youmeyou

Feminist Frequency

Recommended Posts

I was finally able to watch the video (at a horrible resolution on my cellphone because my Internet connection has been absurdly bad for a few days), and I'm going to have to re-read this entire thread to try to understand where the criticism is coming from. From what I can tell it's exactly what was promised, and judging from the response it's exactly what was needed. The defensive reaction first to the Kickstarter campaign and now to this video shows that people know there's something wrong, even the people least receptive to this, but they don't want it talked about. So what needs to be done is to reveal so much evidence about even the most cherished games that the problem can't be denied. In any case, I thought it was excellent and I certainly wasn't bored.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The defensive reaction first to the Kickstarter campaign and now to this video shows that people know there's something wrong, even the people least receptive to this, but they don't want it talked about.

Out of context, this snippet could just as easily be describing the situation between the people criticizing Sarkeesian's video and the people getting defensive over it.

Which isn't to say that it necessarily goes both ways, but it doesn't necessarily go either way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just want to say thanks to Jake and Chris for their really well-thought out responses to this whole thread, and reiterate that everyone should probably go back and read those posts before they keep criticizing this video for not checking all the boxes on a neverending list of expectations and requirements. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if anyone's mentioned this yet, but my only real criticism of the content (as opposed to the presentation) was that she said that Zelda's never had a starring role. She's had two. They're not canon and they kind of suck, but they happened. The Star Fox stuff shows that she did her homework, so not giving those a mention kind of stuck out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Out of context, this snippet could just as easily be describing the situation between the people criticizing Sarkeesian's video and the people getting defensive over it.

Which isn't to say that it necessarily goes both ways, but it doesn't necessarily go either way.

 

Everything has a context. In this context, the reaction to Sarkeesian's Kickstarter campaign was hatred and death threats. It isn't the existence of a reaction I was referring to, it was the type of reaction (I was ambiguous, I know). The reaction to this video not in the bowels of the Internet but in this thread has been strawmen ("Sarkeesian says Miyamoto is evil!"), criticism of the way she accessorizes (WTF!?) and other nit picky criticism that has nothing to do with the content of the video, new vague but very high standards of excellence that don't seem to have much to do with the stated goal of the video series, both dismissal of her as a gamer and annoyance when she proves she's played games since she was a kid, misrepresentation and dismissal of the actual content (claims that she doesn't address points when she does, claims that the video only consists of examples when it doesn't -- the transcript is there to read for people who somehow missed the analysis), claims she hasn't done any work, claims that she lies about the number of examples she has, she's not academic enough but also too boring, and also she shouldn't call something "regressive crap" after twenty minutes of discussion of why it's regressive...

 

I'm sure reading that is as tiresome as writing it was. It's not a fair assessment of the individual criticisms that have appeared here and probably reads as mean-spirited, but it is how the mass of criticism looks to me when reading through this thread. It appears to me that there's a lot of criticism, but I don't see any specific claims of how the actual content could have been better. Only vague demands that it should have deeper and better, somehow.

 

Of course we have talked about how crappy gaming can be when it comes to female characters, but there is no source on the internet that goes through the trouble of actually making specific claims about specific games to such an extent. When the videos are finished they (along with the backup materials) will be a very good basis for further discussion. They'll make very clear all the different ways that you can go wrong even when to rise above the more obvious tropes (for example female characters that just act exactly like male stereotypes). Off the top of my head, if I was writing a paper on the subject, I could use this as a starting point for looking at what happens to female characters when they are adapted from other works. Demanding that these videos are the final statement on sexism in games when they are the first work of this kind is ridiculous.

 

I don't buy the claim that the claims she makes are so obvious or old that the videos don't bring anything new on the table. The specificity is important: when discussing Peach she shows that even when Peach has been given agency in past games, new games opted to make her the object again. I hadn't played the new games and this actually surprised me. It shows you how there was an opportunity to make a clean break from the trope, but Nintendo decided not to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As someone who followed the thread and saw which arguments were coming from whom, it seems to me you're conveniently compressing all the individual arguments you disagree with into one very contradictory chimera. You admitted, "[this] is how the mass of criticism looks to me when reading through this thread." It's not a single mass, so don't address it as one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole point of this thing is "tropes." She picked a trope to start with, and used a massive number of examples to demonstrate it. It's absurdly unfair to act as if she should have thought of every single possible example and angle conceivable in a single video. I really feel like people are holding this video to a ridiculously specific standard that is quite unusual and intimidating. Set aside the amount of money she earned, and ask yourself if you get this grumbly and obsessive about all the things that could have theoretically been said in the rest of the internet videos you watch? This is a series, and there's only been one episode released so far.

 

:tup: Also, it's not even the only part she's producing on this particular trope, just part 1 on Damsels in Distress.

 

Other news; the MRA shitheads who started the tropes versus men in videogames campaign appear to have done exactly what they accused Sarkeesian of: a runner with the money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MRA shitheads

This is basically the same thing as Rush Limbaugh's Feminazi meme. Actively associating the values of Feminism (equal representation, reproductive rights, social reform) with irrational fascism is no different from actively associating the values of Men's Rights Activists (addressing higher incarceration rates for men, lower life expectancy, legal disadvantages in divorce and child custody/support cases) with whiny thieving assholes. Congratulations, you're participating in rhetorical disenfranchisement.

 

Queue kneejerk "but it's different" response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except that self-declared Men's Rights Activists demonstrably are an outlet for the worst regressive crap of how the Internet treats women, as evidenced by any number of posts collected on the Shit Reddit Says subreddit. They're for gender what people wondering why we don't have a channel called "White Entertainment Television" are for race.

There are serious issues with how men are treated like expectations around masculinity that lead to many of the problems you mention, but Feminism is focused on tackling that too! But Men's Rights Activists typically choose to focus on the ways men are getting "screwed" without bothering to tackle the deeper symptoms. When they do start to tackle the symptoms, it's typically through the lens of rationalizing the existing order.

While I'll admit to not having read every Men's Rights Activists posting or manifesto ever, from the self-identifying ones I have read, to liken it to Rush Limbaugh's slight is flatly off-base and the worst of false equivalences. There's your "kneejerk" response you asked for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's nice, Twig. By the way, I'm waiting to hear what you and Luftmensch and everybody else saying, "It should be different, more _____," actually think this Youtube series should resemble, beyond just "not what it is".

Hahaha, are you kidding me. I've explained multiple times what I wish it was, and also that I'm not even upset that it isn't what I wish it was. Just because you don't like my criticisms doesn't make them invalid. You're directing your wild and unnecessary anger at the wrong guy. Calm your beard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is basically the same thing as Rush Limbaugh's Feminazi meme. Actively associating the values of Feminism (equal representation, reproductive rights, social reform) with irrational fascism is no different from actively associating the values of Men's Rights Activists (addressing higher incarceration rates for men, lower life expectancy, legal disadvantages in divorce and child custody/support cases) with whiny thieving assholes. Congratulations, you're participating in rhetorical disenfranchisement.

 

Queue kneejerk "but it's different" response.

 

Given that MRA is largely an exercise in false equivalency, "rhetorical disenfranchisement" is an eminently appropriate response. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except that self-declared Men's Rights Activists demonstrably are an outlet for the worst regressive crap of how the Internet treats women, as evidenced by any number of posts collected on the Shit Reddit Says subreddit. They're for gender what people wondering why we don't have a channel called "White Entertainment Television" are for race.

That's basically the Limbaugh argument, and this pretty exactly resembles the reaction I get when I try to talk about Feminism with die-hard southern Republicans. When I talk about feminism here, the common response is, "sure, Feminism use to be good and there's some fundamental values I agree with, but really people who identify as feminists are bra-burning irrational lib'rels who just hate men." I'm not even exaggerating (though I am paraphrasing because who writes quotes in regular conversation?), and people still do say "bra-burning" unironically. It's completely acceptable to say Feminism isn't relevant, and people can provide plenty of evidence to boot. The fact that you can find Reddit threads--in fact, a propensity of them--full of frustrated males in no way justifies undermining the core ideas with casual dismissal. Is it as important an issue? Probably not. Is it counter-productive? In some cases, I think so. Is it irrelevant/invalid/just for angry white guys? Absolutely not.

Given that MRA is largely an exercise in false equivalency, "rhetorical disenfranchisement" is an eminently appropriate response.

I disagree. I think that if you view it as a zero-sum game, it is, and some people are glad to make that claim on both sides of the fence. I don't subscribe to that, and I don't think anyone who takes Feminism and MRM with any seriousness does either.

 

 

I'm waiting to hear what you and Luftmensch and everybody else saying, "It should be different, more _____," actually think this Youtube series should resemble, beyond just "not what it is".

I can't echo Twig in saying I'm not even upset it wasn't what I wish it was, but I think I explained a lot of things the video very well could have/should have been in my opinion and failed at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's completely acceptable to say Feminism isn't relevant, and people can provide plenty of evidence to boot. The fact that you can find Reddit threads--in fact, a propensity of them--full of frustrated males in no way justifies undermining the core ideas with casual dismissal. Is it as important an issue? Probably not. Is it counter-productive? In some cases, I think so. Is it irrelevant/invalid/just for angry white guys? Absolutely not.

 

Except I specifically addressed that in my next paragraph; approaching it from the angle that Men's Rights Activists choose is not a way of actually getting to the root of the issue, and inevitably becomes shoring up or completing the existing power imbalances. For example, to make divorce and child-rearing cases more equitable, we have to tackle the social expectations of men as bread-winners and women as child-raisers, not just agitate for changes by solely looking at the outgrowths. Tackling those social expectations is part of Feminism's project!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just want to say thanks to Jake and Chris for their really well-thought out responses to this whole thread, and reiterate that everyone should probably go back and read those posts before they keep criticizing this video for not checking all the boxes on a neverending list of expectations and requirements.

Yeah, thanks Chris and Jake, glad you weighed in on this!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, I would really love to read something, anything that could convince me that feminism isn't relevant any more, because that would certainly make my life easier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, I would really love to read something, anything that could convince me that feminism isn't relevant any more, because that would certainly make my life easier.

 

They're pretty terrible arguments, it's pretty much stuff like women are allowed to vote, women are allowed to be elected, women are allowed to do X or Y. Did I give the impression that I thought any of these were convincing arguments?

 

Except I specifically addressed that in my next paragraph; approaching it from the angle that Men's Rights Activists choose is not a way of actually getting to the root of the issue, and inevitably becomes shoring up or completing the existing power imbalances.

 

Then don't expect it to. The false equivalency arguments only work if you treat them as exclusive approaches to the same problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:tup: Also, it's not even the only part she's producing on this particular trope, just part 1 on Damsels in Distress.

Other news; the MRA shitheads who started the tropes versus men in videogames campaign appear to have done exactly what they accused Sarkeesian of: a runner with the money.

It's okay, I'm sure they'll do something responsible with the money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just watched the first episode. Loved it!

 

My only qualm is when she says: "Most recently Double Dragon Neon in 2012 re-introduced new gamers to this repressive crap yet again, this time is full HD."

 

It's the only time in the whole video when she came across as petulant and unprofessional. We all understand it's bad, but using terminology like that just undercuts her whole detached and professional approach. I hope the other videos don't slowly degenerate into stuff like that :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of people agree with you, but according to a few people, you only think that because you see her as an overemotional woman (they aren't projecting at all).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Calling regressive crap "regressive crap" doesn't strike me as petulant. It's maybe slightly inconsistent, tonally, but it's also maybe three seconds out of about twenty-three minutes of talking. I appreciate that the professional and even tone is what makes this video so effective, but I don't think it's out of line to show a little emotion during the worst and least defensible of examples. It's certainly not enough to make the assumption that the whole thing will unravel into emotional outbursts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jake and Chris, I think you guys are really selling yourselves short comparing Idle Thumbs and its Kickstarter to Anita Sarkeesian. I mean does this even need saying? You make a fun, entertaining podcast where you talk about games with knowledge and passion, it's a great thing to listen to every week. Being slow with the reward tiers wasn't really a big deal since most people were just paying for having the cast back on the air and the stuff was just bonuses. You also did things like the progresscasts which were great.

Anita spent like eight months to make a twenty-minute video where she basically reads a tv tropes article to camera in a dull monotone delivery with no enthusiasm or anything interesting to grab the viewer and put her points across in an engaging manner. Now yeah this is just one episode of the series and maybe it will get better, but it doesn't seem great so far.

 

Anita Sarkeesian went on Kickstarter with the extraordinarily modest goal of making a short YouTube series that applied the analysis she was already doing on other aspects of media toward video games. That Kickstarter was almost taken down after false terrorism claims and the comments section quickly filled to the brim with hate, misogynistic jokes and death/rape threats. As a result, she got much more money than she anticipated. As a result of that, people are expecting her videos to be like the second coming of feminism.

 

She is doing exactly what she promised. A series on 'tropes.' I found her examples insightful and interesting. That montage at 10mins (starring Matt Berry) was great. She gave  solid analysis at the end and talked about how these tropes are reflected in real world values.

 

Clearly we've all been swindled! I vote we go back to just making offhand comments about how it's a bummer that the star of bioshock penultimate is a brawny white dude with a five oclock shadow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hah, no. I got your criticisms just fine. I think you wanted a more granular analysis of the trope as it appears in a select few games, which I wouldn't mind seeing as well, but you're right to say that Saarkeesian's agenda seems to be something more general and basic, so it's probably just not going to work for you. That's perfectly valid in my eyes, which are the only ones that matter, of course.

 

I'm sure you're thought of it, but a more in-depth analysis of a single, or even handful games would not serve the broader goal of illustrating that these tropes are ubiquitous, and deeply ingrained. Though, it would make it easier to dismiss with the handful of counter claims providing that beloved "balance." 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Calling regressive crap "regressive crap" doesn't strike me as petulant. It's maybe slightly inconsistent, tonally, but it's also maybe three seconds out of about twenty-three minutes of talking. I appreciate that the professional and even tone is what makes this video so effective, but I don't think it's out of line to show a little emotion during the worst and least defensible of examples. It's certainly not enough to make the assumption that the whole thing will unravel into emotional outbursts. 

 

Come on, man. I'm not saying it's not regressive crap, but it is very unprofessional to throw in a term like that into the narrative voice of documentary. Even Michael Moore attempts to show rather than tell. The tone of the video is one of a newsreader or a thesis, and that's what makes the video worth watching: It's not just another talking head getting angry and ranting, it's very well researched and executed.

 

If a newsreader or thesis said something was "regressive crap", it would seem very out of place, and that's exactly what it felt like to me. As Stephen Fry once put it: One turd spoils the whole bath.

 

Also, I'm not making any assumptions, I just hope that side doesn't come out again (fingers crossed it won't -- I'm really looking forward to Episode #2).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael Moore might not be your best example, but I understand where you're coming from. I guess I didn't view this as academic as you did. For me, the tone is conversational. Even-handed and calm, but still conversational. Though compared to the tone of your average YouTube series about video games (which is all hyperbole, sarcasm, and mock rage), it's practically an MIT lecture.

 

I'm not saying it didn't stick out a little bit (though clearly less for me than you), just that it didn't bother me at all, because A) it's true, and B) it was only at the worst and most unbelievable example. Damsels in distress are such a normalized part of all fiction that it can be understandable how a developer can not even think about those images being harmful. Sexualizing a beaten woman in 2012 is kind of on another level. In (briefly and mildly) expressing her anger at that, it is a way of making that point.

 

At any rate, it was still a brief part of a long video that you said you loved. When you say you worry about future episodes "slowly degenerating into that", I got the impression that you assume that those sorts of expressions of anger taking over the series was a distinct possibility, which I don't really agree with.

 

EDIT: Sunglasses guy is trolling me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny, I watch MIT lectures through OpenCourseWare, and compared with this video those feel casual and conversational. Maybe it's subjective, but it's how I feel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.