youmeyou

Feminist Frequency

Recommended Posts

Michael Moore isn't the best example of a well-known manipulative documentarian...? Who else is there? :-/

 

Neither of us know where the future is headed, so not sure how you can disagree with a worry.

 

Anyways, I think we largely agree: It was very good apart from that minor hiccup.

 

(Personally, the next time someone complains that games aren't sexist, I'd like to end the discussion by just sending them that video -- but it's subjective moments like that that totally undercut its otherwise very strong message.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

I'm going to come to the conclusion that Anita is probably the wrong person to go to for more interesting discussion on this stuff. Her videos before are lists, not sure why I figured they'd be more thought provoking or in depth with more information if nothing before would have indicated that?

 

I just want something like this but in video form, as no one else seems to be doing so: http://thehathorlegacy.com/the-women-of-metal-gear-solid-part-1/

 

The author of the articles on the women in Metal Gear exhausts every notable female character in the series, how some are steps forward, some are steps back. Good examples, bad examples, what could be improved, etc. I guess that's where my interests lie.

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.

Yeah, the best professors are not the ones that impassionately deliver a bulletpoint list of facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just want something like this but in video form, as no one else seems to be doing so: http://thehathorlegacy.com/the-women-of-metal-gear-solid-part-1/

 

The author of the articles on the women in Metal Gear exhausts every notable female character in the series, how some are steps forward, some are steps back. Good examples, bad examples, what could be improved, etc. I guess that's where my interests lie.

 

That sort of detail is probably better expressed in text than video anyway.

 

Michael Moore isn't the best example of a well-known manipulative documentarian...? Who else is there? :-/

 

Neither of us know where the future is headed, so not sure how you can disagree with a worry.

 

Anyways, I think we largely agree: It was very good apart from that minor hiccup.

 

(Personally, the next time someone complains that games aren't sexist, I'd like to end the discussion by just sending them that video -- but it's subjective moments like that that totally undercut its otherwise very strong message.)

Pretty much every Michael Moore film is much more guilty of those kinds of subjective moments of telling and not showing than this video. He is constantly editorializing in his films, to a much larger degree than Anita does here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's painfully obvious that she's trying to keep as neutral a tone as possible throughout the video, to avoid any of the 'overly emotional' criticisms that are too often leveled at women. I'll admit that the attempts at maintaining neutrality are a detriment to the video, but you can't blame her for doing it. I guess I wasn't bothered by her expressing an actual opinion, because it's virtually impossible for someone to remain completely neutral on a subject, especially something they're passionate about. Even the most season academics slip up and express an emotion every now and then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's painfully obvious that she's trying to keep as neutral a tone as possible throughout the video, to avoid any of the 'overly emotional' criticisms that are too often leveled at women. I'll admit that the attempts at maintaining neutrality are a determent to the video, but you can't blame her for doing it. I guess I wasn't bothered by her expressing an actual opinion, because it's virtually impossible for someone to remain completely neutral on a subject, especially something they're passionate about. Even the most season academics slip up and express an emotion every now and then.

I agree with everything in this post. Obviously, that doesn't mean I like it, but I do completely understand the reasoning behind it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty much every Michael Moore film is much more guilty of those kinds of subjective moments of telling and not showing than this video. He is constantly editorializing in his films, to a much larger degree than Anita does here.

Michael Moore never just came out and said, "Bush is an asshole". As manipulative as his films are, he at least tries to show instead of tell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's painfully obvious that she's trying to keep as neutral a tone as possible throughout the video, to avoid any of the 'overly emotional' criticisms that are too often leveled at women. I'll admit that the attempts at maintaining neutrality are a detriment to the video, but you can't blame her for doing it. I guess I wasn't bothered by her expressing an actual opinion, because it's virtually impossible for someone to remain completely neutral on a subject, especially something they're passionate about. Even the most season academics slip up and express an emotion every now and then.

Most academics aren't able to have complete editorial control of their video, though. She could have easily dubbed that moment (especially as it occurred when she wasn't on camera). It was an unfortunate slip that only undermines her objective argument (and I would feel exactly the same way if it was a guy).

Anyways, it was still great. It was so nice to watch someone build a very logical and consistent argument, and back it up with a ton of examples. I've never seen the "games are sexist" argument put forward in such a conclusive way before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even the most season academics slip up and express an emotion every now and then.

I don't think the criticism is that she showed emotion (as I have covered aplenty), though I think it's interesting to look at the dry tone as a reaction to anticipated criticism. But, you know, there's editing. It's not like she was in a live interview and passionately lashed insults at her critics. The funding's been complete for what, nine months now? The project was conceived and planned well before then. There's a point where you can read it to friends and colleagues, and someone can say "that's out of place" or "this is too dry", and you can fix it. It's not a "slip" anymore, it's a product she's been working on for nearly a year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

This nails it as far as I'm concerned. She had a very modest and straightforward goal, and she is very obviously delivering on it. I think it's crazy how intensely people are talking about what THEY wish this should be or what they think it SHOULD be. She said she was going to make a bunch of videos about tropes in video games as they relate to depictions of women. She is obviously doing that. Fine, it's not your favorite video in the world. I have never seen so many pages of people on Thumbs complaining that a particular internet video is not exactly what they think it should be, or not as emotional as they think it should be, or not as unemotional as they think it should be, or not as objective, or not as subjective, or not as detailed, or not containing the right examples, or enough examples. Maybe there are places on the internet where this kind of bizarrely obsessive analysis of internet videos is common, but I've sure never seen it done this doggedly on this forum, and it bums me out that this is the video where it happens. It isn't very flattering to the discussion here, because it plays into the exact stereotype of how women are held to a different arbitrary standard than men whenever they open their mouths about video games.

I almost NEVER say this because I don't generally think it's useful. But I'm going to now. To all the people endlessly picking Sarkeesian apart: if, as most of you seem to claim, you do actually sympathize with her cause, just not her execution, then I find it strange you're putting so much effort into these nitpicky concerns. Just make something better if it's TRULY that important to you. If her cause is NOT that important to you, then maybe give it a rest? I'm pretty sure you've made your point by now, and there really can't be all that much more say about it.

Again, I don't usually bust out the "if you don't like it, make something better" line. I usually in fact dislike it. But there is a VERY disproportionate and atypical amount of effort being put into the criticism of this video--a video that is only one single first part of a series--and surely that effort could be spent elsewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, it's really sounding like she's expected to ride this incredibly fine line between being completely objective but also engaging and conversational. This whole issue is over literally two words she said in a 23 minute video, and I really find it hard to believe that two words can completely dismantle her entire argument. 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, it's really sounding like she's expected to ride this incredibly fine line between being completely objective but also engaging and conversational. This whole issue is over literally two words she said in a 23 minute video, and I really find it hard to believe that two words can completely dismantle her entire argument.

Yep. It's really unfortunate if someone who allegedly supports the general point she's trying to make is unwilling to get over an arguable minor linguistic faux pas. (I say arguable because I didn't see it as a problem, but I acknowledge that some people do. But even if so, is it really worth getting this stubbornly hung up over?) I don't think I would even try to make a podcast if I knew people were going to be parsing me that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, it's really sounding like she's expected to ride this incredibly fine line between being completely objective but also engaging and conversational. This whole issue is over literally two words she said in a 23 minute video, and I really find it hard to believe that two words can completely dismantle her entire argument.

I think I'm finding it difficult to believe that A) People seem to have some issues with accepting that it was inappropriate and undermining of her argument as a whole, and B) Anyone thinks I think it ruined the whole video (or indeed its central argument...?).

Did you miss the part where I wrote: "Anyways, it was still great. It was so nice to watch someone build a very logical and consistent argument, and back it up with a ton of examples. I've never seen the "games are sexist" argument put forward in such a conclusive way before."

?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This whole issue is over literally two words she said in a 23 minute video. 

Yeah, it's just a bit hilarious and/or sad!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it plays into the exact stereotype of how women are held to a different arbitrary standard than men whenever they open their mouths about video games.

Honestly, I feel like the discussion is about the stereotype. There were one or two members who actually sincerely thought the video was complete bullshit and was totally wrong, which you'll always have. But 95% of the conversation is people arguing over whether it's even fair to criticize the video at all. It's a recursive hype machine.

 

For me, it's really sounding like she's expected to ride this incredibly fine line between being completely objective but also engaging and conversational. This whole issue is over literally two words she said in a 23 minute video, and I really find it hard to believe that two words can completely dismantle her entire argument. 

 

I mentioned earlier in the thread, nobody's talking about her argument because nobody seems to think it's worth talking about. A standard metric I use to judge the value of a film (and I know this is arbitrary but bear with me) is when I go to the movies with friends or family, what do we talk about on the ride home? If we talk about the film itself, home run, it's thought provoking, and perpetuated itself for an additional 20-40 minutes. If we talk about basically anything else, then blah, it was a couple hours worth of entertainment and that's it.

 

The fact that 10 pages of argument rose up over inconsistent tone I think both is a product of the recursive hype machine I mentioned above, and the fact that the content of the video isn't thought provoking in itself. Which many of you argue wasn't it's purpose, so whatever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TP, it's probably these lines that make people think you hate it:

 

...using terminology like that just undercuts her whole detached and professional approach.

As Stephen Fry once put it: One turd spoils the whole bath.

 

Personally, I'm not surprised that these ten pages of argument have been about tone. Whenever women speak in public, it's not what they say, it's how they say it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, I feel like the discussion is about the stereotype. There were one or two members who actually sincerely thought the video was complete bullshit and was totally wrong, which you'll always have. But 95% of the conversation is people arguing over whether it's even fair to criticize the video at all. It's a recursive hype machine.

 

I mentioned earlier in the thread, nobody's talking about her argument because nobody seems to think it's worth talking about. A standard metric I use to judge the value of a film (and I know this is arbitrary but bear with me) is when I go to the movies with friends of family,what we talk about on the ride home? If we talk about the film itself, home run, it's thought provoking, and perpetuated itself for an additional 20-40 minutes. If we talk about basically anything else, then blah, it was a couple hours worth of entertainment and that's it.

 

The fact that 10 pages of argument rose up over inconsistent tone I think both is a product of the thing I mentioned above, and the fact that the video isn't thought provoking in itself. Which many of you argue wasn't it's purpose, so whatever.

I entirely disagree. I watched the video, accepted her argument, and thought she presented it well with plenty of supporting evidence.

I think it's quite naive to assume that the merit of an argument or claim is directly proportional to how many words of discussion it generates on its core topic. Humans are hugely imperfect and can get distracted by all kinds of other factors, whether they're conscious of it or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This nails it as far as I'm concerned. She had a very modest and straightforward goal, and she is very obviously delivering on it. I think it's crazy how intensely people are talking about what THEY wish this should be or what they think it SHOULD be. She said she was going to make a bunch of videos about tropes in video games as they relate to depictions of women. She is obviously doing that. Fine, it's not your favorite video in the world. I have never seen so many pages of people on Thumbs complaining that a particular internet video is not exactly what they think it should be, or not as emotional as they think it should be, or not as unemotional as they think it should be, or not as objective, or not as subjective, or not as detailed, or not containing the right examples, or enough examples. Maybe there are places on the internet where this kind of bizarrely obsessive analysis of internet videos is common, but I've sure never seen it done this doggedly on this forum, and it bums me out that this is the video where it happens. It isn't very flattering to the discussion here, because it plays into the exact stereotype of how women are held to a different arbitrary standard than men whenever they open their mouths about video games.

I almost NEVER say this because I don't generally think it's useful. But I'm going to now. To all the people endlessly picking Sarkeesian apart: if, as most of you seem to claim, you do actually sympathize with her cause, just not her execution, then I find it strange you're putting so much effort into these nitpicky concerns. Just make something better if it's TRULY that important to you. If her cause is NOT that important to you, then maybe give it a rest? I'm pretty sure you've made your point by now, and there really can't be all that much more say about it.

Again, I don't usually bust out the "if you don't like it, make something better" line. I usually in fact dislike it. But there is a VERY disproportionate and atypical amount of effort being put into the criticism of this video--a video that is only one single first part of a series--and surely that effort could be spent elsewhere.

It's because she got a hundred and fifty grand to make the videos and so far it's indistinguishable from any other random Youtuber talking to camera about the topic with a budget of zero.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found this thread a bit hard to follow, but to those who have already made up your mind: My general rule when starting to watch a show is to give it at least three episodes before I tear it to pieces. I found the video interesting, but even if you thought it was terrible, but still consider the subject important, give the project at least another couple of chances. Think of it like «The Wire» of feminism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you, Gormongous, for taking the time to explain rather than write a sarcastic comment! :tup:

 

To the first quote: I stand by that "using terminology like that just undercuts her whole detached and professional approach" -- because it does. Does that mean it undercuts her approach to the point where what she says is invalid? No, I don't think so, but it definitely detracts from from her approach.

 

As for the second one: Yep, that definitely gave out the wrong message. I apologize. I really did enjoy the video. But the fact I enjoyed it so much is why it bothered me that she made that slip. I don't want people to use it against her argument. (And if anyone thinks that's what I'm doing, then you've totally misunderstood my intent!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I entirely disagree. I watched the video, accepted her argument, and thought she presented it well with plenty of supporting evidence.

That literally has nothing to do with what I said.

 

I think it's quite naive to assume that the merit of an argument or claim is directly proportional to how many words of discussion it generates on its core topic. Humans are hugely imperfect and can get distracted by all kinds of other factors, whether they're conscious of it or not.

That's fair, like I said it's an arbitrary metric so I'm not going to defend it. I'm not sure we're on the same page about what I was saying though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's because she got a hundred grand to make the videos and so far it's indistinguishable from any other random Youtuber talking to camera about the topic with a budget of zero.

I think that's a very poor basis of criticism. Raising a hundred grand doesn't make her a different person. Idle Thumbs isn't a different podcast because we raised $140k. That money allowed us the equipment and office to make it in a way that actually meshed with our lives in sane way, but it doesn't fundamentally alter the content we discuss or how we discuss it, and it wouldn't make sense to assume it would.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's because she got a hundred and fifty grand to make the videos and so far it's indistinguishable from any other random Youtuber talking to camera about the topic with a budget of zero.

 

Is she delivering what she said she would deliver? Yes. So who cares how much money she collected in the process. It makes absolutely no sense to complain about her video when it is exactly what she said she wanted to produce in her kickstarter. 

Share this post


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