Feminist Frequency

[Thrik]

I guess a thing to remember here is that this video isn't the kind of thing I'm particularly interested in watching. I don't really go for serious, lengthy videos like this which describe things like sexism, racism, nationalism, ageism, religion, etc. Not that I'm ignorant about these issues, but watching YouTube videos where someone goes on about them without making much in the way of real arguments — something there's no shortage of on YouTube and you don't need even $6000 to do it — isn't how I like to spend my time.

So I guess if this kind thing appeals to you (likely if you backed it) it's probably interesting enough. This video has attached an unusual amount of hype though, so a lot of people who wouldn't ordinarily bother are viewing it because it's being posted everywhere as if it's some must-see thing. To my less invested eyes it's a relatively dull video blog about an issue I respect but don't really need to spend hours listening to someone else's opinion on.

[Gormongous]

Yes, what I'm saying is that actually she's obligated to make a video my way. You see, I'm a big angry man and all I want is to oppress women. By expressing my opinion with a critique, I'm actually engaging in a power fantasy where Anita is subservient to my masculine desires. Also I am very insecure about my penis. That is what I said. After all, a dead Greek once said that man is political and therefor everything I say must be about power.

Weird, how did all those words get in my mouth?

 

Luftmensch, you don't get to come into a thread, cast wild aspersions, then get fresh when people disagree with you. That's a troll's business and you aren't a troll, right?

[Argobot]

What really saddens me on the whole--'I understand this is an issue, but I don't feel the need to pay attention to it because it doesn't interest me,' argument--is that it unconsciously supports the status quo of the way our society is unequally structured. I think we can all agree that sexism is bad, but it's clear we all widely disagree on what level of attention we should give issues of systemic sexism. If you're able to ignore the kinds of pernicious sexism that this video is highlighting, that probably means you're not directly affected by it. Which, on the one hand, fine, I don't want to tell you what social issues you should or shouldn't care about. But on the other hand, saying you agree with an issue (in this case: sexism is bad), but then choosing to not evolve beyond that stance, makes it harder for any kind of lasting change to occur.

I hate to bring a buzzword like 'privilege' into this conversation, but that is basically the definition of what privilege is: the ability to ignore social issues that don't directly affect you.

(I'm not trying to single anyone out or call anyone a bad person--I just wish people would be a little more open to hearing critical analysis of issues that might not be directly relevant to their lives, but are certainly relevant to large segments of the population.)

[mikemariano]

I thought it was boring, but obviously plenty of people here liked it well enough, so that's definitely something.

Absolutely!

All I saw was a pair of hoop earrings swaying back and forth while a voice read a page from TV Tropes aloud about things I already knew.

But youmeyou learned previously unknown things about StarFox Adventures and Doki Doki Panic. That really is worth it! That really is all this video series needs to do! It's working as advertised.

[jeremywc]

It doesn't have to be funny and entertaining, but yes of course it has to be engaging. If being funny/entertaining is what it takes, then go for it, but that's not the only avenue for engagement.

 

Being engaging is what grabs people's attention. It's what makes them come back for more. It's what makes them care. If a professor of literature lectures in a deadpan voice, only the most dedicated of students are going to retain any of that information. And that's in an environment where learning is the entire reason for its existence. In the case of this video, if the goal is to reach new people and share the problems of the video game industry's representation of the female gender, well, how are you going to reach most new people if the first video they see bores them to tears?

 

And before you jump down my throat, defending the video and saying it isn't dull, well, that wasn't the point of this post. I thought it was boring, but obviously plenty of people here liked it well enough, so that's definitely something. I only take issue with your implication that a series like this, with the goal of introducing the topic to new people who maybe weren't aware of the problem, shouldn't have to be engaging.

 

I hear you, but I think she's on a slippery slope. Look at how much hyperfocus there has been the two word line "regressive crap", which basically amounts to the only time she showed any emotion at all. I'm sure she's passionate about this issue, but showing that passion is just going to fuel her detractors even more. It's a hard line to walk.

[Luftmensch]

Luftmensch, you don't get to come into a thread, cast wild aspersions, then get fresh when people disagree with you. That's a troll's business and you aren't a troll, right?

I'm interested in where the conversation is going and in the things people have to say. I'll own up to my own bullshit. I'll also call out your bullshit in a second. Block me if you think that's trolling.

[feelthedarkness]

(I'm not trying to single anyone out or call anyone a bad person--I just wish people would be a little more open to hearing critical analysis of issues that might not be directly relevant to their lives, but are certainly relevant to large segments of the population.)

 

She even makes it explicit that being aware of these things does preclude one from enjoying them, so you don't even need to care so deeply that you stop play like 98% of the games being made.

[Thrik]

What really saddens me on the whole--'I understand this is an issue, but I don't feel the need to pay attention to it because it doesn't interest me,' argument--is that it unconsciously supports the status quo of the way our society is unequally structured. I think we can all agree that sexism is bad, but it's clear we all widely disagree on what level of attention we should give issues of systemic sexism. If you're able to ignore the kinds of pernicious sexism that this video is highlighting, that probably means you're not directly affected by it. Which, on the one hand, fine, I don't want to tell you what social issues you should or shouldn't care about. But on the other hand, saying you agree with an issue (in this case: sexism is bad), but then choosing to not evolve beyond that stance, makes it harder for any kind of lasting change to occur.

I hate to bring a buzzword like 'privilege' into this conversation, but that is basically the definition of what privilege is: the ability to ignore social issues that don't directly affect you.

(I'm not trying to single anyone out or call anyone a bad person--I just wish people would be a little more open to hearing critical analysis of issues that might not be directly relevant to their lives, but are certainly relevant to large segments of the population.)

But what does this video add to that cause? It's so uninteresting that anyone not already firmly of the anti-sexism orientation is unlikely to watch it, or if they do find it so tedious to watch the issues raised barely get absorbed. As for those already of the anti-sexism stance, it brings practically nothing to the table. No new ideas, no action plan for actually changing stuff, etc. It's just like a spoken Wikipedia article about what sexism and tropes are. It's not going to move things even an inch towards a better non-sexist world.

I dunno, if it were more substantial it might have swayed me into enjoying and sharing it. As it is I couldn't possibly recommend that video to anyone I know.

[Gormongous]

I'm interested in where the conversation is going and in the things have to say. I'll own up to my own bullshit. I'll also call out your bullshit in a second. Block me if you think that's trolling.

 

Nowhere did anyone say that that you like to oppress women or that you have a small penis. Maybe you were trying to complain about having words put in your mouth, but in the process you put words in other people's mouths. That's not calling out bullshit, that's stirring the pot.

 

But what does this video add to that cause? It's so uninteresting that anyone not already firmly of the anti-sexism orientation is unlikely to watch it, or if they do find it so tedious to watch the issues raised barely get absorbed. As for those already of the anti-sexism stance, it brings practically nothing to the table. No new ideas, no action plan for actually changing stuff, etc. It's just like a spoken Wikipedia article about what sexism and tropes are. It's not going to move things even an inch towards a better non-sexist world.

 

Raising awareness is an action plan. You aren't going to solve something as pervasive and entrenched as sexism and the patriarchy in a Youtube vid about games. Education has to be an end unto itself.

[I Saw Dasein]

Why does this video have to add anything to any cause? Why can't it just be a video that is interesting to some, and uninteresting to others? There's a million videos on Youtube that you couldn't pay me to watch, but I don't go around complaining about those. So what is it about this topic that attracts so many complaints?

[Argobot]

But what does this video add to that cause? It's so uninteresting that anyone not already firmly of the anti-sexism orientation is unlikely to watch it, or if they do find it so tedious to watch the issues raised barely get absorbed. As for those already of the anti-sexism stance, it brings practically nothing to the table. No new ideas, no action plan for actually changing stuff, etc. It's just like a spoken Wikipedia article about what sexism and tropes are. It's not going to move things even an inch towards a better non-sexist world.

I dunno, if it were more substantial it might have swayed me into enjoying and sharing it. As it is I couldn't possibly recommend that video to anyone I know.

I don't want to pretend that liking or not liking this video is the total summation of where you stand on the 'is sexism good or bad' debate. There's much worse or much better material that already exists on this subject. But, not a lot of the better stuff gets the kind of attention this video series is getting, nor does it specifically deal with video games as a medium.

I can see why someone would find it boring, but I'm also incredibly frustrated by that, because I honestly don't know how it could have been done better, in an attempt to appeal to people who might not generally think or care about this issue.

[youmeyou]

The dude from Haunted Castle is giving me strong Matt Berry vibes

 

[Luftmensch]

I hate to bring a buzzword like 'privilege' into this conversation, but that is basically the definition of what privilege is: the ability to ignore social issues that don't directly affect you.

Ugh, what a terrible buzzword. It's up there with patriarchy and oppression. They all have too much baggage to bring into a neutral discussion. Remember when people were trying to redefine racism to only mean racism against minorities? Lame aside, I just wanted to spit out the bad taste in my mouth. I hate when buzzwords are invented to justify ad hominem rebuttals.

[vimes]

I really liked the segments about Starfox Adventure's change of direction and Zelda's inability to be written out of her cliché in Ocarina and Wind Waker: they are peculiar, symptomatic and yet non trivial examples that could open enlightening discussions.
The sad part is that they don't, and that's my main issue about this episode: it isn't thought provoking and it doesn't explore the topic from enough angles (writing, character design, game design) to be truly a work of analysis.
Maybe it's the point of the series - and re-reading the Kickstarter it seems to be - but limiting this to an inventory of examples is a bit disappointing and not very enriching.

Also - a pet peeve - her recap' of the trope in the History of Art is partially incorrect (and damn close to the Wikipedia article in that respect): she identifies 17th and 18th century literature with medieval literature, while illustrating them with 19th century Victorian or dandist paintings. Pre-15th century literature doesn't incorporate fairy tales quite yet as it is mostly composed of the Roman Courtois and Chanson de Geste  - all Arthurian Tales are in these two genres for instance - and even though their protagonists are mostly male, there are extremely few examples of Damsel in Distress: Iseult, Guenièvre, Enice and Laudine never need saving though they are key to their male's counterpart actions.

[Thrik]

Why does this video have to add anything to any cause? Why can't it just be a video that is interesting to some, and uninteresting to others? There's a million videos on Youtube that you couldn't pay me to watch, but I don't go around complaining about those. So what is it about this topic that attracts so many complaints?

Hype.

[Patrick R]

Ugh, what a terrible buzzword. It's up there with patriarchy and oppression. They all have too much baggage to being into a neutral discussion. Remember when people were trying to redefine racism to only mean racism against minorities? Lame aside, I just wanted to spit out the bad taste in my mouth. I hate when buzzwords are invented to justify ad hominem rebuttals.

lolololololololololol

[Twig]

I hear you, but I think she's on a slippery slope. Look at how much hyperfocus there has been the two word line "regressive crap", which basically amounts to the only time she showed any emotion at all. I'm sure she's passionate about this issue, but showing that passion is just going to fuel her detractors even more. It's a hard line to walk.

Probably not surprisingly, that was one of my favorite moments. U:

 

Also, I hope she offers some counterexamples in part two. "Here's some people doing it right" or whatever.

[Luftmensch]

Maybe I'm missing a comment, but I'm not seeing anyone, in this thread, saying "that's an interesting way of looking at it". There seems to be some agreement that the video is good to exist because it tells facts that needs to reach an audience, and there's agreement (mostly from a different crowd but there's overlap) that the video is poorly was poorly executed. Some people are impressed with the new facts they learned, most people think its old news, a couple people assert the facts are wrong (some convincingly). But as far as I see, nobody at all think that the argument, perspective, or presentation is novel, insightful, or unique.

Apparently the trendy rebuttal right now is "oh you think she's obligated to make her videos your way?" And of course I don't think that. I think it's just not impressive. It doesn't have any qualities that I want or admire in a study or a report or a lecture. I can waffle around and say "well, you know, it's not good, but it's Good." Maybe it is Good. But it's not good. It doesn't inspire me, or make me think, or make me want to learn more. It makes me bored and only halfhearted convinced its Good, and the only thing it leaves me thinking about is why it wasn't good. It may have succeeded for someone, but not for me. Did it need to? I dunno. But it didn't.

[Larsen B]

The argument itself might not be unique but that someone is attempting a critical dialog around the issue in games is a pretty neat thing. Like, what's the normal topic that gets discussed? "I can't believe this only got a 7!"

 

It's a start. It might not be a perfect one and I have issues with the presentation but if it means people start thinking about the topics and themes of games a bit more, then it's more than worthwhile.

 

Shawn Elliott says it better than I could.

[I Saw Dasein]

Well then don't watch her videos. I find sports radio very boring, so I don't listen to it. There is a ton of shit on the internet that holds no interest for me, but I don't spend a lot of time knocking it down.

 

At the end of the day, there are tens of thousands of badly produced youtube videos out there on all sorts of topics, and yet here we are talking about this one. I find this particularly troubling given the history of her project and the complete unwarranted hostility of (mostly male) gamers. To me it seems like she is being held to a complete different standard than the standards we normally apply to media on the internet, and I doubt that is a coincidence. 

[I Saw Dasein]

Double post!

[Luftmensch]

Except this is something I'm invested in and want to be good. Don't give me this take it or leave it bullshit, I don't go on the Paradox Interactive forums to complain about their games because I have zero interest in their success. I think Feminist Frequency is badly done, and I don't like that because its about something I care about and want to be better. Complaining on a forum isn't necessarily productive, to which I say that's right and I don't have a good defense.

[Reyturner]

The amount of bile that was thrown at her for even wanting to make this video was totally out of control and, as a result, criticizing any aspect of the video marks you out as some kind of Male Rights idiot. 

 

As for the criticism for her "regressive crap" comment, it's just that it is rather out of place in a video that is presented as being fact based. Making a value judgement marks her position as being a matter of opinion and undermines her message. 

 

That being said, if she'd gone with something a bit looser and more conversational, it wouldn't be as out of place. 

 

My opinion. 

[Luftmensch]

Yeah I keep forgetting to mention, Vi Hart is very casual and has a lot of personality and is doing very well as a teacher thank you very much. Anita Sarkeesian is kinda pretentious.

[Reyturner]

In as far as she presents herself as an expert on video games, yeah. 

 

It'd have been nice if she'd been able to hand the mic off to someone like Kathleen Saunders or Kat Baily for those bits.