TvW Close Look Meta Dialogue Catch-All

Pages

This thread is an offshoot of the TvW Close Look thread and exclusively for discussing the outside voices and dialogue that surrounds the Tropes vs Women series. Feel free to respond to things that come up in that other thread here if they have something to do with ideas or discussions that fall outside of the actual words Sarkeesian is saying.

I think feminists should hurt more men's feelings.

If you like Return Of The Jedi but hate the Ewoks, you understand feminist criticism

“Return Of The Jedi is great, but the Ewoks are so annoying.” That’s a pretty common refrain from Star Wars fans. In fact there are whole fan edits dedicated to removing the little fuzzy bears from the film’s climax; I can only assume they’re made by the most hardcore of Star Wars lovers. The idea that a movie can be good despite its weaker elements is one of the most basic tenets of film criticism. Yet when it comes to dissecting films from a feminist viewpoint, we seem to have trouble keeping that in mind.

That's a great article. And it links to other great articles about the impact of representation in media. Thank you for sharing it!

Not as directly relevant as the other article, but I think, since we're discussing media criticism and videogames, that it is somewhat relevant: What can game devs learn from 19th century art?

Not so much about sexism, but it is about how our perception of games is changing.

Damn, this thread is on a roll with a great articles.

Even though it isn't about sexism directly, the parallel there is pretty clear.

https://storify.com/wire2k/anita-sar...

The Storify link from that article is also great for signaling FemFreq's intentions. It's what I've been saying all along, if she got her way, games would change radically. Shooters, beat em ups and so forth would be shoved into a corner or gotten rid of completely, even the ones representing powerful and sensibly dressed women with no damsels or fridging.

I did some quick searching and didn't find this linked here before, but it's possible that this has already been posted so I apologize if it's a repeat. Still, I found this a really valuable series examining the motivations of people who oppose feminist critique of games and culture in general.

Innuendo Studios "Why Are You So Angry?"
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...

Where are her intentions to get rid of shooters, beat em ups, and so forth stated here?

I just see a series of tweets making a perfectly valid counterargument to the prevailing critical consensus that Fury Road is a feminist movie.

Also, did you see this, from the second post in this thread:

WideAndNerdy wrote:

https://storify.com/wire2k/anita-sar...

The Storify link from that article is also great for signaling FemFreq's intentions. It's what I've been saying all along, if she got her way, games would change radically. Shooters, beat em ups and so forth would be shoved into a corner or gotten rid of completely, even the ones representing powerful and sensibly dressed women with no damsels or fridging.

So, she lists some specific problems with a specific movie... and that signals her intentions for all entries in a completely different form of art. That... doesn't make sense.

Sidenote, that last tweet noting that we need to stop GLORIFYING violence doesn't mean that there can't be violence in media, she's suggesting that violence in media have some weight to it and needs to stop being worshiped as some kind of holy thing of battle where all things are determined. I don't understand why that would be controversial. We as a society already tend to come down hard on folks who try to use violence to solve matters. But, that doesn't mean that there would be no depictions of violence.

qaraq wrote:

I did some quick searching and didn't find this linked here before, but it's possible that this has already been posted so I apologize if it's a repeat. Still, I found this a really valuable series examining the motivations of people who oppose feminist critique of games and culture in general.

Innuendo Studios "Why Are You So Angry?"
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...

Love them!

TheHarpoMarxist wrote:

Where are her intentions to get rid of shooters, beat em ups, and so forth stated here?

Maybe what's at work here is that she takes the movie literally. Sometimes a fantasy is just a fantasy, and not a call for that to be our social value system. She sees allowing women to have the same violent power fantasies as not feminist because equality is not enough. For it to be feminist, it has to be equal AND it has to challenge that social value system.

There's a lot of complexity to tease out from there and other points she makes, but maybe that's a good start on seeing how she looks at violence, media, and the relationship between them.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:
TheHarpoMarxist wrote:

Where are her intentions to get rid of shooters, beat em ups, and so forth stated here?

Maybe what's at work here is that she takes the movie literally. Sometimes a fantasy is just a fantasy, and not a call for that to be our social value system. She sees allowing women to have the same violent power fantasies as not feminist because equality is not enough. For it to be feminist, it has to be equal AND it has to challenge that social value system.

There's a lot of complexity to tease out from there and other points she makes, but maybe that's a good start on seeing how she looks at violence, media, and the relationship between them.

I'd say the movie, allowing women to partake in the male power fantasy ultraviolence, is certainly a step forward towards equality. She's arguing its not enough of one (where she and I disagree on this one) and that we need to stop glorifying the male fantasy and stop acting like it's the only game in town when it comes to pop culture. That's not a call to ban, though it's perhaps a call to make something else for a change. I suppose if you want to view that as a ban, you can, but it really just screams of "don't take any of my favorite things away so that someone else can have something for themselves too".

Demosthenes wrote:
WideAndNerdy wrote:

https://storify.com/wire2k/anita-sar...

The Storify link from that article is also great for signaling FemFreq's intentions. It's what I've been saying all along, if she got her way, games would change radically. Shooters, beat em ups and so forth would be shoved into a corner or gotten rid of completely, even the ones representing powerful and sensibly dressed women with no damsels or fridging.

So, she lists some specific problems with a specific movie... and that signals her intentions for all entries in a completely different form of art. That... doesn't make sense.

Sidenote, that last tweet noting that we need to stop GLORIFYING violence doesn't mean that there can't be violence in media, she's suggesting that violence in media have some weight to it and needs to stop being worshiped as some kind of holy thing of battle where all things are determined. I don't understand why that would be controversial. We as a society already tend to come down hard on folks who try to use violence to solve matters. But, that doesn't mean that there would be no depictions of violence.

qaraq wrote:

I did some quick searching and didn't find this linked here before, but it's possible that this has already been posted so I apologize if it's a repeat. Still, I found this a really valuable series examining the motivations of people who oppose feminist critique of games and culture in general.

Innuendo Studios "Why Are You So Angry?"
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...

Love them!

It's in her thesis too. It's a recurring theme for her, not just for a specific movie.

And what she wants would be the end of games in which you take the role of a person committing violence. Unless it's all stuff like Spec Ops The Line.

This is criticism. You're allowed to take things apart and look at them and have an opinion. To critique something doesn't mean you are casting a blanket statement, or think that the thing shouldn't exist. She knows it is a fantasy, just like the people who believe that the Ewoks in Return of the Jedi are awful know that Return of the Jedi is a fantasy. Just because you have a complicated thought about an entertainment product doesn't somehow mean you are looking to censor anything and I have no idea why that jump keeps being made.

I think what's at work here is that people who see her as someone whose beliefs are somehow "adversarial" to them are fighting Straw-keesians.

There is ZERO call to ban anything in these tweets. It isn't saying "end all violence in moving" it is saying "Please also make things that aren't just glorified violence."

WideAndNerdy wrote:

It's in her thesis too. It's a recurring theme for her, not just for a specific movie.

And what she wants would be the end of games in which you take the role of a person committing violence. Unless it's all stuff like Spec Ops The Line.

Where is it in her thesis? What thesis are you talking about, specifically? Can you please point out where she says she would end games where players can take the role of a person committing violence.

Spoiler:

The storify you posted does not contain any call to end games where players take the role of a person committing violence.

I think what's at work here is that people who see her as someone whose beliefs are somehow "adversarial" to them are fighting Straw-keesians.

More later, but maybe what's at work here is people defending Staw-keesians? Not every criticism (or even every interpretation you disagree with) is trying to prove she wants to ban things. There's a lot of stops along the way in between "ban this!" and "what's wrong with business as usual?"

You can think someone is doing a good job and still mis-state their position as something more like what you believe than what they are actually saying.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:

You can think someone is doing a good job and still mis-state their position as something more like what you believe than what they are actually saying.

Which is one reason why I've liked the TvW close-read thread, because when it's on point it's been forcing everyone to look at what she's actually saying, including the people who agree with her.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:

Not every criticism (or even every interpretation you disagree with) is trying to prove she wants to ban things. There's a lot of stops along the way in between "ban this!" and "what's wrong with business as usual?"

You are correct, that's why the non-meta thread was created. We were having that discussion.

Instead, it got torpedoed this weekend and here Harpo is still responding to repeated complaints that Sarkeesian wants to ban things. Your devil's advocacy is misplaced this time, Cheeze.

Demosthenes wrote:

I'd say the movie, allowing women to partake in the male power fantasy ultraviolence, is certainly a step forward towards equality. She's arguing its not enough of one (where she and I disagree on this one) and that we need to stop glorifying the male fantasy and stop acting like it's the only game in town when it comes to pop culture. That's not a call to ban, though it's perhaps a call to make something else for a change. I suppose if you want to view that as a ban, you can, but it really just screams of "don't take any of my favorite things away so that someone else can have something for themselves too".

Let's put aside the question of whether she's calling for a ban or not, and just stick to figuring out what she's saying. I don't think she'd just disagree that it's not enough of a step towards equality. I'd say she doesn't consider it a (meaningful?) step towards equality at all.

There's a line from Audre Lorde: "For the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house. They may allow us to temporarily beat him at his own game, but they will never enable us to bring about genuine change." I think she's saying something similar. I think she believes this 'equality' isn't a step in a feminist direction, because only steps towards redefining our social value system are steps in a feminist direction.

Cheeze: I was responding to W&N, who specifically said that Sarkeesian was trying to ban things, that it was her "thesis" and that she would "end all shooters."

cheeze_pavilion wrote:
I think what's at work here is that people who see her as someone whose beliefs are somehow "adversarial" to them are fighting Straw-keesians.

More later, but maybe what's at work here is people defending Staw-keesians? Not every criticism (or even every interpretation you disagree with) is trying to prove she wants to ban things. There's a lot of stops along the way in between "ban this!" and "what's wrong with business as usual?"

You can think someone is doing a good job and still mis-state their position as something more like what you believe than what they are actually saying.

This is certainly true in at least some cases. The prior did feature defenders who were defending different interpretations of Sarkeesian's position. And I've encountered that elsewhere.

Also yes, I don't think she has the influence needed to get a ban done. This is why I'm not actually a part of any movements. I can trust that if she ever gets that far that the right kind of movement will form to shut down that effort. I also think she knows that which is why she shying away from it for the most part in her series (but it slips in here and there such as in her second positive female protagonists video where she wants us to note the character solves problems non violently. On its own it's a fine thing to note but in her case it ties into her tweets and thesis.)

cheeze_pavilion wrote:

Let's put aside the question of whether she's calling for a ban or not, and just stick to figuring out what she's saying.

There's a thread for that.

Farscry wrote:

You are correct, that's why the non-meta thread was created. We were having that discussion.

Instead, it got torpedoed this weekend and here Harpo is still responding to repeated complaints that Sarkeesian wants to ban things. Your devil's advocacy is misplaced this time, Cheeze. :)

TheHarpoMarxist wrote:

Cheeze: I was responding to W&N, who specifically said that Sarkeesian was trying to ban things, that it was her "thesis" and that she would "end all shooters."

take a closer look:

WideAndNerdy wrote:

Shooters, beat em ups and so forth would be shoved into a corner or gotten rid of completely,

edit: and of course, I've got my own ideas, and what I wrote is in some ways just an extension of something I said in another thread. That no one took seriously until ClockworkHouse mentioned something similar ; D

TheHarpoMarxist wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:

Let's put aside the question of whether she's calling for a ban or not, and just stick to figuring out what she's saying.

There's a thread for that.

Heh, good one. : D

Closer look taken.

WideAndNerdy wrote:

It's in her thesis too. It's a recurring theme for her, not just for a specific movie.

And what she wants would be the end of games in which you take the role of a person committing violence.

TheHarpoMarxist wrote:

You take a closer look:

WideAndNerdy wrote:

It's in her thesis too. It's a recurring theme for her, not just for a specific movie.

And what she wants would be the end of games in which you take the role of a person committing violence.

Wanting the end of games is not calling for a ban. You can want things to end and use other tools besides banning them.

Also, when you talk to someone, and they express the same idea a couple of times and one time it's a bit more nuanced than the others, I think good faith conversations involve probing that instance and seeing what they really mean rather than just sticking to the easier ones to pick off.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:

take a closer look:

Ok.

WideAndNerdy wrote:

Oh and she's going to bring up how a lot of the classics are getting rereleases because they scale well on Mobile platforms (not just because of nostalgia as she asserts).

So she's against that.

WideAndNerdy wrote:

She's going to try to make the case later that you can't fight women as bosses either. Its violence against women and therefore problematic.

WideAndNerdy wrote:

And what she wants would be the end of games in which you take the role of a person committing violence. Unless it's all stuff like Spec Ops The Line.

WideAndNerdy wrote:

[Sarkeesian] wants to completely invert the portrayal of violence in media.

WideAndNerdy wrote:

[Sarkeesian would] pretty much want shooters and brawlers of all kinds shut down completely. She'd want women dressed puritanically and sporting indistinct bodies

[edit]I took a closer look and added a couple more quotes from this and the previous conversations to demonstrate why Harpo and I have come to our conclusion.

Farscry wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:

take a closer look:

Ok.

WideAndNerdy wrote:

Oh and she's going to bring up how a lot of the classics are getting rereleases because they scale well on Mobile platforms (not just because of nostalgia as she asserts).

So she's against that.

WideAndNerdy wrote:

She's going to try to make the case later that you can't fight women as bosses either. Its violence against women and therefore problematic.

WideAndNerdy wrote:

And what she wants would be the end of games in which you take the role of a person committing violence. Unless it's all stuff like Spec Ops The Line.

None of which are "ban" and even "end" doesn't mean "ban" it means end, and that can include not banning something, like 'make it unfashionable until it falls away of its own accord."

Do we need a WnN Close Look thread? : D

cheeze_pavilion wrote:

None of which are "ban" and even "end" doesn't mean "ban" it means end, and that can include not banning something, like 'make it unfashionable until it falls away of its own accord."

I'm sorry, I apparently can't have a discussion with you without consulting the Oxford English Dictionary and Thesaurus, cross-referencing Google to confirm that there are no unintended connotations either informing what I'm reading or distorting what I'm saying.

f*ck it. This discussion has gone way past pointless and into wasting my time and energy.

Farscry wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:

None of which are "ban" and even "end" doesn't mean "ban" it means end, and that can include not banning something, like 'make it unfashionable until it falls away of its own accord."

I'm sorry, I apparently can't have a discussion with you without consulting the Oxford English Dictionary and Thesaurus, cross-referencing Google to confirm that there are no unintended connotations either informing what I'm reading or distorting what I'm saying.

f*ck it. This discussion has gone way past pointless and into wasting my time and energy.

I'm not f*cking with you Farscry, especially because you're one of the nicer people here to me. I'm totally serious about this one. If this really is a friendly discussion and not a debate, we shouldn't be trying to manuver WnN into being a Freeze Peach position. At least if we're going to spend this much time, I mean, we've created a bunch of threads just to talk to him, it seems silly to not try and figure out if there's a more precise way for him to state what he's feeling that doesn't run afoul of an obvious error like "she wants to ban our games."

edit: oh, and obviously I've got my own ideas that I think are being lumped in with the "you think she wants to ban things" mischaracterization.

Sorry Cheeze. I will calm down before I post again. The frustration from the prior thread plus stress & headache unrelated to this are wearing me down. That doesn't excuse me blowing up, hence the apology.

No worries, Farscry, it's been a very long August.

WideAndNerdy wrote:

Oh and she's going to bring up how a lot of the classics are getting rereleases because they scale well on Mobile platforms (not just because of nostalgia as she asserts).

So she's against that.

Maybe my last sentence was an overreach. But she did view the resurgence of classic games on mobile platforms as alarming because so many of them have these tropes. She doesn't like it, I think I can safely say that much.

WideAndNerdy wrote:

She's going to try to make the case later that you can't fight women as bosses either. Its violence against women and therefore problematic.

How would you interpret it? That was my takeaway from that section. She presented a lot of examples of female bosses and called them problematic. Some were women possessed or turned into monsters but not all of them as far as I could tell.

WideAndNerdy wrote:

And what she wants would be the end of games in which you take the role of a person committing violence. Unless it's all stuff like Spec Ops The Line.

I chose my words carefully in this case and it does represent perhaps a small shift in my position. She may not be calling for a ban. But her idea of a feminist world would involve far less games in which people are empowered to commit violence.

WideAndNerdy wrote:

[Sarkeesian] wants to completely invert the portrayal of violence in media.

Well? What do you call it? She wants violence to be portrayed as tragic and horrible and not something thats fun or cool to watch. I call that an inversion.

WideAndNerdy wrote:

[Sarkeesian would] pretty much want shooters and brawlers of all kinds shut down completely. She'd want women dressed puritanically and sporting indistinct bodies

That last sentence was a jab I'll admit. It comes from her having a problem with women dressed in revealing outfits paired with her showing Peach in overalls and Zelda in Link's outfit along with her first positive female protagonist being a pixelated blob (maybe the fan art fleshes her out but in the game the Scythian is a pixelated blob)

But it was perhaps unfair. Perhaps.

I saw that "regressive crap" line and it made me mad.

So lets be clear about what I actually think. I think harrassment is wrong. I think even the part of Gamergate that is "legit" goes too far and is too vindictive (I've said this before). I thought Depression Quest was a neat idea (first encountered it on Errant Signal) and I was filled with dread when the Zoe Quinn business broke. I did find myself for a little while sympathetic with GG when the "Gamers are Dead" stuff was going on and at the same time mainstream news outlets were entirely characterizing the opposition to Sarkeesian as misogynist trolls. From my early teens when I first started following politics I'd been aware of the press having bias on one side and ruining lives on the other (Richard Jewel, Princess Di, Britney Spears and every young female pop star like her, I may not like them but they don't deserve the crap they get, not too mention the celebrities who I'm sure have to padlock their trashcans to keep the Papparazzi out) so I'm not exactly a fan of the press. But I could see from myself that even more moderated GG spaces like KotakuInaction were engaging in tactics I oppose.

I'm for more representation in gaming, at least in terms of putting more varied people in roles. I'm not exactly interested in playing a game exploring what its like to grow up poor anymore than I'm interested in bleak and depressing games like Dark Souls. But when I'm playing my "adolescent power fantasy" I certainly don't mind playing a girl or a race other than my own. Child of Light was one of my favorite games of 2014.

As for Anita, I'm still convinced that she wants sexualization of women and violence in games reduced as much as she can. And I'm really curious to see what she does want if she doesn't want a ban because 1) She wants to change our value system as cheez pavillion pointed out and 2) Its central to everything she's been doing that media reinforces cultural norms. If she thinks these two things then she must view changing media as a way to reach that objective of changing the value system.

Pages