Jump to content
Roderick

Feminism

Recommended Posts

I see what you're saying, but what is her hit:miss ratio? I mean, let's say the Hitman example is a miss. She also makes between what, 50 and 75?, other examples. By your 7:30 being an unconvincing ratio, 12 to 18 of her examples would have to be misses. I don't detect even close to that many bad examples, but I'm also not going out of my way to find things wrong with what she's presenting. Also, I don't even think Hitman is all that convincing - let's say she did place the whore or whatever, it still is an act that the player can perform and it enables the very phenomenon she's highlighting even if it isn't setup as neatly as she purportedly suggests.

 

Also, I don't think something has to be total to be a trend. Or in other words, the quantity of her examples over the last two videos is pretty damn high and even if some significant percentage of them are not completely on point I'd still argue it suggests a trend. Shit, most people consider zombie movies to be a trend and there have been what, 10 popular ones? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see what you're saying, but what is her hit:miss ratio?

 

Couldn't possibly quantify that, it's just my overall sense. She was clearing the low bar ('there's some gross, sexist shit in video games') very easily, but most of her attempts to say anything beyond that rested on what seemed to me to be very iffy readings of the games in question.

 

Sometimes she strikes me as being more in the mold of a Salon.com essay on 'How to Win the Debate at the Thanksgiving Table'. It's not really there to convince anyone who isn't already convinced, it's a catalog of ammo for an argument with douchebags. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As someone who continues to have this problem with her (and I hope her popularity leads to someone better coming along to pick up the torch), I'd argue that the charge of cherry picking is much, much more relevant in art/cultural criticism than it is in politics.

 

At least in politics and economics you've got some hard, objective facts to work with. In criticism, you have to build the case that you're creating the best possible context in which to understand something. So you absolutely can't cherry pick, you can't just throw out 30 examples of a phenomenon when 7 of them are being mislabeled or fudged in some way. You have to be intellectually honest to a much higher degree because you need the reader/viewer to trust your judgement and trust that you're playing fair. I can't talk about Gertrude Stein in the same way I talk about the prison population or the minimum wage, there aren't facts and figures that will get me very far.

 

Basically, criticism requires an insanely high hit to miss ratio. Cultural critics can come to all kinds of conclusions that I'm not on board with and I'll still enjoy reading what they've written, but when the process of getting there seems haphazard or lawyerly ('look at all this evidence, it speaks for itself'), the whole thing comes to a dead stop.

 

With all due respect, I think you've got this backwards. When you say to someone else they are cherry-picking data, that accusation is most relevant if there are hard facts available. What you're saying is that someone is lying through their use of statistics. For example, if you include one more year of data in a chart suddenly the conclusion you reached looks very different.

 

That's not really how thematic analysis works though. As I said, it is a meaningless charge in the context of cultural criticism. When she says that damsels in distress is a trope that exists in video games, it doesn't matter whether she has 100 examples of this trope vs. 500 examples of this trope. Insofar as she is able to find a pattern at all it's valid for her to claim that this is a thematic element that exists in video games. At that point people arguing with her are arguing about how many grains of sand you need for a pile.

 

Now it is true that there is room to quibble with some of the conclusions reached on occasion. But I think not liking a particular reading or argument she provides about whatever segment of a game doesn't really invalidate the clarity she brings in showing how these sexist thematic elements in games exists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now it is true that there is room to quibble with some of the conclusions reached on occasion. But I think not liking a particular reading or argument she provides about whatever segment of a game doesn't really invalidate the clarity she brings in showing how these sexist thematic elements in games exists.

 

Like I said, she clears the low bar very easily. She cleared it in the first 10 minutes of her first video. 

 

I mean, if you're saying 'she's making these videos for babies who need 8 hours of content to be persuaded of the most obvious thing ever', then that's fine. Depressing, kinda, that people would be championing it. But if that's all she's shooting for, she got my agreement right away.

 

I suspect she's hoping for more than that. I just don't think she's insightful enough to get there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Slate recently put up an article trying to present the view from someone looking on from the sidelines.  I think he really nails how the sheer scale of the issue is proof of people transferring or focusing their frustration with whatever in the games industry bothers them onto Quinn and others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I posted this almost exactly on another forum, but I think it's relevant exactly to the concerns BFrank is addressing:

 

Based on the videos I've seen (I haven't watched the latest one yet), "catalog" is not a bad term. In actual fact, she doesn't provide much commentary or editorialize on the games she cites. She simply presents them and says: this is an illustration of the trend that I am describing. When you look at the actual text, she doesn't even state outright that the things she describes are bad, or that they should be avoided. They're just presented to say: This is a thing that occurs. It often occurs unthinkingly. Please be aware of it. Her aim is not to provide commentary on any of the specific examples that she's presenting. the actual project has a very specific goal and scope, which is basically "awareness". By presenting a number of these issues to the viewer and describing them, the videos make people more able to identify these sorts of things as they're consuming media on their own, which they can then use in their own appraisals and decision making.
 
But the problem is that, particularly in the heightened environment these videos are released into, it's problematic to simply present examples without making a statement. That allows everybody to impose their own agenda or impressions on the video. Simply by presenting them, people assume you much be making a statement about them. (This is not an inherently bad assumption.)
 
Actually, a similar thing happens with TvTropes. In some arenas, linking and citing TvTropes in response to a particular TV show or etc. is considered criticism, basically it's an implied "this show is bad because they couldn't think of anything more creative than Trope X". But that's not how the tropes work. They're descriptive of trends that are common to the medium, not prescriptively used by screenwriters and authors. Any concept can be "trope-ified", but that doesn't eliminate it's effective story telling power. Avoiding tropes is not inherently desirable. But it comes back to a favorite hobby-horse of the Idle Thumbs crew: deliberate design. Make a _decision_ to objectify women because it has some important role within your story. Don't simply do it unthinkingly because "that is what is done". And if every game (or even a signifcant portion of high profile games) are making a decision, deliberate or not, to objectify women in the same way, that probably says something about the industry.
 
But fundamentally, these videos are aimed at the consumer, not the producer. It's simply a matter of being aware of what assumptions and prejudices you, as a content consumer may have re-inforced by consuming this media. It's about a mode of consumption, not about the work itself. Of course, even this is a pretty nuanced and media-theory distinction that I think a lot of the most vociferous critics aren't really cognizant of.
 
There's little to no attempt to analyze why these tropes exist or contextualize them within the broader media landscape (very few of the effects she describes are unique to games, film and television provide a rich tapestry of much of the same content). She deliberately does not address that, because that's not within the scope of her videos. Stating that she misrepresents an individual example is missing the point: she's speaking to a culture and an atmosphere, not criticism of individual works.
 
I think there IS value to the limited scope of what her project is doing, and the fact is that there isn't much more of that kind of analysis going on in the industry, which is why she is given so much attention. As a general rule, I find "awareness" to be the least interesting and least valuable goal of these kinds of campaigns, but given the response from the general gaming community, it demonstrates how necessary it may be in this case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All great points, all agreed.

 

And FWIW, I feel a little bad that I picked today to dog her on a forum for purely intellectual stuff. I really and truly hope the people who've threatened her see severe legal consequences. Death threats should be taken seriously and I hope in the future that we see more cops knocking on doors in response to these situations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, man. That Slate article. I know what it was going for, but I haven't encountered a female gamer who has read it without feeling flames down the side of their face.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, man. That slate article. I know what it was going for, but I haven't encountered a female gamer who has read it without feeling flames down the side of their face.

 

Could you elaborate on this?  It seemed like a pretty measured approach from what I got but I may have missed something.

 

Edit: After reading it again I see there is a slightly patriarchal tone in some sections.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could you elaborate on this?  It seemed like a pretty measured approach from what I got but I may have missed something.

 

Edit: After reading it again I see there is a slightly patriarchal tone in some sections.

 

For me it's that it takes as a priori true some of the claims that have been made against Quinn. As an example, supporting the FYC indegogo is only a "great idea" if the allegations about Quinn being a compulsive liar are true and her criticisms of it are false.

 

also how is this not gross:

But if it’s a victim contest, the women will always “win.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To paraphrase he says "don't criticize the women, criticize the men". That sounds like the women can't take it. Meh. :/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To paraphrase he says "don't criticize the women, criticize the men". That sounds like the women can't take it. Meh. :/

 

The important distinction to remember, and this was also an issue recently with the Cosplayer harassment at cons, we have to ensure we aren't blaming the victims for their response. In this argument ALL women who feel a connection to gaming culture are being affected, some much more drastically than others. What is being discussed is their very input in the community. We aren't trying to protect them because they're women, but because they are being attacked. If you saw someone in an alley being assaulted you wouldn't consider their gender before intervening. It is important, if you want to participate in a culture to recognize the culture's best interest and to protect every voice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't disagree, but I don't think it has anything to do with what I take issue with in the article.

But then, I'm not honestly sure who the article is aimed at, despite it constantly making a mention of the audience. I guess it adresses the unenlightened who can't help themselves be assholes towards women? So maybe they really should only criticize men?

 

I don't like the article. It supports Kotaku's policy regarding Patreon and thinks the "Women Making Video Games for Charity" campaign is a great idea. Or at least it pretends to to appease angry wrongheaded unenlightened young male gamers. It's not good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This could also apply to the erotic fiction.

 

Yes, hence I thought it needed clarifying :)

 

After a few more hours thinking about it, I am fully behind letting all of the misogynists and sexists gather under the term gamer, then burning it down.

 

Leigh put this vine up after making that Gamasutra post earlier:

http://vine.co/v/Ml2luXWI0OZ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me it's that it takes as a priori true some of the claims that have been made against Quinn. As an example, supporting the FYC indegogo is only a "great idea" if the allegations about Quinn being a compulsive liar are true and her criticisms of it are false.

 

Yeah, that, and the whole "hey, I'm wearing my baseball cap backwards, I've done some kick flips on my BMX, I've turned my chair around to sit with my bare arms resting on what would normally be the back. Time for real talk, bros" junior pastor feel. In his need to be liked and accepted by the young men he appears to feel he's addressing, he uncritically repeats anything that he thinks might dispose them favorably towards him.

Like, was Totalbiscuit just "asking everyone to calm down"? Oh, actually, no, he was taking the opportunity to talk about how corrupt and nepotistic games journalism was (in contrast with YouTubers) and how terrible DMCA claims were, in a way that was likely to, and indeed did, help a whole bunch of anime avatars to feel validated in their attacks on Zoe Quinn. Not malicious, but hardly uncomplicated. And was he "shouted down"? How do you shout down a guy with millions of followers, again?

And why would you describe Phil Fish as "perennially highly-strung" when talking about him getting doxxed and his financial records shared over the Internet? What would be a "low-strung" response to that? You do it because you want to show the audience that, underneath this short-sleeved clerical shirt and collar, you're one of them.

Likewise, why mention how much you didn't like Depression Quest? And Dungeon Keeper and Sim City - hey, kids! EA are just the worst, right? Then the dropping of knowledge of some cool indie games by some cool game dev chicks - hey, they ain't no Zoe Quinns! Why ain't Kotaku covering them?*

 

So, yeah. All of the above, basically. Its need to be liked, as a text, means it parrots what it thinks its audience wants to hear - Phil Fish is a loon! Zoe Quinn makes bad games! Games journalism is corrupt! And its ultimate advice, "ignore Quinn" is just kinda shitty. "Don't harass Quinn", yes. But she isn't some sort of Nathaniel Hawthorne adultress, who the villagers should turn their backs on. Maybe "pay attention to the fact that Zoe Quinn is, no matter what she did, now getting death threats and round-the-clock harassment, and is going to PAX with genuine fear for her safety. So, you know, don't harass Quinn, don't talk about what a bad person she is and how she is destroying gaming, but also don't ignore Quinn"?

 

The guy's heart is in the right place, I'm sure. But, yeah.

 

* Also, Emily Short? Really? The most famous and successful interactive fiction writer of the last 15 years is your women in gaming deep cut? Oy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That Slate article is loathsome, from the "young gamer" bullshit to the last minute dig at Depression Quest. It simultaneously patronises and panders to sexist/misogynist/angry gamers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been a bit annoyed at the people who are saying stuff like, "I'm on the SJW side, but I'm still disappointed that some feminists are getting petty and making fun of the appearance of these MRAs". Frankly, if I was being harassed by as many people as these people are, I don't think I could keep it together 100% of the time. Making fun of what baldy and erotic fictionman look like feels good and I don't particularly blame anyone who is under fire for chomping at that low hanging fruit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been a bit annoyed at the people who are saying stuff like, "I'm on the SJW side, but I'm still disappointed that some feminists are getting petty and making fun of the appearance of these MRAs". Frankly, if I was being harassed by as many people as these people are, I don't think I could keep it together 100% of the time. Making fun of what baldy and erotic fictionman look like feels good and I don't particularly blame anyone who is under fire for chomping at that low hanging fruit.

I had an argument with a friend a couple days ago about this. Humans have emotional responses to things, and while staving it off does mean something initially, over time it just makes you a pushover. And the olive branch extension is meaningless if it gets lit on fire.

 

So I'm all for people cutting loose after being constantly spat on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Tim Schafer thing hammers home again what I think is one of the strangest things about this - the guys who viscerally loathe Anita Sarkeesian, and who have been led to believe that she is the enemy of video games, just don't seem to get how far away they are in belief and method from people who actually make video games.

 

Like, what made them think that Tim Schafer - fortysomething Berkeley graduate, Northern Californian, father of a young daughter for whom he made a casual Kinect game, head of the studio that made Costume Quest - would hate Sarkeesian the way they hate Sarkeesian? It's weird.

 

I think this highlights the importance of speaking out. While silence may not be complicity, it is a sort of permission. The Thumbs got into it a bit in this week's episode regarding how claiming to be non-political is merely upholding the status quo. So if you have a platform, speak up, ya'll.

 

That's pretty great. Jeffrey Yohalem (UbiSoft) and Neil Druckmann (Naughty Dog) have also said that anyone interested in games should watch Tropes vs Women. And Anthony Burch at Gearbox is a total SJW. And I literally can't believe that nobody at Telltale has said anything, so let's just throw them in.

 

So, that's no Far Cry, No Uncharted, no Last of Us, no Borderlands, no Walking Dead, no Game of Thrones, so far...

 

Urgh. Glad they're publicly supporting her (as I just stated, it's important), but Tiny Tina and Far Cry 3's racism still leaves me with really bad associations with Burch and Yohalem. 

 

For some reason this reminded me of the Male Novelist Joke, poking fun at how seriously the budding (and sometimes actually successful) male author takes himself.

 

Mallory Ortberg is a national treasure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Making fun of what baldy and erotic fictionman look like

Um his name is Butt Chin, thank you very much.

 

409494_688839044079_20801915_32798138_17

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm gonna make one and only one petty comment.

 

 

 

Dude on the right looks like a fucking magician.

 

 

 

EDIT:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×