornerstone of Democracy, by saying that debate is useless, you are succumbing to the idea of "the safe space" mentality, and you are contributing to what is wrong with the internet right now. As days go by, people are retreating into their little confirmation bias filter bubbles. Liberals become more liberal as they listen to more liberal sources, conservatives become more conservative as all they listen to are conservative sources, and libertarians are becoming more libertarian as all they listen to are libertarian sources. They all think that they are in the right, that they are red pilled and all other people other ideology are mindless sheep who have either yet to see the light or are too far gone the rabbit hole to be even worth saving let alone, debating with. If you thought debating was useless, why even establish this site? Why even send this site out there and expect it to be read by people? Do you like preaching to a choir? Besides, Maddox would love this site. He is not an irrational nutter, he has on record spoken out against the anti-vaccination movement, and climate change denial. You would probably be in good company with him.RakortheTerrible (talk) 04:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Nobody cares. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 05:35, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I care. I care because I believe RationalWiki should be right on all matters, whether it disagrees with Maddox or not. Thus, that entails either standing up to Maddox, demonstrating how he was wrong or admitting that he right about a few things.RakortheTerrible (talk) 01:35, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you should find a better use of your time than trying to make random people on the internet debate another random person. Believe it or not, but we do not have to care about every random asshole out there on the internet. This person brings nothing new to the table we haven't seen already, and there are far, far too many Z-list MRA Youtube personalities to warrant refuting every single one, when they are usually the same old arguments repackaged in a new coat of paint. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 12:26, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
In any case, he doesn't seem to have said anything that hasn't already been debunked in the article, so we've already successfully stood up to him. Queexchthonic murmurings 12:43, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


What's the issue? Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 07:12, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I have recovered, expanded and sourced this section. But I would like to know why The Usual Suspects want to have that removed, too. The working hypothesis is that they simply like to remove ANY potentially critical thing (sex negative feminist, for example, would find her work spot on) and the reasons that transpire will be more or less flimsy rationalisations, as the reason that it was unsourced. We should demand a change in attitude. Rather than throw paragraphs away, the editor should try to source them, and if not possible, delete and write that such things apparently can't be sourced, or can be falsified, rather than that they aren't sourced. This would reduce the activity of the bad faith editors who seek to remove documentation on certain people. Further, these findings could be added to the article as silent evidence ~ Aneris 09:48, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
"The Usual Suspects"? Pssh. I'm getting the impression you are the bad faith editor here, Aneris. (talk) 09:55, 31 January 42016 AQD (UTC)
By "bad faith" you mean "blasphemous"? I plead guilty. Other than that, only a special type of character would consider it in bad faith when articles are expanded with sources, inter-links, and further material is added, as well as much needed context. The fanboi who removed the section acted in bad faith, since we have an article on sex-positivity that already included the history bit. ~ Aneris 10:26, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm referring to your bad faith assumptions, which you were kind enough to repeat and even add to in your last post. (talk) 10:31, 31 January 42016 AQD (UTC)
Honestly, I see this insistence on sex-positivity as advocating an even more fervent sex-normativity than what is already the norm. And Sarkeesian is anti-trope/stereotype, so her position isn't particularly remarkable given the abundance of sexual stereotypes. (talk) 09:51, 31 January 42016 AQD (UTC)
She doesn't really come out with any sort of identifier as either way. Even her comments on Bayonetta are clear as mud so until somebody comes with something we can both agree on, leave it out please. Zero (talk - contributions) 11:16, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
You didn't find the time to read the material I provided e.g. from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, did you? There were two broad positions. One argued sexuality, erotica, pornography and such things were potentially liberating for women, too. This came about in context of the 1960s when the feminists thought that the demonization (i.e sinful) of sexuality was detrimental for women, who are traditionally thought of having to control this. If you understand anything about misogyny and its history, you will know that its deeply rooted in religious beliefs, too. You can see this misogynist mindset for example in the US purity movement. You can see it when women are blamed for sexual assault and rape ("she was asking for it") in particular when they wore revealing clothing, make up etc. You can also see it in traditional lifestyles and societies where women must cover themselves up. That's the context here. Hence, breaking this open was a concern for feminists. These feminists are commonly associated with a more libertarian streak (not to be confused with US libertarianism, which is rather a type of right wing paleo-libertarianism), i.e. focus on personal freedoms, emancipation, empowerment, own choices.
Then, ca. during the late 1970s, the pendulum swung into the opposite direction with Dworkin and McKinnon. Then, postmodernism was about to become big in the humanities and hence "deconstruction", Lacan's Gaze theory and such things became fashionable. Notable here Laura Mulvey's ideas about the "male gaze". The idea was then that women were not really empowered, but brainwashed by the patriarchy. They were becoming a commodity and were not really deciding what they want to do with their bodies. Today's lingo is "internalized misogyny" for example. They said, they were merely thought of as sex objects that way. This is, as I pointed you towards already, a fairly central Kantian idea (i.e. thought up by Immanuel Kant). In a nutshell: he argued humans can set ends and then decide what means to take to reach these ends. Therefore, all ends point to the human. Exploitation is treating a human merely as a means. Of course ironically, Kant's take was very libertarian, and his rendering of the Enlightenment was all about the belief that people should decide for themselves what they want (though you have to see this in context of his times, with monarchs and churches and all of that). But now, the new wave of feminists (the 2nd wave) felt that women cannot escape patriarchal structures that way. Once you understand the basics you will see why this is the opposite pole to the former more libertarian zeitgeist: namely authoritarianism. It's the idea that an elite/authorities/feminist opinion leaders etc know best what is good for women, with the consequence that they wanted the law to step in. This take, essentially declaring liberation and empowerment as corrupted, was polarizing and brought about Ellen Willis and e.g. Feminists Against CensorshipWikipedia. Doesn't this sound strangely familiar?
These two sides eventually crystallized into sex negative faction (Dworkin et al) and the sex positive side (Willis et al). The RationalWiki has an article on sex positivity. Our contemporary conflicts around Sarkeesian are not only very similar, Sarkeesian and others use the concepts of Dworkin and McKinnon (e.g. objectification). This is why this revert war with little to no discussion, no discernable examination of the topic, flippant dismissal and blocking is again a poor display of "pro SJ" team who seems to be more in the business of PR rather than the production of knowledge. I actually don't have a firm view on the matter, but prima facie evidence, cultural traditions point well into the directiona s sketched out here. And flippant behaviour of the detractors, and lack of understanding look like you actually don't have any arguments that stand against this. So, I'm going with what makes sense. PS: one could raise a deeper point as well, since unlike with erotica, pornography, sex work and such things -- where humans are involved who indeed can (and are) exploited -- polygons and pixels aren't real people, which makes Sarkeesian's critique particularily inane. She therefore ONLY has an issue with the graphical depiction itself and her talk about objectification is incoherent gibberish (also Mulvey's ideas probbaly don't translate well, either). But this is a second, more advanced take. ~ Aneris 12:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Jesus Christ! Use some paragraph breaks, Aneris. Otherwise this wall of text reads like the rantings of a madman. Or is this your tactic of 'winnning' this debate by vomiting this monstrosity and hoping that no one will bother decoding it? Typhoon (talk) 13:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
"Or is this your tactic of 'winnning' this debate by vomiting this monstrosity and hoping that no one will bother decoding it?" Bingo! We have a Winner!! Aneris has dedicated more text to Antita than she has. Strange considering GG doesnt care about her anymore.Petey Plane (talk) 14:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Except that none of what he posted above or added to the article is actually about Anita Sarkeesian. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, objectification is one of Sarkeesians main themes and the original paragraph drew connections to her work. Let's face it. We can as well delete talk-pages on the Saints of Social Justice anyway, since there is no discussion, no argument --ever-- since you are not interested in what is true, or but only what you believe is good PR work for these people. ~ Aneris 06:02, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Here's another source which will blow everyone away. A four aces hand of arguments on the RW, Geek Feminism citing PZ Myers from FTB! That's to RationalWikians as what is God quoting the Pope would be for Catholics. "Pro-sex-worker activists legitimately criticized the third Feminist Frequency for its use of "prostituted women" to describe sex workers, which is an agency-denying code phrase used by sex-worker-eliminationist radical feminists." Ohh! ~ Aneris 12:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

All evidence point to her not only being sex negative but also anti-feminine in general.-- (talk) 10:52, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

But does Anita believe that the majority of men and gamers are misogynist?-- (talk) 09:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Why don't you ask her? WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 09:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Because she shut away comments because she believe they are all harassers, so I can't comment.-- (talk) 09:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

You're doing a fantastic job of proving her point bruh. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 09:36, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I feel blamed and ashamed and even anxious for my gender without giving any derogatories, sexist commands or rape/murder threats. I have even spoke out against violence towards women and called the wage gap chauvinist. So how exactly am I supporting misogyny?-- (talk) 10:53, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I want an argument to where I stand, while she doesn't deserve the threats, there is no reason why she shouldn't be a misandrist.-- (talk) 05:56, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Have you ever stopped to think that arguing about someone until they debate you when they clearly do not want to talk to you is a form of harassment? Calling people like you "obsessed" is an understatement. You are not entitled to Anita or anyone else's time. And you have not shown yourself to be worthy of it. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 06:11, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm only talking about harassment because that is all along with the Wikipedia article are. It needs to be less bias and include players who support her as well as clarifying her belief in the target audience as a whole.-- (talk) 06:18, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Learn to read. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 06:20, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Are All Non Feminist Rapist?[edit]

Bungee threatened to rape her for speaking out, Kickstarter threatened to block her account and the University of Utah had threatened to massacre their own students. So either she is a victim or she is a shepherd who leads her herd without question. Why does all criticism to he have to be misogyny or categorised as misogyny, is there no middle ground? Are reactions only being offended and offending others or are they the only ones we hear from? I don't mean to beat the dead horse but if she didn't hate male viewers and men as a whole, then she certainly does after the rape and murder threats from those three hiveminds I listed above who all support violence against women.-- (talk) 09:18, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I would like a reply because I have already attacked Bungee, Kickstarter and the University of Utah and called them hiveminds so I think it would be fair if I got a feminist response.-- (talk) 11:02, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I have made a valid statement of the rape culture and I still haven't received a response.-- (talk) 10:45, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

What you have their is a lot of puzzling babble.
1) "University of Utah had threatened to massacre their own students" wat.
2) "So either she is a victim or she is a shepherd who leads her herd without question." False dichotomy.
3) "Why does all criticism to he have to be misogyny or categorised as misogyny, is there no middle ground?" there is middle ground. It's just that valid criticism of her looks very different to most criticism she receives. Any variation on 'not a real gamer' comes from a position of misogyny, as does any one of the many supposed rebuttals which are actually absurd strawman arguments based around a wilful misinterpretation of what she actually said.
4) "I would like a reply because I have already attacked Bungee, Kickstarter and the University of Utah and called them hiveminds so I think it would be fair if I got a feminist response." Here's a big part of your problem: you seem to think that acceptance from the feminist Borg hinges on someone mouthing the right platitudes, defending the 'right' people and attacking the 'wrong' people. That's not the case. It's about seeing the logic and the evidence behind the positions and being able to discuss them (positively or negatively) in a meaningful way. This unwitting pastiche of 'the feminist position' just comes across as baffling, to the point that it's barely worth responding to.
Imagine if, in a discussion of heliocentrism, someone said:
"The Pope threatened to kill Galileo, so Galileo is either a victim or leads his herd without question. Why does all criticism of him have to be persecution? Why are heliocentrists so offended? surely he must have Catholic followers after I pointed out that the Pope supports violence against astronomers? I've made all the right noises, why are the heliocentrists ignoring me?"
It's a statement packed with factual errors, hyperbole and weird illogic of no relevance to the discussion at hand, wrapped up with a petulant demand for attention. tbh, posting here is probably not helping work through anything. Try taking a longish break and reading around some of these subjects--and not just things written by opponents of feminism who mischaracterise it. Queexchthonic murmurings 11:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, it just that the Wikipedia article was so black and white, that it made them ALL look like criminals but are you implying with most critisism being sexist wether intential or not means that the majority of players and men in general support violence against women?-- (talk) 12:06, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

So what you're saying is, that you struggle to understand the wikipedia article (whichever one that may be) as well? Queexchthonic murmurings 12:45, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
What interests me is that our friendly BoN's somehow managed to get an indefinite ban on Wikipedia (no small feat either) and has edited similar topics there. Something tells me this is a lost cause. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 12:52, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

The article about Anita, it says all opposition towards her are either rape or death threats and mabey they are bias and contraversial is why I edited them in the first place-- (talk) 12:52, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

It says no such thing. Queexchthonic murmurings 12:55, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Not sure if that matters if it gives him attention. Negative attention is better than no attention I guess. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:19, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I would like an answer to my question "are youimplying with most criticism being sexist whether intentional or not means that the majority of players and men in general support violence against women?"-- (talk) 07:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Ask questions that make some sense & they're more likely to be answered. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 07:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

If you want me to be more clear then the question is are most gamers violent and misogynistic towards women and do the rape and death threats to her and other online feminist represent all men?-- (talk) 07:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

That's a subjective question and depends on the opinions and subjective viewpoints of the person of whom the question is asked. There is no universal answer on the subject. --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Nah, he's inquiring about rather simple facts and the answers are pretty obvious:
  1. No, because there's plenty of non-mysogynist gamers and many of those that are mysogynist don't meaningfully interact with women.
  2. No, such actions blatantly fail to represent all men. Unless you want to radically redefine the meaning of "men" to "people that make rape and/or death threats."
There ya go. (talk) 22:45, 9 February 42016 AQD (UTC)
  1. But whether or not any given gamer is considered a misogynist depends entirely on your personal POV. Many that, say, the dreaded SJWs would misogynist would be denied as being such by the members of KiA. Thus, subjective...unless you have an absolute objective scale for what is and is not misogyny.
  2. This also depends on whether you believe in Schrodinger's Rapist or not. So, also subjective. --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:57, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

But does ANITA believe that gamers can't separate fantasy from reality and what I claim feminist to be? At least Laci Green, despite my belief that I still think that she is a misnadrist, said not all men are like that, but I have yet to see Sarkeesian make that statement. Yes I believe that the vast majority of feminist see men as Schrodinger's Rapist and therfore they think its natural for women to believe that all men support violence against women even thougth I have met zero men in my life that cat call.-- (talk) 07:05, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Well does Schrodinger's Rapist mean "I think therefore you are as opposed to I think therefore I am?" Aka men are rapist and not possibly rapist, or is no one to be trusted regardless of gender and we should all be misanthropist because the YouTube channel "Miss Misanthropist" said so?-- (talk) 06:00, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

"Illegitimate" criticisms[edit]

Is it just me, or are the refutations are very biased?

"Sarkeesian's claims that sexist tropes in video games make gamers more sexist are just as bullshit as claims that violence in video games makes gamers more violent." The problem isn't that she's making such a claim, it's the fact that she isn't providing any evidence that this is the case. We get nothing but her word for it that these games make people "more sexist".

"even if science ultimately proves her wrong, she's at least made an attempt to prove her point with valid science." So basically, "even if she's wrong, at least she tried! :)"

"Censoring video games" ≠ "Sarkeesian wants to ban video games." She clearly does want developers to stop doing certain things, which is censorship.

"Anita Sarkeesian said this in 2010. It is now 2016. In 6 years people's opinions can change." Then she needs to address it and clear this up, because this quote is still pretty damning. And her dedicating her life to something that has clearly been financially ludicrous does not imply a change of heart, it just shows a keen eye for opportunity.

"There is no real penalty for having knocked out the characters, despite a loss in statistical points." THEN WHAT DEFINES A REAL PENALTY? You lose points -- you are PENALISED.

I could go on, but honestly, the whole section needs to be reconsidered IMO. Most of the refutations are clearly the author's own opinion and are often speculative.

Don't have time to do all of them, but:
The problem isn't that she's making such a claim, it's the fact that she isn't providing any evidence that this is the case. We get nothing but her word for it that these games make people "more sexist"
The article literally disproves this.

Second, the claims of Jack Thompson (and others) that video games cause violence have been almost entirely scientifically disproven (see main article), while there is much stronger scientific evidence relating sexism in games and sexist attitudes in gamers (see main article). Further, Sarkeesian cites these studies in the supplementary material to her videos;[41] even if science ultimately proves her wrong, she's at least made an attempt to prove her point with valid science.

And the source goes to
Which has a section, LINKS & RESOURCES:
  • The Sexy Lie – Caroline Heldman at TEDxYouth@SanDiego
  • The Sexual Objectification Spillover Effect
  • Objectification by Martha Nussbaum
  • How Fantasy Becomes Reality: Seeing Through Media Influence by Karen E. Dill
  • It’s time to leave the brothels and strip clubs behind when real victims fuel your narrative by Ben Kuchera
  • Sexual Priming, Gender Stereotyping, and Likelihood to Sexually Harass: Examining the Cognitive Effects of Playing a Sexually-Explicit Video Game
  • Effects of exposure to sex-stereotyped video game characters on tolerance of sexual harassment
  • Objectification leads to depersonalization: The denial of mind and moral concern to objectified others
  • Sexualized avatars affect the real world, Stanford researchers find
  • The embodiment of sexualized virtual selves: The Proteus effect and experiences of self-objectification via avatars
  • The Afterglow of Construct Accessibility: The Behavioral Consequences of Priming Men to View Women as Sexual Objects
  • Sexism in online video games: The role of conformity to masculine norms and social dominance orientation
So. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 04:52, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
"She clearly does want developers to stop doing certain things, which is censorship." I clearly do want new Simpsons episodes to stop being unfunny, which is censorship? Wanting change in how things are done to better represent and audience isn't censorship. Petey Plane (talk) 15:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
This is relevant:
New Study Finds No Link Between Gaming And Sexist Attitudes - Forbes.--Kugelschreiber (talk) 21:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't want to dismiss valid scientific research, but "The study also took a very broad view of videogames and didn’t specifically target games with sexualized content" makes me question its relevance to Anita's commentary, which at least as far as I've ever seen from FeministFrequency focuses almost solely on video games with sexualized content. Unless I'm missing somewhere where she attacks people who play Candy Crush or Professor Layton or Cookie Clicker. —Bilorv (needs a slap) 22:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Also the real reason people harp on her claim of not being a fan of video games was that she said "I was into video games as a kid and have been for a while." Or something to that effect. Yet she later said she never played them. That's a flat out lie. Also given that she STILL Used lets play footage despite having the games, that implies she never actually played them. THAT'S why people accuse her of being dishonest.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs
"You don't need to play games to critique them" Sorry what? Do you need to watch a play to create valid critique of it? Do you need to look at art to create valid critique? Can I get a job as a poetry critic without reading the material? Of course not. That section should really be moved to 'valid criticisms'. Otherwise, article seems to need some goat to lighten the tone. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs
It's true, actually. You don't need to know/study/experience a product in its entirety in order to critique a particular part of it. I can complain about Moby Dick's title having "dick" in it without knowing anything about what the book is about. I can complain about virtually every horror movie ever predictably ending with the seemingly-vanquished evil reappearing in some form while having never watched a single horror movie in its entirety. I can complain about racially segregated societies in The Lord of the Rings without being aware of any other part of the content. Et cetera. Admittedly, critiques tend to be taken more seriously when they take the whole context into account and they criticize more than just one tiny part, but if that's not the case it still doesn't automatically invalidate the critique. (talk) 15:35, 7 March 42016 AQD (UTC)

If one accepts Anita's videos as one would accept a movie reviewer's take on a contemporary film, then everything she may say is valid as a personal opinion. This approach is adequate for film reviewers and also, I think, for game reviewers. What is not valid is any claim about the sociological effects of films or games. That would require real scientific inquiry. Something Anita does not do.Shinola (talk) 18:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

She doesn't, because researchers already have. She even cites the papers in her videos. Queexchthonic murmurings 18:16, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

She doesn't because she is incapable of doing so. She has no training in scientific research. She is not competent to even evaluate or recognize legitimate research. Finally there is no definitive research available that is accepted by the American Sociological Association.Shinola (talk) 21:01, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

You don't have to be versed in a field to cite it. She certainly seems to be a lot more competent to evaluate research than you are, if you think 'definitive research' is a thing that even exists, in any field. Queexchthonic murmurings 21:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

This is supposed to be a blog for people who believe in science and research. Definitive research exists in all fields of science: Evolution. Relativity theory, Quantum Mechanics, Physical chemisrty, etc. Also, how do you know what my qualifications are? Anita is a nice lady. I'm sure she could write nice book reviews for the NY Times, or other such ephemera, not meant to be remembered.Shinola (talk) 21:23, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

If you don't understand what scientific citations are, which most children learn before middle school, then I would place a pretty confident bet on your level of knowledge about science in general to be well below normal. I won't without a neutral third party with complete access to information because truth seems to not be your strong suit given your replies so far. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 21:46, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

"If you don't understand what scientific citations are, which most children learn before middle school, then I would place a pretty confident bet on your level of knowledge about science in general to be well below normal." What a pleasant and child-like attempt to change the subject to me, one of my very favorite persons. But back to the real question: there is no connection established between violence in children and violent video games: You are very welcome.Shinola (talk) 18:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

That isn't what anyone is arguing except maybe Jack Thompson. Zero (talk - contributions) 20:09, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Another vote for science. Sexism is a marvelously non-quantifiable property. How will they ever test that hypothesis? The brink of pseudo-science has been crossed.Shinola (talk) 20:16, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Scam artist[edit]

I really enjoy reading RationalWiki, but it ceases to be so rational when it comes to this person.Unsigned by This article instead of exposing another scam artist glorifies one.

Your obsession over some woman who makes internet videos about video games is a little silly, no? Petey Plane (talk) 14:12, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
"But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink!--JorisEnter (talk) 22:22, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Sign up, bring quality sources and start shifting the nuance of the article if you think you're in the right? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Don't bother. What the Reverend says is wishful thinking. The RationalWikians will remove first hand, verbatim quotations when they don't support the narrative they want to tell. You're just wasting your time. They will however eagerly include every random tweet, if this supports their narrative. ~ Aneris 00:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
What Percy said to the BoN applies to you too, doubly so. After all, you're a RationalWikian too. Typhoon (talk) 07:09, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
The article directly argues against the claims that Sarkeesian is a scam artist. Are you going to make any actual criticisms of the article here, or just call it irrational and leave it at that? Frederick♠♣♥♦ 23:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

The main problem in establishing Sarkeesian's credibility lies in the status of Cultivation Theory, which claims to explain and predict the anti-social effects of playing so-called sexist video games. So far there is no actual evidence that Cultivation Theory is not a pseudoscience. See for example: (talk) 16:09, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Ah yes. The flawed German study. Not relevant to the American gaming market. Moving on. Zero (talk - contributions) 18:04, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Ah yes: CITATION PLEASE. Also citation for experimental verification of anything to do with Cultivation Theory. Take your time.Ariel31459 (talk) 18:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

One citation coming right up! Zero (talk - contributions) 22:37, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
So violent computer games make you not more violent, but misogynistic video games make you more misogynistic? You got it now, why they compare Anie with Jackie?--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 10:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC) 10:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
It's possible that different attitudes (towards violence, towards gender, etc.) can be affected differently by the same type of media and even the same game -- it really only matter what the statistics say. The science (as I understand it) is ambivalent about VG and sexism, while it's much stronger against VG and violence. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 13:51, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
And you can guess, what cherries Annie picks from the games & sexism pile...--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 15:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC) 15:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

As someone who has been maintaining the relevant section on "Number of videos" which tackle the "scam artist" claim, I'd be very interested in learning what is apparently wrong with the section, rather than the vague crap Ariel and Aneris are spewing. Jon91919 (talk) 12:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

That's about as cogent of a description of the "problems" one can get with these sections from these two and they are among the most eloquent. When they can be understood they are debunked quicker than Lassie running to tell the farmstead Timmy is in the well again. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 14:56, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Heh, heh, heh, Psychology Today? Really? Ariel31459 (talk) 21:19, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Here's a real question: How did this person convince people to give her money to study games? She received a bachelor's degree in communication studies from California State University, Northridge, and then earned a master's degree in social and political thought from York University. No background in psychology and she is the biggest thing in media since Honey Booboo.Jackinthebox (talk) 16:07, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I answer this by simply saying that it is because her ideas are relevant nowadays. The fact that her claims have become conversation topics should show you enough proof that while many not necessary would agree with her, they at least would have thought about her. Since her claims are relevant and that the media we consume builds upon being relevant it should come as to no suprise that she is a lot in the media.

In short, the question should be posed as follows: Why is she relevant? Hex4 (talk) 10:21, 9 september 2016

Straw-Man fallacy and several incorrect/misleading statements on this page.[edit]

For a wiki that's usually rational, I was quite surprised to see a Straw-Man here. You see, right under the picture of Anita, there's the caption "OMG, a woman on the Internet!". This implies all of Anita's criticism (which is not harassment, as I'll get to soon) is coming from misogynists who are just mad she's a woman. Never mind the fact that: She constantly lies (you can find countless examples of this, such as how she distorted information about the video game "Hitman"), she scammed thousands with her kickstarter, and promotes belief without evidence, hence her infamous "listen and believe". You'd think that rational wiki would take issue with these pseudo-scientific things, but it apparently doesn't. Now onto the incorrect/misleading statements, the article opens claiming Anita "documents the often-sexist portrayals of women (and to a lesser extent sexual and racial minorities) in popular media such as video games and movies.", despite the fact that nearly all alleged instances of this is nothing more than her wasting donated money, as she opposes women expressing sexuality in the slightest (hey, that sounds like something a misogynist would do!). Next, the article mentions how her "work" has been used in classrooms. Now you'd think RationalWiki would take issue with pseudo-science being used in classrooms, but it doesn't! Where's the consistency? Regardless, it then brands GamerGate as "anti-feminist". GamerGate is anti-feminist in the same way ostriches are anti-potato farming, i.e. no correlation. It then goes on to claim she experiences "constant harassment and death threats". Never mind that men experience the same thing (on the Internet), the threats are not credible, and SHE'S EVEN BEEN CAUGHT SENDING THEM TO HERSELF!!! But that's not important, what is apparently, is that Anita is an innocent victim of the sexist patriarchy, and it's up to us men to save her. Most of the remaining article "confuses" criticism with harassment. This was made me question why we don't just remove references on all articles? I mean, listen and believe, right? This is just the tip of the iceberg, and I'm shocked RationalWiki would allow such a low-quality article. I'd fix it, but editing's been locked. Great. --UnidentifiedHuman721 (talk) 07:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Everything you have just posted is debunked at length in the article. Have a nice day. :) Sandflapjack (talk) 07:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
"But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink!JorisEnter (talk) 08:12, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Correction, some of the points you raise are debunked on List of Gamergate claims. Have a nice day. :) Sandflapjack (talk) 08:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Good post! - David Gerard (talk) 08:38, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Smurfsactly.JorisEnter (talk) 08:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Holy shit, that's a lot of words for someone Gamergate claims to no longer care about. Seriously, you GGers need to get a life, instead of dedicated so much of it to arguing over video games. Petey Plane (talk) 12:55, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
I know it's directly above but I feel compelled to place this one again: Good post!--JorisEnter (talk) 12:59, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Aren't you late for class?Jackinthebox (talk) 16:08, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Anita Sarkeesian#Stealing Let's Play footage[edit]

OK, this section is problematic. Sure, it's not *illegal* to use another person's footage without permission and without crediting them (under fair use), but it's still a dick move that's extremely easy to fix -- as simple as a link in the description. Defending her here seems, shall I say, irrational. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 13:46, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

This entire article is irrational. I'd fix it, but they blocked editing, so don't expect actual improvement here. I know, it's awful. --UnidentifiedHuman721 (talk) 17:06, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree. Total dick move. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:08, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
It could be illegal. There are things Fair Use doesn't cover. Recorded game footage could be covered under fair use (keyword: could), but particular game footage from another Youtuber is a grey area of a grey area. Then again, I haven't seen the vids in question, so I can't comment.
What I can comment on is this line: "she isn't monetizing the videos so she isn't profiting off of someone else's work"
That's irrelevant when it comes to Fair use. Completely irrelevant. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 17:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
I mean, you're wrong, but we can move past that together! [5] "the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;" Hipocrite (talk) 18:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Yeeeeess, but the fact that it's "non-profit" doesn't automatically make it fair use. (See also: people who post episodes of TV shows on Youtube and claim it's "not for profit"). ℕoir LeSable (talk) 18:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
There's straw ALL OVER THE FLOOR from the strawman you demolished there! Hipocrite (talk) 18:45, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Ok, Jesus, I was wrong, personal profit does play a part in determination of fair use, but I stand by the point that the line is irrelevant in a personal defense, like saying "at least I wasn't drunk" when determining who's at fault for a car accident. Happy now? ℕoir LeSable (talk) 18:53, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
The fair use issue concerns Sarkeesian's use of copyrighted game content, as this would be infringement of the developers' copyrights were it to be determined to fall outside fair use. The notion that the gamers who recorded this game content rather than the developers could have a valid claim for copyright infringement is pure fantasy. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 12:26, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
If all of the footage she used was from videos uploaded on YouTube, then there are two licenses which she has to adhere to. The first is the Standard YouTube license (which is the standard setting while uploading videos) and if you look at the terms which apply when using other people's footage (see section 6c of the Terms of Service) it says absolutely nothing about crediting the videos of others, therefore she's not acting illegally if the videos in question were set to use the standard license and let's be honest here most people probably don't give any consideration to the license setting while uploading. The other license YouTube allows is CC-BY 3.0, where crediting is necessary - in this case she would be acting illegally if she failed to reference the original work. But nobody seems to have made the work of checking the licenses of every single video she used footage from, which is odd because the life of the GG crowd seems to revolve around discrediting her in every possible way. NameThatNobodyTakes () 20:14, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
If it's legal, it's legit. Don't want her to do it, make it illegal to do so. --Castaigne2 (talk) 20:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Footage from video games is the intellectual property of the game's producers, not its consumers. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:41, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

You might want to note as well the staggering hypocrisy, as copyright infringement is generally sanctioned by many Gamergaters (unless it's an evil SJW doing it). A fair number of people in Gamergate haunts consider anyone who pays for movies/video games/etc. a moron. --Ymir (talk) 11:54, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Also note that posting Let's Play footage online is itself copyright infringement. It's just a form of infringement that the games industry tolerates (& sometimes encourages). WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 12:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Depends on whom you're talking to, many consider software pirates the cancer that is killing the gaming industry, to put it in 4chan lingo.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 15:09, 20 April 2016 (UTC) 15:09, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
(Stallman voice) Unless it's fair use! - David Gerard (talk) 14:31, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay, again[edit]

The legality of it isn't really the issue. It that it's a dick moveh. We should at least mention this, and check if Sarkeesian has changed whether she credits the LP'ers. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 17:07, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

The section has been mentioning FemFreq's failure of giving credit as "fair criticism" for a few days now. I do agree that it should be mentioned in some way or another but my issue with Anita+Co. not telling where the video samples come from is rather a scientific one - instead for the lack of crediting, my problem here is the insufficient referencing on any given video (as of now she only references the game and some of its meta-data, but not where the footage with the delicate portrayal of what trope she wants to point out originates from). I also do think it should be said why a person would make such a big deal about their footage being legally taken which is merely a video of that person interacting with a third party's copyrighted material which they do not own any rights to anyway.
For the record, a quick glimpse into her latest and newest "Tropes" videos show that she still doesn't mention where she got the footage from and highly doubt that this will change in the foreseeable future. NameThatNobodyTakes () 21:55, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
By what standards is it "a dick move"? I find the whole notion preposterous that somebody owns - either legally, morally or intellectually - part of a mass-produced video game that they merely played & posted a recording of online. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:23, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm coming into this discussion not having participated or read it too closely, but to focus on a specific aspect of it - the question of credit really seems to be very simple. "Credit where credit is due" as a yes/no proposition. I think it's to somebody's detriment to decide to arbitrarily not credit other content makers when it is fully in their power to just credit them. Not saying there's some far reaching scheme behind withdrawing credit; I'm just saying it's kind of a dick move to act out a "no" to that question without any coherent reasoning to specifically back up that highly peculiar choice. And like FCP says, we should really check around to see if she's crediting better now. Benefit of the doubt and so on. But we don't need to defend her even when she clearly does wrong, as all humans do. That'd be absolutely moronical to even imply that we ought to do. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:35, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
@Weasel: It's not about ownership. Someone took the time to record, edit, and upload the content she's reusing -- she could at least mention them. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 23:12, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
It's potentially a fair criticism, but only a very very minor one (IMHO). (talk) 23:20, 20 April 42016 AQD (UTC)

What needs to be highly emphasised here though is how misleading the "Let's Play" argument is. It often gets featured as part of the BS "Anita doesn't play video games ever!" narrative, even though the completely fails Occam's Razor, namely that it's far simpler that the overwhelming majority of footage Anita screens comes from her own gameplay. I've seen plenty LPs of games, and there is no guarantee in looking through any such videos that you'll find what you're looking for, not to mention the notion of trawling through videos with often-times irritating commentary, when really one would imagine that any critic doing a video series like Anita is doing would find far more enjoyment playing the games themselves. Plus, as people mention, it's not like she took the whole Let's Play video and incorporated into the footage. What she included was a few seconds, tops. Jon91919 (talk) 14:15, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I find your Occam's Razor thing hard to follow & counterintuitive. When I see somebody talking over video game footage my usual assumption is that they're not the same person playing it unless they're doing something like an instructional walkthrough or an independent review. Game footage (like sports footage or any other stock footage) is used all the time in TV news or other media when they're talking about games. Some of this footage is released by game companies and some of it is player-generated, but it's generally something media would source from somewhere rather than recording themselves. Your suggestion that it would be "simpler" for Anita & her team's research to consist of buying & playing hundreds of games themselves rather than using excerpts which are widely available online really makes no sense. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:53, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

What kind of research is a BA in Communications doing when they play a video game? It sounds a lot like fucking off and getting paid for it to me.Jackinthebox (talk) 18:27, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

FemFreq Youtube Channel Terminated?[edit]

It looks like Feminist Frequency had their Youtube Channel banhammered due to "repeated or severe violations of our Terms of Service". I'm sure this will lead to a lot of civil discussion. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 01:33, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Still up for me. Zero (talk - contributions) 05:23, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
[6] The channel was taken down, but was put back up an hour later. Probably just a bunch of Gamergate trolls. MisterBlueSky (talk) 15:12, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm saddened I want her to know that not all men support violence against women, including female gamers. While games have a long way to evolve to become gender neutral, even for hardcore camers it's more the exception for male gamers to glorify violence against women. So tell me, does she see all men as monsters, or just male gamers.-- (talk) 11:20, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Why don't you read the article? Or, i don't know, do what you gators do and bombard her with death threats in hopes that she will tell you herself. Petey Plane (talk) 13:47, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Name me one death threat that I have sent her. Questioning feminist and straight up misogyny aren't always the same.-- (talk) 00:59, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll be sure to do that, random IP address. The argument tactics gators use to question feminism are well documented. Petey Plane (talk) 13:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Outside of of my suspicion that she is a possible misandrist for believing all men support violence towards women, you have no evidence that I have sent her rape or death threats because in case if you haven't noticed, I haven't posted any on this site or Wikipedia, in fact I haven't been on any of the social networks.-- (talk) 03:57, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

What makes me sad is that I actually support the general position of the above IP address, but I disagree with the silly petty argument that is going on here. Why can't we actually debate and discuss the questions at hand here, rather than throwing personal insults at each other to deliberately avoid talking about the real issues? Whether Anita hates gamers shouldn't even be an issue here. Hell, video games and what's in them shouldn't even be a thing that we're spending our time discussing anyway, not when there's massive overseas violence, violation of civil liberties in Western countries, a subversion of the political process by moneyed interests, and general lack of good government policy. If we discussed these things, I think the users here and this IP address would actually find that we agree on most substantive, important issues. But instead, for whatever reason, we're focused on this stupid debate about video games, Anita Sarkeesian, feminism, and Gamergate. Come on! Pbfreespace (talk) 04:12, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree that the personal attacks are petty—"IP address" is a pretty poor insult (not least because people without an account have as much right to edit here as the rest of us). I don't see any substantial debate here: the IP has given no evidence that Anita views "all men" or "male gamers" as "monsters" (I can't see why they would think this), and Petey Plane has refuted nothing, merely labelling the IP as a monster and launching unwarranted ad hominem attacks.
However, I do not agree that because there are more severe problems in the world, any commentary on gender and the gaming community is immediately invalid. Because having an opinion on Gamergate and on (e.g.) overseas violence is not mutually exclusive. To use an analogy, you might think there are more worthy causes than a particular charity, but you wouldn't denounce anyone who donates to it (unless you thought the charity was actively harming the world). You might think that there are more important things than a culture of misogyny and prejudice against 50% of the population, but why chastise those who consider it a valid topic for conversation? —Bilorv (needs a slap) 20:30, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

If you think were making mountains out of molehills then I do apologiese. Many gamers take it personally that their privilege means that they are the oppressor, who either say "NotAllMen" or resort to violent threats, fortunately the latter are the vast minority and most criticism comes from either inaccuracy debates, stereotyping, or financial questions. You're right that they're bigger human rights issues overseas but many would argue that the United States already is a third world country, as it is filled with racial and economic segregation, rampant crime and massive amounts of poverty.-- (talk) 11:55, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Now let's not be silly. US citizens are relatively prosperous compared to Great Britain for example where 1 in 5 live in poverty ( approx. 1 in 6 US). The US crime rate has been declining for 20 years You really should invest in an almanac of some kind.Jackinthebox (talk) 14:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Lets Talk About Hitman[edit]

Does anyone else find it amusing that the criticism of the 'illegitimate criticism' of Sarkeesian's criticism of Hitman is itself 'illegitimate criticism'? (One more level of meta here we go...)

It's all well and good to make the point that this isn't a 'smoking gun' which invalidates all of Sarkeesian's arguments, but that doesn't make the criticism of this episode in particular any less valid. This section cites an article on for the 'Claim' ( and then goes on to utterly ignore and misrepresent the criticisms made in that article (and all manner of elsewhere) in the 'Response' summary.

Lumping this in with the more insane accusations such as Sarkeesian wanting to 'censor' or ban video games is absurd and does the article a disservice. This criticism in particular belongs below in the 'legitimate criticism' section; whether you agree or disagree with some of the fine points of the argument there is undoubtedly valid criticism of her work here. Omnikron13 (talk) 22:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Yawn.gif Not much. Looks like the same old trivia about game points & penalties, missing the point by a long way. €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:43, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
This particular episode of the tropes series repeatedly talks about how games encourage or invite players to assault, kill, tie up, drag around, etc. female NPCs, and that this is evidence for sexism in games. I was under the assumption that a core part of the criticism of this argument is the fact that this is inherited behaviour from the NPC parent class, therefore most certainly not specific to female NPCs and so not valid as evidence for her point.
With regards to Hitman in particular Sarkeesian asserts: 'players are then invited to explore and exploit those situations during their playthrough. the player cannot help but treat these female bodies as things to be acted upon because they were designed, constructed and placed in the environment for that singular purpose. players are meant to derive a perverse pleasure from desecrating the bodies of unsuspecting virtual female characters'
This is demonstrably false as the female NPCs pictured are placed in the environment as hazards you are supposed to sneak past, exactly the same way as numerous other NPCs in the game are. The part about players being meant to derive 'perverse pleasure' from 'desecrating' their bodies is a statement which is frankly entirely disconnected from reality. Whether intentional or not, all she is doing here is constructing a strawman.
Why Hitman in particular has been singled out by people I can't really fathom though. Being able to hog-tie and carry off the prostitutes in Red Dead Redemption is one of the examples she uses, despite this being a generic action which can be performed on any NPC: 'The protagonist of the critically acclaimed red dead redemption doesn't agree to buying sex, instead the game allows players to lasso, hogtie and carry away prostituted women'
(Also during this example she notes '[the prostitutes] continue to suggestively proposition the player even while being held captive', which is in fact a bug in the game engine where NPCs can start to play their generic lines after a period of time being hogtied)
The 'Response' section here then makes the claim: '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'.
This is again false. The 'sole purpose' of these NPCs is not 'eye candy or something to attack', it is as a hazard you have to sneak past; this is a common mechanic used in stealth gameplay. The fact that they have provocative female art assets is being entangled with their mechanical purpose, and the suggestion that the intent of the game developers is for the player to get extra special enjoyment out of attacking these NPCs in particular is a projection without any evidence to back it up.
When the article says; 'She finds the inclusion of the exotic dancers and strippers sexist as well as the ability for the player character to attack them', this is actually two separate criticism (or at least two parts of one, depending on how you look at it). The first part (that these NPCs are even in the game) is a valid, if subjective, argument. The second part however (that it is possible to attack them) is not valid, as the alternative would require these particular NPCs to be invulnerable for no adequately explained reason. Omnikron13 (talk) 03:36, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
See, this is the kind of in-depth criticism of Anita's videos that I can actually respect and take seriously. Most criticism coming from the likes of KiA regulars and anti-SJWs however are based entirely on her not completely understanding the mechanics of the game and then lumping it together with a loaded gender-based accusation like "attention whore scam artist fake gamer girl". Withoutaname (talk) 08:10, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
It's still bloody inane. Why a strip club? Titillation. Also you can kill them for bonus lulz. There might be a world where this isn't problematic, but that game isn't it - David Gerard (talk) 22:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Didn't Omnikron13 say, that you can do that to pretty much any NPC in that game resp. that scene, women or not?--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 22:05, 19 May 2016 (UTC) 22:05, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
The point isn't that the purpose of the game is that you can attack any and all NPCs. The issue is that the game has a strip club level. Period. Omnikron13 has just brought up a new red herring to detract from Sarkeesian's point that the developers' conscious decision to have a strip club level at all is sexist, and the fact that the level is populated by NPC strippers that the player is encouraged to attack is the cherry on top of the sexism sundae.--Sandflapjack (talk) 03:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Don't you get penalised for attacking NPC's in Hitman though? IIRC, essentially, the game treats sex workers as being identical to everybody else. Sounds kind of like 3rd-wave feminism. That said, the inclusion of a stripclub level is gratuitous and sexist. (talk) 07:18, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
What do you mean "sounds like 3rd-wave feminism"? Withoutaname (talk) 07:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
My point is that the fact the level is in the game at all is NOT the sole criticism which is made in this episode. A non-insignificant period of time is spent in the video directly criticising actions which can be taken against certain female NPCs, not their mere existence. To claim 'The issue is that the game has a strip club level. Period.' is simply not true. An issue may be that but the issue is not as the video goes on to make further, separate criticisms of that section of the game. And repeating the accusation that the game encourages the player to attack these particular NPCs doesn't make it suddenly become true - the player is no more encouraged to attack these NPCs than any other NPCs, which is to say; not at all. If you level multiple criticisms of something in a video, one of them being valid doesn't protect the others from being challenged. Omnikron13 (talk) 00:37, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Im fine with adding this legit criticism. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 03:04, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
You'll have to tell me how including a stripclub (aka a real kind of place that already exists in real life) in a game is sexist. Hitman's all about the dark, gritty, vice-laden underbelly of society (even if it's exagerrated), putting in a temple to lust and titillation makes perfect sense. NewFrenchHotness (talk) 05:23, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
That's a fucking inane statement - David Gerard (talk) 08:26, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Anita Sarkeesian exists in real life so she should be in every video game. And YouTube. Annquin (talk) 13:46, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Inane? Why?--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 21:19, 21 May 2016 (UTC) 21:19, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
That's one of the most baffling non-sequiturs I've had the misfortune of seeing on this website - clearly, I said that strip clubs should be in every piece of media ever. Media shouldn't show any situation where (some feminists think) women are being ogled or otherwise "objectified"? That's what I call inane. NewFrenchHotness (talk) 00:37, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
I think you're rather missing the point of that criticism by Sarkeesian. She isn't saying 'Hitman should not have a stripclub level' exactly, she is saying 'too many games feel the need to include levels such as strip clubs' and using Hitman as an example of that. She is critiquing trends of the industry as a whole, rather than Hitman specifically. Also this doesn't really relate to the criticism that I'm talking about. Omnikron13 (talk) 04:50, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

These lame quibbles are already dealt with in Sarkeesian's video: "Now, inevitably whenever these game mechanics are criticised, some gamers try to dismiss and distance themselves from the issue by insisting that they don't personally partake in the provided options for exploiting virtual women. But whether or not an individual player chooses to use an object for its intended purpose is irrelevant, because that object was still designed and placed in the game environment to fulfil its function."

Consider for a moment how video games almost never allow players to harm children in-game — either by game mechanics preventing it (e.g. in Skyrim) or by having children completely absent from the game world (e.g. most violent open world/sandbox games like Grand Theft Auto series, Hitman series, Red Dead Redemption, etc.) In the case of recent GTA games, children appear to have been included while the games were in development and a decision made to remove them from the published games (see GTA Myths wiki). Clearly there is a taboo around making children available as a target for violence within games. But when these same games, and games from the same studios, make male violence against women, including strippers and hookers, an option for players (whether or not individual players choose to act on it), we can see that there is less of a taboo around this in the minds of game developers and/or their consumers. This double standard is something that should be open to scrutiny, and not derailed into pedantic nitpicking about in-game penalties etc. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 11:07, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

That's amazing. Many suspected that SJW see women like children, but it's refreshing to see it stated so clearly. But Noel Plum once propised a constructive solution you maybe like: when the player attempts to attack women, or attempts to kill them, they are instantly automatically replaced by a male character where you can then headshot them or blow them to pieces — as usual. According to your impeccable reasoning there would be still a double standard (s1: women and children, and s2: men, animals and other creatures) but it would be slightly less pronounced since it would seem you could do things equally to all, which is only revealed as false the moment you do it. But fun aside, Hitman does precisely not use double standards since the verbs can be applied to all NPCs equally. The game is actually pretty sexist, but of course Sarkeesian is too incompetent to see it. It is quite obviously based on Tarantino-style B-movie aesthetics filled with gender stereotypes that don't flow from the game design but from the art and game direction. ~ Aneris 12:15, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
'whether or not an individual player chooses to use an object for its intended purpose' - and here we go again...
No matter how many times you make the assertion that these NPCs are indented to be attacked, it wont suddenly become true. These are not enemy characters, they are neutral characters. Neither they, nor their male equivalents, exist to be attacked. One of the very first things the game tells you in the tutorial mission is 'try to kill with discretion, and try to remain undetected'. The reason which they can be attacked at all is as a mechanic that allows you to recover from being detected. They exist as hazards you are intended to try and avoid.
And yes, children are often left out of more sandbox style games, because the developers (or more likely the publishers) are worried about the inevitable sensationalist 'THE GAME THAT LETS YOU MURDER CHILDREN!!!' headlines. But what on earth are you suggesting here? That female NPCs, unlike their male counterparts, be for some reason flagged as invulnerable? Or simply excluded from games entirely? Because god knows we could do with less female characters in video games... Omnikron13 (talk) 15:01, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
The point I'm making is that it's not some weird coincidence out of the developers' hands when players can assault sex workers. Clearly there are limits to what characters the developers can & do make available for players to attack, as in the case of children. They don't want to publish the game that lets you murder children but have no qualms about publishing the game that lets you murder strippers. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 16:44, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
They can kill any NPCs in that scene, strippers or not. It's not sexist if you can anyone.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 17:26, 22 May 2016 (UTC) 17:26, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Horseshit. You can kill strippers because the game's designers put them there. They didn't have to but they did. WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:20, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
But that's the same for the other NPCs, right?--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 23:26, 22 May 2016 (UTC) 23:26, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

"Strip clubs exist in real life, therefore it's not sexist to have them in a computer game" is complete bollocks - real-life strip clubs are sexist. Also the idea that the game makes it possible to kill someone without it being the point of the game is, frankly, disturbing. Who's the target market for that? wannabe serial killers? Flannan Isle (talk) 17:01, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Jack Thompson.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 17:26, 22 May 2016 (UTC) 17:26, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
hello, someone who prefers name-calling to argument. Flannan Isle (talk) 17:34, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, both you needlessly vilify video games with more violence than in Tetris, so the shoe fits.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 17:54, 22 May 2016 (UTC) 17:54, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
So, back to the actual discussion: Why defend the ability to kill someone in a video game, when that killing isn't the game's point (note I'm not including war games etc here)? who benefits? What kind of person would want to do that? Flannan Isle (talk) 18:01, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Just for the hell of it? It's a game.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 23:26, 22 May 2016 (UTC) 23:26, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
The point is: are the stripper NPCs any different in function than any other NPC, be they male or female? Answer: no, they aren't. Just like any other NPC - guards, partygoers, pedestrians -, they're here to be an obstacle in your mission that'll make it harder for you to get the job done, and the player is complete free to deal with them the way they want to. The game has no more qualms about letting you murder strippers than it has about letting you murder innocent security personnel just doing their job - both are morally wrong. That's it. Also: games don't have to justify the actions they let you commit in them. GTA doesn't have to justify itself morally to you, and neither does Hitman. They're games - here to be fun, because virtual mayhem that doesn't hurt anyone real is fun and cathartic.
You can discuss whether or not strip clubs are really sexist (hint: there exist male strip clubs too. Strip clubs are basically porn except that you're here physically). But as Kugel is saying, if you're so adamant about games not even including sexist /stuff/ in them (not even them being sexist, just sexist situations being in them), then yeah, Tetris might be the only game for you. Why do you make an exception for war games? By your own logic, they encourage solving your problems by shooting at people! NewFrenchHotness (talk) 01:13, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Hell, most war games let you commit war crimes with no in-game punishment.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC) 01:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
NewFrenchHotness, you seem to have found the exact same red herring that Omnikron13 latched onto: that the rules of the game somehow negate Sarkeesian's argument. Hitman Absolution doesn't need to have a strip club level. The strip club level solely exists for the purpose of adding scantily clad female NPCs for the player to interact with in the ways the game developers allowed them to. Nitpicking at the mechanics of the game itself is some thunderf00t level idiocy that completely avoids any criticism of Sarkeesian's argument that a strip club level is a sexist game design decision. The existence of places like in Magic Mike doesn't somehow negate titty bars. And also, those places have real men and women acting in a way that they want to to express themselves. A computer AI given digital gazongas isn't a real person with agency. It's just a piece of background flair put there because an entertainment industry doesn't want to change how it caters to hormonal teenagers or the adult bodies they grew up into.--Sandflapjack (talk) 01:56, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Hitman Absolution doesn't "need" to have any of the levels it has, and yet it does. I'm not "nitpicking at the mechanics of the game": I'm disproving Anita's stupid-ass and strawmannish claim that it's somehow sexist that strippers are there and that they have the exact same function as any other NPC of the game. Strip clubs/titty bars exist for both sexes, and you give no proof that they are actually in any way sexist. They gave digital gazongas to the strippers because, as amazing as it might sound, strippers generally have gazongas and are attractive.
Have you played any other Hitman game? They're all about an exaggerated version of the underbelly of society. Everyone's an asshole, every single place gets its David Fincher level cranked up to eleven for maximum sliminess. Everyone's rich/hypocritical/sadistic/murderous/any combination of the three. That's the tone and ambiance the games have - why shouldn't they include a place of base desires like a strip club?
Also: as amazing as it sounds, there's nothing sexist about fanservice. Hitman: Absolution has a fair amount of fully-realized, non-fanservicey female characters, and most female NPCs aren't here to be ogled.— Unsigned, by: NewFrenchHotness / talk / contribs
What you've "proven" with statements like "You can discuss whether or not strip clubs are really sexist" is that you're an inane bloviating idiot without a point. The strip club level exists to put gratuitous digital tits into the game, and commenting on them having done so is entirely in order. You could delve into philosophical discussions of what the word "sexist" and probably the word "is" could mean in some hypothetical context, but you're not in any way disproving that any reasonable human is going to think "oh, they put in a gratuitous tits level, well done" - David Gerard (talk) 11:16, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunately this section appears to be derailing in all manner of directions at once...
I only actually added this section to discuss some very specific criticisms of part of the 'Women As Background Decoration' episode, but I seem to have opened the floodgates to all manner of more general arguments...
Getting into broad questions like 'are strip clubs inherently sexist' looks a lot like walking into the middle of some kind of pro-sex vs. anti-porn feminist minefield, and I have neither the inclination nor the knowledge to do so. At the risk of sounding sickeningly diplomatic I'm going to say it's likely both sides of this divide have a point and neither is wholly right or wrong.
Can we bury this one now? It doesn't really have anything to do with criticisms of Anita Sarkeesian's work; arguing that it is perfectly fine to have a strip club in Hitman is missing the general point of her argument, and arguing that there is nothing wrong with strip clubs in general is going far outside of the scope of the subject at hand.
The issue that I've already raised as it concerns to Hitman is actually a recurring one across the second half of the 'Part 1' video as Sarkeesian moves on to a subsection of the video discussing 'violence against women'. Having in the first half of the video demonstrated the over-saturation of strippers and prostitutes in video games (there are prostitutes in fucking Fable for crying out loud. FABLE.), and put forward an argument that these characters are uniquely reduced to the status of 'objects', she heads this section by saying: 'Once a person is reduced to the status of objecthood, violence against that object becomes intrinsically permitted.'
However, as the video goes on she begins to give examples of the types of actions (violence) which are now permissible to perform on these 'objects' in various games. But there's a snag; the vast majority of the actions she mentions are generally not in the slightest bit unique to the female characters she identified as objectified. Instead these actions are inherited from whatever parent class the game engine has for human actors (often probably via some intermediary civilian/non-combatant class to provide things like generic AI behaviours).
So if violence towards these particular female NPCs becomes permitted as a byproduct of objectification, why is it also just as equally permitted for non-objectified NPCs?
For example before showing a few clips from GTA and Saints Row, she states: 'Some games explicitly incentivise and reward this kind of behavior by having murdered women drop bundles of cash for the player to collect and add to their own stash.'
Anyone who has ever played a GTA or Saints Row game will be able to tell you that just about every single NPC in those games has a chance to drop a (very) small random amount of money. At best you could claim the game is incentivising murder in general; to suggest it is incentivising murdering objectified women in particular is either intellectually dishonest, or just plain wrong. (not that its really here nor there, but cash dropped from murdered civilians is generally in such tiny quantities compared to every other source of money in these games that I think I'd describe it as flavour rather than an incentive personally, as you would have to be insane to consider attempting to raise money in these games by grinding civilians)
Now Hitman... The footage of Hitman is lead into with the statement: 'I should note that this kind of misogynistic behavior isn’t always mandatory; often it’s player-directed, but it is always implicitly encouraged.'
This is actually somewhat ironic, because of the games shown as examples so far Hitman is probably the only one that really actively discourages attacking (or especially killing) the 'civilian' NPCs. Even in a game like Saints Row, which is unabashedly violent and most certainly implicitly encourages random acts of violence and murder (in the game, Jack), doesn't encourage them more towards objectified female NPCs than it does any other random NPC on the street (though the Saints Row series has some pretty messed up other sexist stuff throughout it that's for sure...).
Although I'm still not sure why the Hitman footage in particular has been focused on so much, as almost every example/argument made in the second section of the 'Part 1' video is terribly flawed, but it does have the dubious honour of having this pretty horrific statement behind it:
The player cannot help but treat these female bodies as things to be acted upon, because they were designed, constructed and placed in the environment for that singular purpose. Players are meant (emphasis mine) to derive a perverse pleasure from desecrating the bodies of unsuspecting virtual female characters.
It’s a rush streaming from a carefully concocted mix of sexual arousal connected to the act of controlling and punishing representations of female sexuality.
For a start I'd personally class that as a pretty serious accusation of the motives of the game designers who worked on Hitman (along with all the other games this is leveled at), not to mention what it suggests about the game's intended audience. (I should note that with regards to the scene in Hitman it comes off as rather a hyperbolic statement, as what the accompanying footage actually demonstrates is the mechanic of moving and hiding a dead or unconscious body. Mercifully relatively mundane when words like 'desecrate' and 'bodies' appear together...)
It begs the question; does the same apply to the functionally identical male NPCs in the game? Are players 'meant to derive a perverse pleasure from desecrating the bodies of unsuspecting virtual male characters' when they encounter them? Judging by the fact it explicitly states female characters and the section is about 'violence against women', it seems safe to assume this isn't being suggested.
This leads us to the rather ugly conclusion that the player is assumed to be harbouring extremely violent and highly disturbed misogynistic fantasies, and that the developers were purposefully facilitating these fantasies.
As this is such an extreme (and frankly ridiculous) accusation it really calls for some sort of evidence; none however appears to be provided.
What with the glaring hole in the 'violence against non-playable sex objects' argument and the truly bizarre assumption that any significant number of people get some kind of pleasurable 'rush' from 'punishing' sexualised female NPCs with extreme violence, it seriously must be one of worst videos Sarkeesian has made. (Ironically though, I personally think that 'Women As Background Decoration: Part 2' is excellent, and probably one of her best and most to the point videos. I think in the entirety of that video there was one part where she presented a false dichotomy that mildly irritated me. It's a very strange contrast in quality considering they are ostensibly two parts of the same episode.)
Hopefully this giant wall of text will go some way to solidifying what precisely in the episode is being criticised (at least that I really give a damn about) and why for everyone here... Omnikron13 (talk) 08:28, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
"both you needlessly vilify video games with more violence than in Tetris" Pretty convenient for you to dismiss legitimate criticism as "needless vilification", right? Withoutaname (talk) 11:44, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
legitimate criticism- Withoutaname What "legitimate criticism"? That depiction of violence and strip clubs in video games is totally and always evil? --Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 11:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC) 11:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Who said that it was "totally and always evil"? You're just throwing out random strawmen at this point rather than making coherent rational arguments. Withoutaname (talk) 12:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
David Gerard calling someone an "inane bloviating idiot" - classy! I'd try and coop you if I wasn't used to this kind of stuff. The fact is that you aren't in the head of the devellopers (I know you have a very high opinion of your superficial assessment of people, just see your accusations of "whitewashing" on the Scott Alexanderson page). Would you disagree that a strip club fits with the general slimy, downbeat tone of the Hitman games? The previous games had much worse stuff. It's not any more gratuitous than anything else in the series. Besides... even if the strip club was put in for the sake of fanservice (which you can only prove because it's "obvious"), I'd like to know what's wrong with that. No, really, I would. It's fanservice for people who like girls. Did you know that DOA has a gigantic LGBT fanbase?
Also: it's hard to argue against people ho move the goalpost with every argument. I thought the original argument was whether or not the game is sexist for putting in sex workers as NPCs? NewFrenchHotness (talk) 00:41, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Do you think the developers would have ever considered putting in a strip club with male strippers? And do you think the usual Internet shitholes would have gone hysterical over "SJW propaganda" or whatever if they did so? If the answers are "no" and "yes", respectively, then we've just identified the central issue. Also, ell oh ell at threatening to "coop" someone over calling you an idiot. You're not succeeding at pretending to fit in and not look like you came here from KiA or similar places. --Ymir (talk) 10:13, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Please don't sign my name to random fucking posts again. Omnikron13 (talk) 11:59, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
I was the author of that last edit, by the way, not Omnikron. That's besides the point: the point is not "would the devellopers have considered putting a male strip club in" (maybe? I'm not in their brain) or "would have the "internet shitholes" gone batshit about it" (probably, but that's neither here not there. These people are not the ones you should seek to discuss this sort of stuff). The point is: "is putting in a strip club level and having the strippers act like every other NPC in the game sexist?"
It's funny, because you aren't arguing about this in any rational manner: you're not arguing against the other side's point, you're arguing against the people you THINK must be behind the critic of Anita's argument. It doesn't matter that Anita is building a gigantic strawman or flat-out lies about the game: your sense of internet tribalism dictates that you MUST stand behind her and try to win the argument, no matter how intellectually dishonest you must get or how much pointless agressivity you have to show towards someone you don't know from Adam and is simply trying to argue against the website's orthodoxy. Anita MUST win, thus she is correct by default, and challenging her argument MUST be a sign of being an agent of this unseen Internet enemy that has to be defeated no matter what.
This is the reason why we get shitty trans NPCs in Baldur's Gate: it doesn't matter how badly-written your NPC is, since you made a gesture towards "representation", thousands will mindlessly flock to your defense when criticism inevitably arises. It doesn't matter that there is a fairly convincing case to be made that the character in question is actually fairly insulting towards trans people: discussing the point'd mean you'd have to admit that one of the good guys has made a colossal blunder, and that'd mean victory for the Internet enemy! Thus we let authors get away with the worst writing, as long as it tickles your progressive bone. This is internet tribalism at its very worst. Why do the "internet shitholes" even have to come in the discussion? You're essentially admitting you're making an ad hominem here. Also: I don't give a shit about KiA or whatever. They're all deeply unhealthy places, because the only thing that goes on in them is ceaseless circlejerking about what they THINK the other side must believe rather than what it actually believes - same thing for their sworn enemies, tho. It's funny, in a way: I see GGers/anti-GGers congratulating themselves about how much they'd demolish the other side in an argument, yet they make a point of never actually engaging it.
Also: do you find it normal that a moderator quickly resorts to insults when someone dares to argue against the site's orthodoxy? Is it okay to turn to name-calling when you think the person MIGHT be from a community you don't like (even if they're not)? Do you find it normal that a moderator stops people from clarifying an author's position on a number of issues, because they happen to have a hate boner for that person? If the answer is yes, why the fuck do we even have moderators? NewFrenchHotness (talk) 12:44, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Have you considered crying about it? That might help you feel better about the bad man calling you names. Hipocrite (talk) 18:08, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
If I personally gave a fuck about people calling me names on the Internet, I'd have left a long time ago. But it's very telling that you're unwilling to adress my point and instead prefer to resort to grade school-level tough-guy talk: you basically admit that it's acceptable for a moderator of a website, someone whose job is to be above these things, to start throwing insults with zero provocation, repeatedly, towards members who are simply arguing against the websites' orthodoxy on a talk page. I'm not arguing that Blacks are basically apes or shitting up multiple articles to impose my viewpoint, here, neither have I insulted. I'm saying that one point in one video of one person is strawmannish and intellectually dishonest and that y'all seem to be bending over backwards to have Anita be right in spite of any counter-argument to her video. NewFrenchHotness (talk) 00:06, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  1. Tribalism is a lazy argument.
  2. There's no such thing as anti-GG.
  3. Actual critique of FemFreq, not KiA inspired bullshit about muh "lying scam artist"
Withoutaname (talk) 00:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Don't pretend you're not showing "tribalism" and then imply that my arguments are "KiA-inspired" - being anti-GG is definitely a thing, why would thousand of people instantly rally to folks like Allison Rapp the moment she uttered "it's GG's fault" after she got fired otherwise? I never called Anita a scam artist. She's egregiously wrong about Hitman, that's all I stated. NewFrenchHotness (talk) 01:45, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Tribalism is just a handwave used to explain just about every conflict ever. In fact, you're being tribal right now by applying a label you and the rest of GG created themselves to satisfy their persecution complex -- no one has ever self-identified as "anti-GG" until GG created that label themselves. And you're lying, because your rhetoric mirrors a lot of what the KiA crowd have said a thousand times, and you apparently have an agenda against Anita and the ideological "orthodoxy" of this website, and your level of criticism is so shitty it doesn't come close to Omnikron13's or the thread linked above. Withoutaname (talk) 02:40, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Let's talk about Hitman, because this horse hasn't been beaten to death already. One common trend I see in attempts to use this particular part of one of her videos as a smoking gun misunderstands the segment as a critique of Hitman in a vaccuum, rather than using Hitman to illustrate a larger trend. In this case, of treating sex workers as props and giving the player the tools to abuse them. In an ideal world, such a gameplay/narrative decision wouldn't carry unfortunate implications. In an ideal world, likewise, it wouldn't be absurdly tone-deaf and racist for Call of Juarez to have a specific achievement for killing lots of people in the only level where all the people you kill happen to be black. However, we don't live in an ideal world. The real world is NOT one where violence against sex workers is seen as equal to violence against everyone else. She's asking that developers consider the real-world context of their in-game design decisions, and that maybe including strippers as killable props in a murder based video game just because you want to show some scantily clad CG models might be a dick move. (talk) 03:40, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I want to respond to a user, Flannan Isle, in this discussion regarding the strip club in this Hitman game, and I don't want to be incendiary about it. Flannan Isle said this,

Strip clubs exist in real life, therefore it's not sexist to have them in a computer game" is complete bollocks - real-life strip clubs are sexist. Also the idea that the game makes it possible to kill someone without it being the point of the game is, frankly, disturbing. Who's the target market for that? wannabe serial killers?"

With that logic, you could also say, KKK rallies are racist, therefore it would be racist to have a level based in a KKK rally in a video game. I think you are ignoring the context of the game in question. The player character of Hitman, Agent 47, is not objectively at the strip club to oogle at scantly clad women. Agent 47 is there, to kill the owner of the strip club, who uses the strip club as a front for heinous illegal activities, including human trafficking. By putting an end to the strip club owner, you put an end to the human trafficking. Keep in mind, Agent 47 is an anti-hero, in that he does not solve problems in a paragon fashion(like without violence, or through completely legal means), he is a cold blooded killer, with a stone cold expression. However, the villains in the games are much worse, thus the game has a Grey vs. Black morality kind of conflict in where you are given a different and unique kind of perspective into a dark world of the seedy underground, where you root for the anti-hero assassin, while at same time, looking onward at him with some sort of unnerving bile fascination. Now back to the subject of the strip club and the strippers. The strippers may be npcs, but they are, in a way, decently fleshed out minor characters. If you stop to eavesdrop on them(through hiding of course!), they talk about how awful it is to be a stripper, and espouse about how evil the club owner is, and what kind of mysterious illegal crap he will do to them. By a narrative standpoint, I would say the strippers are sympathetic, victims. Now that would fit them squarely as damsels in distress, which is a trope with some sexist undertones, but sometimes some tropes are just unavoidable, especially in a game with a fictional strip club, with a narrative that criticizes said fictional strip club. Now this has been stated before, but I state it again, you can avoid the strippers. In fact, if you want to perfect the level, and by perfect, I mean the canonical Agent 47 way, you must walk around them behind a blinder that blocks you from their view, allowing you get closer to your real target. You see, the style of Hitman, is that the titular assassin works in a very clean, very stealthy, uninvited guest kind of fashion. A fashion that involves slipping in, doing the objective, and slipping out in orderly fashion without being detected or noticed by anyone. Players are challenge to figure out the cleanest method, utilizing the art of disguise(a Hitman staple), with the fewest kills possible, sans the objective targets(yes, if you manage to kill the targets, preferably through a means that makes it all look like an accident, without killing anything else, including armed guards, you get bonuses). The ability to do things the wrong way, is all apart of the virtual interactive experience, which includes a heavy dose of virtual freedom, in an open sandbox-like environment where there is plenty of room for error and a seemingly infinite number of ways to screw up and botch your perfect score. It also helps the narrative, by making the locale a very lively, realistic, but most of all, believable. Finally, a defense for hyper-violence, and hyper-sex in media, whether video games, or theatrical plays. The fact that violence can exist and be enacted in a fictional environment that does not hurt anyone in real life, is a beautiful thing. It means that violence in real life is completely negated in regards to reasons for it. The fact that you can kill anyone in a video game makes violence in real life completely unexcusable since why hurt someone real when you can enact upon it in simulated virtual environment? You can explore the nature of human anger and sadism in a very healthy and constructive way. You can deter aggression! You can prevent real life murder because you can sit and play a game about killing people instead of actually killing people. Wars can be replaced with Starcraft tournaments. The same goes for sexuality. Sexual content in games, makes sexual crimes even more inexcusable than they already are, and sexual crimes are completely inexcusable to begin with! Why stalk women, harass them online, or creep them out at a Starbucks with cheesey pick up lines when you can just sit at home, play a dating sim, whack it to porn, fuck an expensive blow up doll, and lament and cry into a body pillow about how fucked up and pathetic a basement dweller you are as you come to an understanding that it is you who is to blame for your infinitely failed romantic life and not women?

I'm sorry I got a little passionate there in that last sentence, but the point is I am a little passionate about extreme content in fiction and I am for the allowance thereof. A fictional universe is a playground that allows an artists to fool around, and come to an understanding about themselves, and through critique of said universes, other people as well. For the record, I love the Hitman games. They are mature games, and are meant to be played by mature people. The games make me think, and challenge my brain to think like a crafty assassin, thus giving me insight into how an asssassin goes about their work. I also fap to DOA, but I'll stop right there. I made a vow to myself to never rape or kill any soul in real life. I think we can all learn from the Golden Rule, and keep our dark fantasies in our fiction.--RakortheTerrible (talk) 04:03, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

You're attempting to use sweet reason on the sort of person who (above) literally thinks mentioning Alison Rapp supports his argument against Anita Sarkeesian. We're pretty clearly past the point where the gator is even slightly listening, rather than trying to shoehorn random bullshit GG claims in anywhere feasible - David Gerard (talk) 09:49, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm not a Gator, nor do I come from KiA or any place related to it. I don't give a fuck about movements. I stay far away from any part of the Internet created and powered by inane drama. Me mentioning Alison Rapp wasn't an argument against Anita Sarkeesian - I was trying to show that there is such a thing as "anti-GG", something that does pretty much the same thing as GG and positions itself exclusively on what they think all Gators believe. Alison Rapp only needed to mention Gators to have thousands mindlessly flock to her side, and anti-SJW dickheads only needed to imply that the change of Tracer's pose in Overwatch was due to "SJWs" (to take another recent internet "controversy", and yes, I'm saying the anti-SJWs were wrong, dishonest and manipulative here) to get the same amount of support. This is what I mean by tribalism. This is the death of intelligent, reasoned thought, and just encourages people to hunker down in their own echo chambers that get filthier and filthier the more time passes. I get called an "inane bloviating idiot" for trying to argue against this website's majority's opinion: when the argument that the game is sexist and encourages you to kill the strippers is defeated (because it's built on misinformation and a strawman), then I get told that all of this is irrelevant because the argument was ACTUALLY about whether or not including a strip club in the game is sexist. This is goalpost-moving of a degree that'd make William Lane Craig go pale in the face.
Anita is certainly capable of intelligent, reasonable arguments - and I do aggree with her, to a certain degree, that the gaming industry has problems with gender -, but this one part of her video being so egregiously wrong is really shocking when one sees how smart the rest can be. I have nothing against Anita, but her carpet-bombing approach to the problem lacks subtlety.
I'd also like to know why a moderator can get away with resorting to insults right off the bat. Really. NewFrenchHotness (talk) 10:45, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Cuz mods are considered equals. Insult back, if you wish. Or try and keep it rational and on topic, unlike said mod ;) FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 11:18, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
I literally wasn't even aware of this character until you brought her up. Regardless, I don't think thousands flocking to the support of Alison Rapp when she mentions GamerGate constitute an anti-GG movement anymore than the thousands of fanboys flocking to the defense of Richard Dawkins constitute a movement. Withoutaname (talk) 15:21, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

So... Given the paragraphs detailing exactly why and how Anita Sarkeesian made irrational arguments against Hitman: Absolution, and the lack of counter-arguments, can we edit that section of the article to be more neutral now? No, it's not a smoking gun, but the arguments torn down in this talk page are exactly the reasons this site cops flack for being overly sympathetic towards extremists feminists and SJWs. We don't need to pander to the people who expect us to hate on Anita Sarkeesian, but it is our job to point out flawed arguments, not defend them. (talk) 23:14, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Without having read any of the above discusson (aside from your post) — please go ahead and make what you yourself find to be missional edits which don't pander to any of the crowds you mention. Worst case, you'll simply get reverted. Thank you for taking an interest. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:29, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
As much as I appreciate your condescension, the article has editing disabled. (talk) 01:13, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Wow, "condescension" — really? I had no idea the page was locked to trusted users only. I was genuinely trying to be helpful and allow for your perspective. I'm sorry that my attempt to be helpful annoyed you. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
So let me talk about Hitman.

I would like to say first and foremost that I don't like Anita's retoric, so much so that I think that is is harmful to gaming culture. Yes, not as much as microtransactions or the Gamergate movement, but still quite harmful.

With all that said. I think Anita's reasoning for including Hitman is entirely valid, for the following reasons:

1: Hitman is about living out a James-Bond like fantasy of killing people. Don't get me wrong, it is socially acceptable sadism, but it is not like if you are going to get hired all that much for dirty work in the streets, which is more likely to be done by actual hitmen. With that in mind, it becomes outright condescending of women if many games of the franchise do feature a sex club, because it implies that the people behind the game like the idea you are meant to jack off to them.

2: Yes, points do indeed get substracted from your high-score, but Anita herself has already very well pointed out that it doesn't matter because that option is still a valid way for getting victory.

Or: in other words, if I want to finish the game with as much minimal profit as possible, I can and often will enact in such behavior, which is in this case encouraged.

I am planning to write criticism directed at this video, but I can not criticize her reasoning for including Hitman within her own defined subset of female portrayal within video games.

This thread should end. User:Hex4 (talk), 14 november 2016, 10:48

Most Recent Edits[edit]

Have added a couple of additions to sections related to "Not being a real gamer" and "stealing of Let's Play footage". With the former, I've noted the hypocrisy of people who attack Anita with that kind of argument and yet practically give Milo Yiannopoulos a free pass despite having said considerably worse things about gaming and gamers. With the latter, I've pointed out a sourcing problem with the Anti-Anita side in that they haven't presented any sources beyond those that date only to 2013 to show that Anita engaged in it - which is all well and good, but where's the evidence for her ever having done it in her 2014, 2015, 2016 videos? I haven't seen any. Jon91919 (talk) 12:39, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Why Anita Sarkeesian's kickstarter campaign isn't a disaster[edit]

I want to note to a video from TheGamerFromMars where he talks about the 5 biggest kickstarter disasters. For the record, Anita Sarkeesian's kickstarter campaign is at #5.

The campaign made it on #5 for the following reasons:

  • She overzealously promised that the rewards, including a DVD with all the mini-series, would be ready by the end of 2012, but the very first episode of the series wasn't released until 2013. At the time of the video (2015) the series was also still not completed.
  • She does not need a six-figure sum of money to make an online series about video games.

Note: Her fans don't seem to mind the lateness of the content. Hence why it may not be as disastrous. I still think that this is legitimate criticism.

Keep in mind that this does not mean that Anita Sarkeesian is a scam artist. It just means that she could have done a way better job at giving a fair representation of her campaign and her ambitions. — Unsigned, by: Hex4 / talk / contribs

I'm not sure a campaign that took far more than it asked for and has already delivered far more than it originally promised can be fairly termed a 'disaster'. At worst, your points add up to 'delayed' or perhaps 'disappointing'. 'Disaster' is absurd. Plus, TheGemerFromMars' desperation for fame is palpable looking at his playlist. A real roster of click-bait, just another nobody trying to glean fame from gullible gators (which is to say, gators). Queexchthonic murmurings 17:50, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, on the whole, it's hard to say "got the budget, delivered loads of content a little late" is a disaster. Hyperbole is a fair description of such assertions, given how many kickstarters just utterly failed to deliver or utterly mislead on what they promise. Tim Schafer(probably mentioned in this youtube video I'm not watching) had very similar problems and he's been running a game studio for years.
As an example of a kickstarter I backed that overwhelmingly had worse delivery on promises: I backed something called the "Virtuix Omni" which is some kinda VR treadmill thing. Everyone who backed it put in hundreds, and the campaign brought in near a million. Due to scope creep, trying to deliver a good product, not really knowing the manufacturing and distribution industries well, and trying to seek investment to make a permenant company, a multi-hundred dollar product that was promised in 2012 is something I'm still waiting on. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:55, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
No qualms about that. I just want to mention a few things:
  • The video was made in 11 september 2015, hence some notable kickstarter disasters might not be included. The others that did make it (and that TheGamerFromMars thought were far worse) are the following:
    • A custom card game named "Asylum". The initiator of the crowdfunding campaign stopped giving updates, giving the impression that he was ignoring the backers. He also started allegations of fraud, giving more and more the impression that his campaign was a scam and a lawsuit against him was initiated. However, years after the due date the product was delivered.
    • The board game "Doom that came to Atlantic City" (that raised a six-figure sum of money). The creator admitted that a lot of the money spent on him moving to portland. He wanted to issue refunds, but did not know how. Thankfully another third-party came to release the game.
    • The video game "Super Retro Squad", which raised 53000$. The game was a lot harder to manage than people initially thought and by the time of the due date (2013) the game did not even closely resemble a finished product. The creator said that the game was going to get released "someday".
    • The video game "Yogsventures", initiated by the popular youtube channel "Yogscast", is easily the biggest kickstarter disaster ever (at least according to this video). Already from the get go people criticized them for using kickstarter because, as they were a large youtube channel, there were more traditional means they could have used to fund such a massive project, but it nevertheless raised 500000$. It seems that the creators were totally unprepared to handle such a massive project, driven home when they paid a video game programmer 35000$ who then quit after a week because it was never specified what he should do in exchange for that money. They soon realized that the project was never going to be a reality and quietly cancelled it. When people asked for refunds they refused because the campaign was technically not set up by them.
  • As a fan, I find it offensive that TheGamerFromMars is labeled as "clickbait" and a "gator panderer". Although he has made a few video's about Anita Sarkeesian (including: "5 reasons why people like Anita Sarkeesian", though admittedly back to back with "5 reasons why people hate Anita Sarkeesian") (note: I did not watch those video's because I don't like Anita Sarkeesian's content, though that is more of a personal/aesthaethic thing rather than anything else) he has never ever tackled once in his lifetime the issue of gamergate and tackled sexism in the video game industry before he made his video's on Anita Sarkeesian.

As for the clickbait, I want to note that TheGamerFromMars started as an AVGN rip-off (that is more or less how he describes himself) before he decided to make a totally unrelated video (The Lavender Town Theory) that hit a million views. That gave him the idea to experiment with all kinds of content, including other theory video's, video game culture and internet culture video's. If a channel with a solid dedicated and even sometimes critical fan following can be considered "clickbait" then I wouldn't know what isn't.

I however do agree that he was scraping the bottom of the barrel, any claim more extraordinary than that one is however one I would disagree with.

As TheGamerFromMars already showed us 4 kickstarter campaigns that were worse than the one of Antia Sarkeesian, describing one more disastrous kickstarter campaign should seal the deal, as it shows that the campaign has no place on a "Top 5 kickstarter disasters lists".

Keep in mind that it has to fulfill the following conditions:

  • Should have a due date prior to 11 september 2015.
  • Raised over 10000$.
  • Fulfilled less promises than the one of Anita Sarkeesian (at least at that time).

As for some suggestions, why not that Virtuix Omni thingy you described above?

Keep in mind that any other disastrous campaign that fulfills those above conditions should seal the deal.

Hex4 (talk) 10:10, 9 September 2016

Gators gonna gate. Assholes gonna asshole. This guy does both (I especially like his video making fun of some kid for being a bad singer. Real gem you gators got here.) Hipocrite (talk) 21:17, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
You mean the "Internet Hall of Fame". I think that it is more about how people got famous on the internet rather than anything else. Whether it is "making fun of something" or not is completely up to you.

Hex4 (talk) 10:13, 9 September 2016 Hope that helps.
I agree 100% with the proposed entry. The title has now been corrected.

Hex4 (talk) 15:45, 9 September 2016

Number of videos looks bloated[edit]

Maybe this is just me but this section feels a bit bloated. While everything is covered there it does feel a bit too long. I think we spend a bit too much time focusing on other things (her "critics") and a few irrelevant pieces of trivia. Thoughts? Zero (talk - contributions) 16:10, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Criticism of Women as background decoration part 1[edit]

Here are the many things that Anita Sarkeesian said that I disagree with:

“This advertising strategy of using women and representations of women as decorative elements to try and sell games to boys and men soon became a norm for the burgeoning industry. In ad after ad throughout the 80’s and 90’s we see women placed on display alongside arcade games, conflating the two and presenting them both as toys to be played with. In these promotional materials advertisers are not just selling a product, they are also selling gaming as a lifestyle in which women predominantly exist as passive objects of heterosexual male desires. These ads contributed to an emergent culture in which women were thought of as ornamental and peripheral for the burgeoning game industry."

This can not effectively be argued. If it were, Custer’s Revenge would have a lot of sequels, Razorsoft games would sell like hotcakes, the unlicensed game industry as popularized by Panesian would be worth millions of dollars and Ride To Hell: Retribution would be profitable. I do however agree with that statement being true when talking about the Japanese gaming industry, because a lot of games sold there are nothing more than glorified heterosexual pornography.

“and since women were already largely seen as incidental eye candy, it’s not suprising that when female characters started being introduced among game worlds, the roles tended to follow similar patterns.”

Pauline from “Donkey Kong” (Nintendo, 1980) wasn’t incidental eye candy. Neither was Star in “Yie Ar Kung Fu” (Konami, 1985), nor the pink penguin in “Binary Land” (Hudson Soft, 1984) , nor Lala in “Eggerland” (HAL Laboratory, 1985). In fact, the earliest games that I know of that featured women as decorative elements were “Barbarian: The Ultimate Warrior” (Palace Soft, 1987) (in the box art) and “Stormlord” (Hewson Consultants, 1989) (in the game). The former of those was banned in Germany for its violence. The background decoration was thus icing on the cake for those that wanted to sensationalize and demonize video games.

“In some games this is fused with the exotification of women of different color. In Far Cry 3 and Max Payne 3 for example, straight white protagonists explore shanty towns located in the global south, populated by prostituted women.”

The Far Cry series is well known for toying around with the brain of the player. In the scenario being presented it is as if a women is asking you to have sex in a totally inappropriate setting, further disturbing the player. The woman in that game has the role to disturb the player, not to sexually titillate him.

I do however agree with Max Payne 3. There is no other justification possible in a game where the starring role is a detective suffering from amnesia.

“By the way, games set in the United States are not exempt from this kind of racist exotification.”

Grand Theft Auto IV is a game set in a representation of New York City called “Liberty City”. Unless you can show me that it is wildly inaccurate in its portrayal of prostituted women in a different color I am inclined to disagree.

I do however again agree with the other game being shown.

“In the case of The Saboteur the protagonist home base inside of a lust club, which you, conveniently enough, can only enter through the women’s changing area.”

I saw some character development there. I wonder if the only reason this exist is to highlight what a pervert the protagonist is. If so I am sure that these women aren’t non-playable sex objects.

“These acts encourage players to collaborate with developers in sexual objectification by enabling players to scope out and spy on non-playable sex objects.”

It is unfair to suggest that developers intentionally objectify women. There is absolutely no evidence Anita has shown in this video to support that claim.

“Building off of philosopher Martha Nussbaum’s work on objectification theory I’ve identified a number of fundamental aspects of objectification including instrumentality, commodification, interchangeability, violability and disposability. All of which are commonly embedded into the gameplay mechanics and programming behaviors of NPC’s in modern immersive titles.”

It has only been argued that it is omnipresent in AAA WRPG’s, wide open sandbox, First-Person Shooters, Third-Person Shooters, Racing games and Stealth games in the US, UK and (to a lesser extent) Japan and Ukraine. There is no accusation in this video that has been done to immersive titles in the US indie gaming scene, which more than quintuply exceed the AAA output, nor about video games made in Europe outside of the UK and Ukraine (the French video game scene immediately comes to mind) or video games made in Canada and Iran (Yes, Iran does have a burgeoning video game industry. Shocking, I know.), nor has it been proven to apply to immersive MMORPG’s and Space Travel sims. Calling this embedded in modern titles is therefore a major hyperbole at best and a blatant dishonest lie at worst.

“Since these women serve an identical or nearly identical resource function within the game space they are created to be interchangeable with any other female NPC of the same type. A fact reinforced when developers simply copy and paste the same character models in various locations throughout the environment.”

GTA IV is set in a representation of New York City.

The chance of birthing a triplet is 1/1000.

There are 8550405 inhabitants of New York City.

Improbable things happen.

“Some games explicitly insentivise and reward this kind of behavior by having murdered women drop bundles of cash for the player to collect.”

In Grand Theft Auto IV you can act how you would like it. That is the reason why the city is called “Liberty City”. Denying the player those opportunities is denying them of the freedom of choice presented in the narrative and is penultimately counterproductive as to what the game is trying to achieve. I wouldn’t know about Saints Row: The Third though.

“The dehumanization caused by objectification inevitably leads to the concept of disposability, which is defined as something capable of being thrown away after being used or used up. The protagonist of the critically acclaimed Red Dead Redemption does not agree into buying sex. Instead the game allows for players to lasso, hog tie and carry away prostituted women, who continues to suggestively proposition the player even while being held captive. The game also rewards players with a special achievement trophy called “dastardly”, which is unlocked by placing a hog-tied woman on the railroad tracks and watching as she is splattered by an incoming train.”

This is contradictory. In one paragraph she says that the game should allow usage of women to be viable, but in the next paragraph she gives an example where women aren’t used for anything whatsoever.

“The player can not help but treat these female bodies as things to be acted upon, because they were designed, constructed and placed in that environment for that purpose. Players are meant to derive pleasure from desecrating the bodies of unsuspecting virtual female characters. It’s a rush streaming from a carefully conducted mix of sexual arousal connected to the act of controlling and punishing representations of female sexuality.”

This is offensive to anyone who has ever developed or worked on a video game. It implies that all video game developers in this modern game industry are comprised of misogynists even more misogynistic than Dave Cheung himself. ( )

Do you believe that every single game developer ever is a bitter, whiny misogynist that put all their disturbing violent and erotic fantasies into a video game?

If you say yes, then why do so few games have an AO rating if the ESSRB can use it to prevent games with dehumanizing content from even selling? (like what happened in the case of “Hatred”)

If you say no then you have to agree that Anita just made a statement that is empirically indefensible.

“So whereas in traditional media viewers might see representations of women being used or exploited, gaming offers players the unique opportunity to use and exploit female bodies themselves. This forces gamers to become complicit with developers in making sexual objectification a participatory activity.”

Killer Is Dead is about a man who fantasizes about being the second coming of James Bond. This is meant to laugh with the fact that James Bond always gets a woman he can charm in every film he appears in.

Overall though I say that this is an improvement over "the Damsel In Distress part one", because now at least I can agree with the core idea present in the video, which is that there are selling and critically beloved video games that objectify women as followed by the definition of objectification by philosopher Martha Nussbaum (such as The Darkness 2, The Godfather series, the Hitman series etc.) and that that is a bad thing.

I just disagree with the video on those aspects:

- The video says that gaming culture is built upon the objectification of females. I disagree.

- The video says that female characters were introduced as sexual objects in the background. I say that they were introduced differently in video games.

- I don't think that in most modern immersive titles women are objectified, while Anita said they are.

- I don't think that all video game developers want to promote violence against women and the desecration of female bodies and/or female sexuality, while Anita says they are.

All I hope is that this is the last video made by her that I will ever need to force myself to watch. I can barely tolerate her content.

Hex4 (User talk: Hex4) 18:23 , 14 november 2016

Wow. A list of things you disagree with. Do you know why we have an Anita Sarkeesian article? It isn't for catologuing our disagreements with her or our agreements with her. A great, great many people here would have counter-points to a plethora of things she's said. But none of it is particularly relevant to the site's mission, she's not particularly authoritarian, and she at most occasionally brushes pseudoscience, she peddles no woo. The anti-Sarkeesian outrage bombs, with literally millions more viewers than her videos get: they often do.
But she's authoritarian. There are statements in the video that imply a severe demand for executive control over game developers.

Hex4 (User talk: Hex4) 17:14, 20 november 2016

I'd say the only reason the article looks like that's the format is because so many people come here and do what you did, dump their criticism about her videos on the talk page.
(FYI you didn't need to force yourself to watch anything) ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 22:12, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
You are right, but I found the video to be just really unpleasant to watch. Perhaps there is a better way of stating that.

Hex4 (User talk: Hex4) 17:10, 20 november 2016

You completely missed the point of the video and misframed the arguments she makes. Let's break some of this down. The first comment you make is a complete Non sequitur. The second one is small sample size. Third, it doesn't matter the appropriateness. Fourth, I lived in New York and no, prostituted women on the street are not a thing. Fifth, remember it's called "Background Decoration". Sixth, you're not paying attention, as if they were not to be objectified, they would not be present in the game. Seventh, the wealth of games you might know is a cherry-picking fallacy. Eighth, again, missing the point. Ninth, still missing the point. Tenth, the girl has no agency. Eleventh, missing the point. Twelfth, what does this have to do with anything? And on your four aspects, all of it is one long straw man, so who cares. Zero (talk - contributions) 22:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

First comment: No statements given as to how and why this is a non-sequitur.

Second comment: Then expand that sample size. Just saying "it's small" doesn't solve anything.

Third comment: It does matter:

Fourth comment: Thanks, I didn't know. It is just that I once went to the Italian city Novara where there were prostitutes. I agree with your point. You probably got more knowledge than me on that subject.

Fifth comment: But that means that it doesn't qualify an inclusion following Anita's own definition of "non-playable sex objects".

Sixth comment: And how does that prove that game developers are doing it? Why not the publishers, modders or testers? How does that also prove that gamers aren't exploiting game code?

Seventh comment: If I cherry-pick you should point out what I didn't include. Simply saying "You cherry pick" doesn't solve anything.

Eight comment: Then what is the point?

Ninth comment: Then what is the point?

Tenth comment: "Martha Nussbaum says that the game should allow usage of women in order to qualify as an objectifying game. As an example I give game X, where women aren’t used for anything whatsoever, but the women I show in game X has no agency."

My question to you: How is this in my eyes obviously contradictory statement somehow logically sound? (I added your statement with it.)

Eleventh comment: Then what is the point?

Twelfth comment: She included a scene from Killer Is Dead where the main character tried to look to a naked body through gigolo glasses, which is in that context implicitly stating that women are objectified in this game. I say as a response that the main character is meant to be a pervert and that the scene is meant to laugh with how women are objectified in James Bond films and that it is in general unfair to put a game that deconstructs objectification within the subset of games that objectify.

Just out of curiosity I want to ask one thing: Why are you so insisting to disagree with me when I completely agree with the core message that Anita's video wants to share?

Hex4 (User talk: Hex4) 20 november 2016, 0:51

This article is too long[edit]

This article is too long. Especially these sections: 1. Not a real gamer 2. Hitman: Absolution 3. Number of videos

Gives the impression of being written by a fan. No one likes that, right? Rational1 (talk) 18:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

No replies here? Would it be okay if I reduce the above mentioned sections to their baare minimum requirements? Rational1 (talk) 15:10, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Depends. If your edits get reverted, you overdid it - David Gerard (talk) 15:51, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
As a new user here, that's very discouraging. If someone thinks that I edited out an important statement, they should make an edit and include that particular statement, instead of simply reverting my edit. If we just revert each other's edits just because they are "not 100% perfect", we aren't going to progress.

"Indulging Gamergate criticisms"[edit]

Just because shitheads say them doesn't mean they're wrong, you know. Sarkeesian using others' footage and others' art is a credibility issue. SarkeesiI'm did misrepresent Absolution -- and discussed why her thesis remains in spite of this misrepresentation. That doesn't mean she's the damn devil, as the aforementioned shitheads might say -- but it does weaken her evidence. Nay? Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 21:01, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

What is the "credibility issue"? Does every presenter need to personally record their own footage of a thing when they want to talk about it? Why? WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
If they don't, it suggests they haven't played the game, which means they might miss larger themes of the work. You also managed to ignore the art theft and Absolution misrepresentation. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (