Threats against Sarkeesian and family force her to leave home
Tweets detailing graphic murder and rape sent to Feminist Frequency producer
Anita Sarkeesian, producer of the Feminist Frequency series of YouTube videos, has received threats deemed serious enough for her to leave home and stay with friends, she reported via Twitter yesterday.
The tweets, from a throwaway account under the name @kdobbsz, made graphic threats of murder, rape and sexual violence against Sarkeesian and her family, as well as publishing her home address. Sarkeesian reprinted the threats via twitter, with trigger warnings firmly in place.
The video which prompted the tirade, embedded below, focussed on the use of women as background plot devices: that they are generally reduced to sexualised objects, often included only to suffer violence. Add irony to the long list of things which the misogynist troll is too dense to understand.
Sarkeesian is no stranger to harassment from the wide variety of misogynists, MRAs, violent fantasists and bottom feeders which populate the murkier strata of the internet and society at large. Right from the inception of her Kickstarter campaign to fund her Tropes Vs. Women in Video Games series, Sarkeesian was subjected to torrents of threats and abuse, from the predictably mundane to the criminally overt. One particularly infuriated mouth breather went so far as to create a flash game in which the object was to beat a virtual Sarkeesian until her face was rendered unrecognisable, simultaneously justifying Sarkeesian's concerns about attitudes towards women on the internet and the stereotypes about the nature of her detractors' motives.
Rail as they might against the slow but welcome progression of humanity, Sarkeesian's tormentors have failed to make any impact whatsoever on her determination. Her Kickstarter campaign rocketed past her initial goals and secured a funding total of 15 times her original aim. She remained resolute and determined, as you can read in our 2012 interview with her here, and continues to produce her videos with regularity, reciving support from well known feminist activists in gaming and the wider media. Long may she continue.
Sarkeesian's experiences echo those of, amongst many, many others, Zoe Quinn, who has been subjected to an endless stream of vile abuse, threats, doxxing, and a general campaign of spittle-flecked hate ever since an ex-boyfriend printed details of their private life online, including allegations of infidelity. Until now, it's something we've deferred from writing about, given its intensely personal nature, but now seems as good a juncture as any to make clear that this sort of behaviour, this culture (at the risk of defaming that word) is something we, as a site and as individuals, stand in complete opposition to. We will do whatever we can to combat any prejudice, hate speech or threatening behaviour, either here or anywhere else.
This is an industry news website, not a charity or a campaign centre, but it is well within our remit to attempt to make our industry better through the promotion of inclusivity and the eradication of prejudice. If you feel you're being belittled or marginalised in our comments, please use the report comment button or contact us via contact@gamesindustry.biz. If you see it happening elsewhere, let us know and we'll try and report on it.
A wider audience, one that feels welcome, included and safe, is a benefit and a boon to us all.
Edit: The post this refers to has been deleted
Edited 1 times. Last edit by Jma on 28th August 2014 2:46pm
Sorry but I can't take your comment seriously when you start throwing around terms like "effectively stole a ton of money" and "despicable women".
Why aren't you equally upset with the married games journalist who you claim cheated on his wife and slept with Zoe in exchange for writing some words? Maybe think about that.
To claim they "are no better" than the people sending death threats and harassing them 24/7 is just staggering to me and suggests an utterly blinkered view of the situation.
That your comment is top rated goes to show how much this shitty attitude is within the industry, not just its fans.
Edited 3 times. Last edit by Anthony Gowland on 28th August 2014 12:04pm
As for Sarkeesian 'stealing' money - are you claiming that her donors want it back? Has she obtained it unlawfully? Did you donate and now feel cheated? Do you think that she, like all the other Kickstarters obviously do, should have just given all the excess money back? She has done what she promised and her videos are obviously having a deep and resonant effect - they have pushed an issue into the public eye which had gone unchallenged for too long.
As for Zoe Quinn being a "despicable women", it's not my business who she sleeps with, or for what reasons. It's not my job to report on unproven allegations about people's private lives. Even if it was, it would not be my position to blame just one of the involved parties. That story is not a public one, nor is it part of our remit. What is part of our remit is to bring to light the fact that a huge swathe of people who purport to identify as 'gamers' are participating in sustained campaigns of abuse, threats and defamation, so we have.
It does not matter one iota what sort of person Zoe Quinn, or for that matter Anita Sarkeesian, is. Nobody deserves the treatment that they have received, and when it is indicative of a far deeper and more pervasive culture of poison that is permeating this industry, it is even more of a concern. We'll continue to report on death threats to industry figures, be they to Sarkeesian or to David Vonderhaar, so get used to it.
Considering that most reviews are paid for, i don't this case make much difference. The commercial performance of the so called games media clearly shows that they are not as relevant anymore.
The lack of proper articles representing the counter arguments to me is disturbing to the point that I feel just by disagreeing with Sarkeesian and Co, you are automatically categorized along side "the wide variety of misogynists, MRAs, violent fantasists and bottom feeders which populate the murkier strata of the internet and society at large"
However that has become a long distant memory by the shear bucket-ton of childish, ridiculous attacks against her. If you don't agree with someone attacking them doesn't make them or their stance look worse, it makes you and your stance look worse.
By creating this drama all it has done is made her look credible to more people, I'm not here to argue against her views, the point is this is someone who could of just faded away but how the internet has reacted will keep bringing her back up into news and once again more arguments will come.
If only we could just calmly debate these topics instead of attack them.
Edited 1 times. Last edit by Aaron Parkes on 28th August 2014 12:19pm
Even if Sarkeesian isn't always "right", it's good that someone is making these sorts of critiques.
That said, by positioning yourself as a feminist you become part of the problem, not the solution. Ideally, we'll look beyond "isms" and whether you have a penis or a vagina between your legs. Until then, perhaps the best is to become a humanist.
It's good to see a media outlet with some bal.....and this is where you realize that even a passive and complimentary statement can help perpetuate the problem. There is no intent to harm. There is no intent to harass. Yet it can still do both. While a stance must be taken against those that blatantly harm and harass, we must be aware of our own unintentionally harmful statements.
It's good to see a media outlet with the bravado to stand boldly open against a controversial issue.
Also, this isn't new:
http://www.dailydot.com/society/anita-sarkeesian-feminist-frequency-backlash/
"As a direct result of her work as a critic of sexism in pop culture, Sarkeesian has been receiving death threats and misogynistic slurs for years."
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/04/18/anita-sarkeesian-explains-fight-against-cyber-mob-of-misogynistic-trolls/
"A game that involved beating up Sarkeesian was published online in 2012. Others created fake pornographic images of Sarkeesian, published her address and phone number, threatened to kill or rape her, and tried to hack into her website Feminist Frequency."
*Removing last comment as was giving wrong impression of rest of my post*
Edited 1 times. Last edit by Gareth Donaghey on 28th August 2014 4:10pm
Nobody deserves the treatment, but I question the source of it. Is the poison in the industry? Or is it in a small subset of the customers?
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2014-07-17-youtube-games-media-loses-its-shine
I meant something like that. A specific kind of games media.
Dismissing this sort of horrible abuse as 'nothing new' or 'feminist propaganda' is pathetic and insulting to all of the men and women who are forced to endure this sort of abuse and harassment just for doing their jobs or believing that the games industry can treat women better than it does. Shame on you, seriously.
Edited 2 times. Last edit by Jessica Hyland on 28th August 2014 2:48pm
Your misogyny is showing. Best to zip it up.
And there isn't really a need for counter argument when the counter argument is whistling with fingers in ears saying "Theres no problem with women in gaming. None at all".
Id be interested to know what the hypocrisy is in a women pointing out tropes targeting women.
"the whole thing had an agenda behind it, "
I hope it does. An agenda to get games to no cater just to men and not abuse tropes that put women as secondary characters or simple plot objects.
I could have phrased my last post better. Shame on me. I meant more of the Zoe Quinn story part of the article as the 'Tumblr' journalism that this site should not bother report on, like Phil Fish twitters, as mere mentioning it in the article will start people talking about it. And that should be left to the trashier sites imo.
Merely stating that this has happened before numerous times to Anita does not make me have any stance on anything, this is your own projection. Of course it shouldn't happen to them.
The article above portrays it as if its the first time it has happened to her and why I just repeated it happening before in 2013 and 2012. My last line on it is way too aggressive, making the previous sound more angry than I intended it to be. And I apologize for that.
Still think though the article be removed for the obvious divisions it is causing in these comments.
You are saying that it is normal and unremarkable for Sarkeesian to suffer this abuse. If you are happy with that state of affairs then you are part of the problem.
I didn't see you suggesting this on any other recently controversial article. I wish GI had fewer terrible commenters too but just because some people will be determined to shit up every single comment thread about women or minorities in games with anti-feminist whinge doesn't mean GI shouldn't report on it.
Are you suggesting that there are legitimate reasons for women to receive a sub-par treatment?
I get what you mean about some gamer 'fans', but this site is supposed to be for industry related individuals.
It is sad to see that a cutting edge industry like ours seems to bring the worst out in people when it comes to sensitive topics. This is 2014 and some people are still acting like it is the early 1900's in some of their perspectives on the world.
I didn't actually read the deleted comment, but I have read many questionable replies on this site in the last few years which were unbelievable.
Edited 4 times. Last edit by Darren Adams on 28th August 2014 4:34pm
I'm not sure if I'm explaining this in the best way, but I think you'll probably get the idea
Edited 1 times. Last edit by Craig Burkey on 28th August 2014 4:43pm
I've personally seen how ineffective the police can be when it comes to cases of in person abuse against women, and in-person threats vs. virtual ones. If they can't handle the immediate and present danger, how could they possibly deal with something like Twitter threats? Since we haven't, and presumably don't want to go full Minority Report with handling criminal behavior, there's a difficult balance that has to be maintained. We're dealing with a new frontier, while our country still fights contentiously about laws and regulations that are 300 years old. Until our laws catch up with our reality, this kind of horrible behavior has to be dealt with by all of us in the gaming community personally.
And please note I'm not suggesting that this isn't something the police should be handling, what I'm saying is that they have a history of being utterly ineffectual in these situations, either due to a lack of understanding of the severity of the issue, or because the laws and regulations they abide by and uphold simply don't have the breadth and depth necessary to deal with a whole new world of challenges.
I mean, if you think it's important to protect lazy misogynists from criticism you are allowed to think so but I think most people here are going to disagree with you.
But say you do include GTA rather than remove female strippers and prostitutes which would be an example of 'negative equality', I'd add male ones("positive equality")
On a tangent, I'm not really up-to-date on all the acronyms and (supposed) social movements:
MRA means Men's Rights Activist, right? how is that an insult? It appears to be used as such
First off, adding sexually objectified male characters to a game that contains sexually objectified female characters does not make things equal. As Sarkeesian observed in the generally very good Women as Background Decoration: Part One, due to the huge social imbalance between the way men and women are commonly depicted in media(women as sexy sex objects primarily, men as pretty much anything and everything else), adding male sex objects to games doesn't improve the way women are depicted:
As for the idea that for some reason games aimed at young adult men should be allowed to use all the lazy sexist tropes they like without a whiff of criticism, and if women want to play games that don't actively insult their existence we should just find something else to play rather than argue mainstream games could cater to us as well as the all-important YA male... Well, I think that's a pretty terrible argument all-round. Don't you?
Edited 1 times. Last edit by Jessica Hyland on 28th August 2014 5:22pm
Since this is in vogue, I will preface my comments by saying I've not been a fan of Anita's videos - they play loose with facts sometimes - and don't care for Zoe's games. My Mandatory Disclosure(tm) is now out of the way, because I guess that's necessary to prove I'm not a white knight or whatever that is. It also proves, I guess, that I'm not trying to screw Zoe Quinn?
Now, with that out of the way.
There is literally one reason we're talking about this, and one only: a bunch of crybaby MRAs really, really, really hate Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian. Like, *really* hate them. They want to drive these uppity women from the industry. Full stop. Everything else stems from that desire, and serves as a shield. The dudebros tipped their hand with Sarkeesian, when they tried to flag her work as violating Youtube TOS (and it worked for a time). From there, it was DMCA request after DMCA request (ironically, one of the complaints about Zoe now). Due to that, I take none of the "legitimate" complaints about either of these women seriously.
"But Anita is loose with her facts!" Then debate her on the facts.
"Zoe makes bad games!" Wondeful, then let's attack Zynga, too.
"But Ben Kuchera donated to her Patreon! Bias!!!" Disclosure form. Done. We don't attack financial analysts for their investments if they're disclosed. We do it here because we're dealing with manchildren.
"Zoe Quinn is sleeping with a reporter!" For one, he never reviewed anything of her's. Secondly? You better have proof - solid proof - before making that claim.
"Dude, why do we keep reporting on this? This isn't Tumblr, bro. Like, brooooooo"
That last one pisses me off the most, mainly because it's perpetuated by comfortable white men who could give a shit so long as they maintain the status quo. That's all they're interested in. Why are we reporting on this? Because a prominent voice in the industry has finally had to LEAVE HER HOME due to the vile hatred coming at her from the scum of this industry! That's newsworthy! And we go through this once a month! The fact that this whole issue started at 4chan and /r/gaming should *instantly* tell anyone objective that something's wrong; those places are famous for this shit.
As a writer, I respond to people telling me "stop writing about this, we're tired of reading about it" by writing more about it, and if that means someone doesn't read me, then we pressure others into having to talk about it. The status quo is very powerful - it's what's driving what's going on in Ferguson MO more than blatant racism - and it needs to be challenged, constantly.
Let me finish by quoting someone who said something very smart when #1reasonwhy (remember that?) came up:
Guys, there’s a lot of smoke. Eventually, you’re going to have to admit that something’s on fire. And when almost every woman in the industry on Twitter says that they have either been objectified, stared down, or outright discriminated against, that’s a really big (freaking) fire.
Oh, wait. I wrote that. A year ago. I also wrote something similar in 2012. And 2010. 2009. 2008, though that piece sucks.
I'm as tired of writing it as you are of reading it, and I'm not going to stop.
Edited 5 times. Last edit by Christopher Bowen on 28th August 2014 5:48pm
This leads to the next gripe I have. I stronly feel there is a need for all netizens to come together, and call for some kind of legal action against those who threaten violence and spew hatred on the internet. Despite what these "mouth breathers" and bottom feeding low-lifes believe, what Sarkeesian does is in-line with democratic freedom of speech. What the haters do is simply against the law, and should be punishable (rather harshly if I had the choice) as such.
Society draws this line extremely clear in its laws. One is allowed to express anger, it is their freedom of expression. HOWEVER, violence and hatred are not covered nor protected by these laws. The internet will become a better place the moment, laws and justice governing freedom of speech and expression can extend there as well.
Edited 1 times. Last edit by Anthony Chan on 28th August 2014 5:36pm
Adding male prostitutes to GTA would do nothing to correct the balance because you are not subject to the same prejudices as those less privileged than you are.
And for the record, Anita herself says that you can enjoy something and still understand that it is flawed (like GTA in its handling of women).
Edited 1 times. Last edit by Christopher Garratty on 28th August 2014 6:31pm
This is something I would expect to see on NG4.com or something like that.
This is about as baseless as any argument for or against Phil Fish with just about as much sensationalism.
For all we know she could have staged these alleged threats herself.
Yes, I do think she would do something like this.
Anyway...I am quite surprised at gameindustry.biz, up until this very moment they kept their head above water.
Personally I am frustrated by how polarized these debates tend to be. I am sure there are feminists who wouldn't necessarily agree with everything Anita has to say. That doesn't mean she doesn't have a point. However, I'm not a fan of the term feminism, as it is used too often as a cornering tactic and placing blame. It tend to trigger so much anger in people. I mean, what's wrong with mutual respect?
I do think Anita has a point. Just look at those Hitman ads. In my opinon a lot of mainstream games tend to go much further than the mainstream of other media in terms of using of sex and violence. There's still a sense of anarchy that is both liberating and a little bit worrying. It's not always offensive. Sometimes it's just bad taste. Some game stories feel more like rejected movie scripts than anything else. But I guess that's beside the point. Or not.
Edited 3 times. Last edit by Petter Solberg on 28th August 2014 7:46pm
Edited 1 times. Last edit by Jessica Hyland on 28th August 2014 6:09pm
Ah, so anti-feminists hijacked that neutral term and call themselves that? that is not at all comparable with "white supremacist", which is an inherently discriminating term.
I'm not familiar with the history of MRAs, but I'm against using a neutral term in a derogatory way because it throws the baby out with the bathwater and creates this negative image that also affects activists who stand up for legitimate issues. What do we call those people?
This sounds like saying feminists are man-hating lesbians...
No I don't , I think its a pretty measured and sensible one, I don't like sport games, you know what? I don't play them, I don't actively call for them to be changed so if I happen to buy/play one I'd find it more appealing, I know I'm not it's target audience.
I'm sure there is common ground like calling for more female protagonists but I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on the other points, I don't see either of us shifting our stance anytime soon, advocating censorship is just something I find to abhorent
I didn't mean to say that MRA is comparable with white supremacy, just that some people take pride in calling themselves white supremacists and anyone with a shred of decency who is even vaguely aware of what the MRA movement is about avoids using that label to avoid being associated with hate groups. Possibly it could be more accurately compared to the benign-sounding 'pro-life' anti-abortion movement, whose prominent members routinely harass women and encourage or even commit violence and murder against medical professionals.
Activists who actually stand up for men's rights, for example men's rights to not be raped in prison, to not be conscripted into armies, to be afforded paternity leave and care for their own children, to wear what they like and behave how they like without fear of being accused of 'unmanliness', to admit vulnerability and access mental healthcare etc are often called feminists, because these are feminist issues exacerbated by the same restrictive patriarchal gender roles that we fight against for all people.
Criticism is not censorship. Criticism is the suggestion that a work has flaws that could be improved upon, not that a work should not be allowed to exist. No matter how horrified Sarkeesian(and plenty of other people including myself) may be by the extreme sexual violence depicted in the games she criticises, she has never said that they should be banned.
You are judging games as an isolated phenomena, disconnected from the real world. If there was gender parity in everything except games, then your argument would stand, in the real world, it doesn't.
I really don't think that being depicted as a millionaire sports superstar (as happens in most sports games) has quite the same impact on the average guy as being depicted as a murdered prostitute has on the average girl, irrespective of how averse to exercise you are.
THAT is censorship.
I realize social terminology tends to grow historically and that's what we end up stuck, regardless of inconsistency and incoherence and I'm not usually one to insist on this things as long as people understand each other, but this is a case were this fucked up terminology actually causes harm to the debate.
If we allow this definition of MRA to persist, we automatically have everyone who stands up for legitimate men's issues start of from a defensive position. It's as if feminists had to explain each time before they say something: now, I don't hate men, but...." It also associates legitimate concerns with ridiculous angry men and discredits them.
caling people who stand up for the equal treatment of men is feminist is imprecise and suggests all sexism is a result of patriarchy, perpetuating the erroneous notion that sexism is basically something that men do to other people.
To be honest, I think we'd have the most constructive discussions if we all just talked about gender equality. the other terms tend to foster an "us against them" mentality. There should be a male equivalent to feminist that isn't derogatory. That, or we ditch tbe terms completely and just use gender equality.
Edited 1 times. Last edit by Christopher Bowen on 28th August 2014 7:05pm
Regarding adding male sexual violence balancing things, I agree with Craig - if it was depicted equally, that'd be equality, even if just in video games. Yes, it doesn't occur equally in real life, but this is an example where I think the media could help enact change. Anita makes the point well herself in the latest video - what we see and experience sets our norms. If abuse against both genders was presented equally, us guys would have far higher exposure to it being personified for us. Speaking for myself, the impact of the FC3 sexual violence was far greater to me, because it was against a man. That did a lot more to make me think about and consider the impact of that violence than the many, many times I'd gamed through similar experiences where the victim was a woman.
Censorship has a nasty habit of creeping in, its something we all should be weary of
The Daily Show provided a good example recently, where their scruffy-looking white dude camera guy entered a building with no problem, but the suit-wearing black guy got hassled following behind him.
Censorship has a nasty habit of creeping in, its something we all should be weary of
Anita's video are designed to highlight tropes. This idea that she is advocating for their removal is preposterous. She has never, ever, ever said something should 100% not be in a game.
This seems to be a recurring problem. People perceive her videos to be being anti-gaming, and they're not. The Tropes series showcases video game themes or mechanics that add zero value to game other than to titillate the male demographic at the cost of degrading woman into nothing more than decorative toys.
I hate to be that guy, but have you actually watched her series? That's not a dig, I mean that as a genuinely honest question: Have you watched all her videos or are you just going off hearsay?
Normally, here's how it goes: Someone watches one of her videos. Then the person says "Well I agree with some of it, but I don't agree with all of it." Not once has anyone who's watched the videos with an unbiased opinion, gone "Oh golly, she's coming to ban all our macho blood-wank-fests," because she has never, ever, ever said she wants stuff banned, just looked at and addressed.
Anita Sarkeesian is not Jack Thompson, yet everyone seemingly thinks she is. And most of the time these people don't even bother to watch her videos because fucking 4Chan can fill them in.
See how easy it is to make up utterly baseless accusations?
Also there seems to be some degree of confusion that criticism is somehow linked to a desire for censorship. It's clearly not. All art forms undergo criticism, games are just finally growing up to the point that people are starting to treat them as they deserve, warts and all.
I just hate opinion presented as fact(towards the end she even says the words "In truth"), most of her gameplay footage featured interactive elements that when watched passively ended in a negative outcome, which is obvious, she also likes to reuse scenes and state facts of gameplay like they are inheirently bad practice when, again just in her opinion, when it comes to praising anything to do with games rather than look at the mainstream titles shes been pulling down she picks some leftfield game "Pappa & Yo" that I'd never heard of, yeah that might be my loss but from a video criticising mainstream games it feels very disjointed and strained as if she intentionally didn't use a mainstream example emphaise her arguement and cast mainstream game further in a bad light. So yeah it wasn't a critque of the games in question but rather a bias string of out of context clips often played out to the worse posible outcome
Maybe this is me just getting old, but I fear one day the majority of the gaming population is going to be made up of dangerously delusional, entitled male 20-somethings, whose parents one day handed them a game controller in an effort to shut them up, only to have never checked in again. They'll be screaming obscenities into a headset about the most minor things, because no one ever bothered to tell them a video game isn't all there is to life. They'll maim, kill, and insult others over warped, virtual transgressions, and when unplugged from that setting, they'll exist as individuals useless and even hazardous to civilization.
People like this, by the way, is why I get less and less enamored with "connected" games. Gaming has always been one of my escapes, but I'm not so lost without them that I'll stay should the industry ever fancy itself solely as the virtual arena in which these dullards play out their fantasies.
Criticism and examination does not equal censorship. Moreover, a medium where both consumers and professionals propose this argument is not one that can grow. We need to self-examine and self-question, just like any other medium. Whilst I think Anita's Tropes series is less academically rigorous than what is needed, I find it the same as art or film critiques - we need all levels of criticism in order to target all levels of consumer/audience.
Or, to put it another way - if we were talking about the use of race/class and gender in Shakespeare, would you use your same argument?
(edited for double negative. :( )
Edited 1 times. Last edit by Morville O'Driscoll on 28th August 2014 11:32pm
Compare Shakespeare with videogames which are a living medium prone to iteration (ports, ports of ports, HD remasters, definitive editions, GOTY editions, sequels in the next year). If the criticism of a living, pliable medium isn't to change it then what is the point of it?
I'm pretty sure the people making criticism have some kind of change in mind that they'd want enacted which would either require censorship of current material or self-censorship (on the developers part) to meet. They aren't so much as analysing games such as complaining that the games don't look the way they want. And people typically complain because they want their concerns addressed, not simply to "add to the debate" (so to speak).
Note that I'm not talking about cases where the games are simply being used as a talking point or cayalyst for a wider discussion, or where games are critically examing for the quality of their content (critique), but actual criticism based on the application of extraneous criteria.
Edited 3 times. Last edit by Shehzaan Abdulla on 28th August 2014 10:29pm
Sexist losers are attacking women who say or do anything they don't like and threatening them with rape and murder. How we got from there to the Ottoman Empire is beyond me. Woman says something MRAs don't like. MRAs act like scum, because they are. Lather, rinse, repeat.
I think there's an intent to this, to bring people off course and off topic in an attempt to minimize this very real issue.
And yeah, maybe it's time to attack the tropes. Not only do they perpetuate sexism in many ways, but they're lazy and banal.
At this point, I don't care whether you agree with literally anything Anita Sarkeesian has said. Turning every mention of her name into an excuse to bitch and moan about how white male privilege is a mean lie or 'context' makes gross sexist bullshit okay is getting really damn tiresome.
(As I say, I'll leave it at that, other than to say that no right-thinking person would defend the actions of the people who have threatened critics and developers. Just awful behaviour.)
Edited 2 times. Last edit by Morville O'Driscoll on 28th August 2014 11:47pm
That is your opinion.of the tropes I respectfully disagree, it human nature for men to want to protect women, it makes perfect sense to me to see related imagery used in games aimed at games creating a male escapist fantasy, is it realistic? No. Is ment to be realistic? No.
Exploring gender issues in media has happened in every medium, but when it happens to video games it's called censorship. She's not forcing anyone to do anything nor is she advocating that all tropes should be wiped out. She's just identifying and exploring that these are tropes and when done poorly, are examples of lazy writing. Standard non controversial stuff from the field of criticism.
@Craig
It's non controversial in any field except video games. That speaks volumes.
Edited 1 times. Last edit by Shane Sweeney on 29th August 2014 1:30am
Think about that.
@John: Sarkeesian does not criticise the depiction ti self as much the cultural background and legacy that feeds it. In more specific words: the reason why a woman dying has a more dramatical charge than a man is a sexist legacy.
Comparing it with Schindler's List (which, by the way, is a historical movie recreating real events) is completely out of what she is trying to say and reducing it to something close to that she is criticizing is exclusively the violence and gore.
I also fail to understand where you people see "censorship". Is she imposing it to you? is she ordering you or actively asking for laws to prevent this content? nope; she is criticizing and trying to make us; the industry, think about it and, so far, I saw a few points to disagree with her but not a single reason to openly say that she is wrong.
Censorship is what we sometimes face in Germany, not what she is promoting.
But give people a forum and they'll want to discuss. In these cases they'll discuss issues related to sexism, where there is still a lot of ground to cover.
Another reason why people might be more voca land digress in comment sections is that men don't yet have the equivalent of feminists as a mouthpiece to speak in a media-attention-grabbing way. The only highly-visible folks doing that are a bunch of douches and nobody wants to even be associated with the term they call themselves because it means to be automatically ridiculed and dismissed. So it's every commenter, every forum-poster for himself.
Of course some people will try to rationalize, excuse, minimize, but suggesting people who digress from making obvious and self-evident statements are doing just that is about as helpful as blanket statements like: gamers send death threats!
Edited 1 times. Last edit by David Canela on 29th August 2014 9:25am
All she is doing is shining a light on pernicious issues within games that retread tired and harmful sexist stereotypes about women. If you think the things she's looking at are not a problem, you are still 100% free to keep on rehashing them. But nobody is above criticism, and crying about the mean feminists trying to 'censor' your games by saying that sexism is gross and terrible is the same kind of logic that literal children use. Grow up, for God's sake.
For another thing... have you ever considered the fact that the entire TvW series is about context? Taking examples of sexist tropes from hundreds of games is illuminating the context of the medium as a whole - that even if the sexism in one game is relatively benign, it exists within the context of hundreds of others that repeat and reuse the same tired, shitty ideas so often that they become tropes, they become shorthand for 'things that define the existence of women' in games. No game is an island. Complaining that the context of a single game excuses its narrow and harmful depiction of women and use of sexual violence is just ignoring the context of all the other games that do the exact same thing for the exact same terrible reasons.
You can't appeal to 'context' if the only context you're willing to acknowledge is the one that lets you excuse and ignore problematic themes in your media.
I completely disagree with what you said but i'm not going to go off on a tangent and go on about why i disagree with you and her. You have your point of view I have mine. That will unlikely change.
I will not support her views but I will support her right to make them.
Edited 2 times. Last edit by Aaron Parkes on 29th August 2014 10:28am
That's not censorship. It's criticism. Censorship is when an authority prevents an audience from receiving all or part of a work. Nobody is stopping you playing any part of these games. Just like you're not censoring anybody when you say these discussions aren't appropriate.
@Alex That's one form of censorship, self censorship which is what she is advocating is still censorship, just because a government authority isn't involved yet, doesn't mean it isn't censorship
Edited 1 times. Last edit by Morville O'Driscoll on 29th August 2014 10:46am
You're worried because the games media agrees with her? There are plenty of people out there who disagree with her and post hilarious conspiracy-style videos about PROVING HER WRONG but I think you might find that the reason most of the more mainstream outlets generally agree with her conclusions is because... (whisper it) she's generally right.
And, once again, what she is advocating is not self-censorship, or mind control, or regular censorship, or moral censorship. The only thing Anita is advocating is for the developers and consumers of videogames to critically engage with the themes in their games.
If that critical engagement results in realising that we've been using and reusing and abusing terrible stereotypes about women and that maybe we could stop doing that, imo that's great. But all Anita is asking you to do is think about your work and the greater context of what you create and consume.
Edited 1 times. Last edit by Jessica Hyland on 29th August 2014 10:45am
The internet is a really bad platform for balanced communication, but people should be allowed to express their opinions none the less. It shouldn't result in real world threats of any kind.
I don't think it's the sole responsibility of anyone who works in the media to 'challenge' or 'debate' criticism they agree with. I have seen people on feminist discussion boards critiquing, amongst other points, Anita's stance on sex workers without being dismissed as 'crackpot' but when the vast majority of dissent is framed in deeply sexist and violent language, it's hard to take someone seriously when all they can say is 'NO SHE' S WRONG YOU'RE WRONG BECAUSE REASONS'
If you want a debate, you're going to have to try harder than just saying 'I disagree that's wrong I don't think that's true' and not providing anything to back up your disagreement with. It's fairly telling tbh.
Edited 2 times. Last edit by Jessica Hyland on 29th August 2014 12:57pm
Seriously, if you're going to spend so much time critiquing someone's work on a forum, then at least watch the bloody videos. Otherwise no-one will put a lot of stock in YOUR opinion.
Mate everybody has a right to an opinion, don't take offense if people don't subscribe to her feminist utopia.
Oh wait, I see. Craig just wants to be able to look at boobs in games without having to think about things like respecting women or the context in which those boobs are presented. Never mind, let's move on.
Edited 1 times. Last edit by Jessica Hyland on 29th August 2014 1:18pm
Edited 1 times. Last edit by Morville O'Driscoll on 29th August 2014 1:30pm
Your continued ignorance of how feminism works is not a great excuse to keep on attacking a strawman. Feminism isn't about 'negative equality' and you do not have an unassailable human right to have sexy naked dead ladies in your videogames.
How is self censorship a bad thing? If you decide through your own reasoning, which you may or may not have arrived at through listening to someone else, that something's bad taste or better left out, isn't that your decision? All Sarkeesian is doing is presenting her views, which represent a lot of women's views too. The decision to do something with that information is up to whoever's creating the content.
Most games treat women as window dressing. Virtually none pass the (admittedly not perfect) Bechedel test. Those games will continue to exist, just as those films, books, songs etc have continued to exist. There will never be a "feminist utopia". You will always be able to play a game where women are treated poorly, should you so wish to. You might find that more people think it's distasteful than they used to, but hey, you stick to your guns and show 'em you're gonna play it anyway, that's your prerogative.
Nobody is taking anything away. These are market forces. Women are interested in games, despite the best efforts of the industry. They're noticing that some games make them uncomfortable with their portrayal of women, much as they did with films books, yada yada yada. It's happening, you can't stop it. Women have money now, they can influence stuff with choices.
Games will continue to improve, to become more representative of the wants and tastes of humanity, like any decent medium with a future. You don't have to change, you don't have to believe what's being said, but you won't stop it happening.
Edited 1 times. Last edit by Dan Pearson on 29th August 2014 2:32pm
The thing is, sexist images and ideas can be harmful. And I don't mean harmful in the hysterical Jack Thompson "Call of Duty turns us into murderers" sense. I mean insidiously harmful as a slow process over time. They instill or reinforce unhelpful or damaging worldviews and make us think of women in reductive ways. I concede it may be possible that some people, perhaps yourself included, are able to compartmentalise sexist material, play sexist games, listen to sexist music or watch sexist pornography without it colouring their treatment of women. But there is evidence to suggest that it does have an affect on many of us (perhaps most of us) unconsciously, on men and women. And the material's mere existence becomes a tacit acceptance by society that disempowering a whole social group is okay. Particularly if it is commoditised mass media. My personal feeling is, on balance, that a selfish enjoyment of sexist works is less important than improving the net quality of life for as many people as possible.
Using racism as an analogy to sexism, I'm very glad as a society we no longer tolerate "golliwogs" in our childrens books and "Black and White Minstrels" on our television sets. I'm sure for people who grew up with these and perceived them as entertainment it was considered censorship when publishers stopped funding these works. But I would hope you would agree that as a society our no longer finding them acceptable has been to the net benefit of human well being.
Primum non nocere.
Edited 1 times. Last edit by Jonathan Burroughs on 29th August 2014 3:51pm
Edited 1 times. Last edit by Jonathan Burroughs on 29th August 2014 3:43pm
On topic, no one deserves this sort of attack. Period.
As for the industry's gender parity, it's pretty slanted. But that's only really because of the overwhelmingly large male demographic. That demographic is changing, and the industry is changing to accommodate this. But it isn't going to happen in a year. Maybe 5, but that's just how long it'll take. Obviously if I could wish it faster, I would, but it's just not possible.
@Jessica
This is slightly off-topic, but your description of a man's natural rights (child care, etc..) is appropriate, and is a great description of the issues that male feminists fight to change. But (and I'm not a very masculine guy, so this is coming from witnessing my masculine, male friends) that list only covers things that affect guys like me and not guys like my friends. I really hate that MRA's happen to be so terrible, because that title would be appropriate.
Feminism (which I count myself as a supporter) only serves to reduce the influence of our patriarchal society. But I've always felt that we're missing a movement or group to separate what counts as 'bad' (sexual exploitation and such) and what's 'good' (men's health and hobbies). It's sort of how I hate that some of my liberal friends will argue that, say, camo or country music should be discouraged because the sort of politics they typically disagree with is commonly correlated with camo or country music.
Edited 2 times. Last edit by Nick Wofford on 29th August 2014 7:24pm
Of course, some would call that a "violation" of one's free speech rights, but I call it karma in action. If you're an asshole to ANYONE online in terms of making threats like she's gotten, you pay the price. Same goes for threatening game developers, critics or anyone else these fools think they can push around with their bullshit posts and laugh about it later.
Paul, I'm sure the guy could be found. It's Twitter, so I'm doubtful that they've got NSA levels of encryption. Hackers are just so picky about what they target. You have to bait them and make fun for them. Kinda scary to me, honestly.
At first the comments relate to the actual article, but quickly descend into personal sounding boards, semantics nitpicking and arguments about things that do not directly relate to the article.
This article is about someone being viciously harassed to the point that they fear for their lives and have to move somewhere else. That is what comments should relate to but some posters seem far happier to get into personal battles with other posters. And strangely enough the worst articles for encouraging these kinds of derailments are related to women in games.
But then again I do feel these are the final death rolls of the male vs female debate as this cannot go on any longer. There are far too many voices that cannot be silenced and things will have to change because of the sheer weight of it all.
Edited 2 times. Last edit by Darren Adams on 30th August 2014 10:32am
Because we're all right-thinking people here, and can't understand it. Which, of course, spirals into questions about criticism/feminisim/sexism, etc.
I do hope so.
Also, nothing I've said here is sarcasm. Genuinely enjoy the conference! :)
I was watching a car review video on youtube which compared 3 similar cars from different makes, and the comments were not much nicer than the threats in the above-mentioned case. Apparently, the reviewers deserve death for choosing that particular set of cars, according to some of the commenters. Do they actually intend to do anything? Maybe one in a million...
I really hope the police catch up with whoever sent those awful tweets, and I really hope(though sadly I don't think it'll happen) Anita doesn't have to put up with this kind of harassment for much longer.
As a former security expert (first few years of my career) my opinion is : attaching an address shows that more effort was made, but its not that hard to figure out who you are and where do you live. Do you have a company? Directors address is available from the companies house anonymously.. Searching for my company name gave me my personal address on the first google hit. Thats all it took.... And I am a nobody. Anyone wanted to know where she lives could have figured out that a long time ago. The amount of personal data collected and available on the internet is shocking.
Edited 1 times. Last edit by Tom Keresztes on 31st August 2014 1:55am
There's wishing for someone to die (and suffer other horrible things), there's obviously empty threats (i.e. "you better never meet me in a dark alley") and then there's "I know where you live and i'll come to f*** you up", which is the kind of threats that you might want to take seriously.
It is true, however, that Sarkeesian isn't the only one to receive such threats. I know a similar episode happened to a community manager of an online game I play. Even in that case, authorities were alerted and hopefully someone got uniforms knocking at their door. Personally, i'd like to see on the news that someone making such threats got his good share of jail time, just to show other would-be-tough-guys that the internet anonymity i no excuse for openly criminal behavior.
[EDIT]
I honestly think that how easy it is to dig up someone's address is actually irrelevant. It's still a very specific and direct threat that would be unwise to ignore.
Edited 2 times. Last edit by Paolo Giunti on 31st August 2014 2:01am
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/24/two-jailed-twitter-abuse-feminist-campaigner
@ Tom
There's a train of thought that says that if Zero Tolerance is applied to a particular activity, then you can potentially minimise how disruptive that activity is. I'm not sure if I believe it, but it's interesting (as an academic exercise) to wonder if Zero Tolerance were applied to Trolls on Twitter/Facebook/Online generally, would things have gotten to this point? Some sites would still exist (the trolls would congregate), but I'm not so sure such people would exist on the more mainstream websites/gaming sites.
Edited 1 times. Last edit by Morville O'Driscoll on 31st August 2014 8:30am
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19
I will only make this point once. I will not reiterate and I will not tolerate mud-slinging or labelling. I think the entire industry and feminism as a whole can learn greatly from this:
I will implore GamesIndustry International, this once to actually write something productive on the debate by *gasps* turning the magnfying glass on themselves, the rest of videogames journalism and pro-feminists.
If we can do it for one side of the debate, why can't we analyse the others? (to be honest there are far more than the binary feminist/misgynistic positions that feminism has reduced the debate to). Truth be told putting feminism under the magnifying glass is a more beneficial practice in the long-run as one of feminisms greatest hurdles is the monster it itself helped build, counter-feminism (which is different but may overlap with misogynism).
Yet precious little has been said on this. Feminists selfishly shutting down or attempting to censor anyone who even dares suggest the whisper of the suggestion that they too might be a part of the problem as well as the solution. Dare to so much as even allude to the vague notion and you'll be thrown the wolves with liberal forum moderators sittingly by approving by silence.
@Jessica
If you think that people are annoyed with a women being angry at facing down sexist rhetoric you're wrong (or maybe you're in fact right and I'm simply talking about a different groups response). They're angry at being the target of anger when they aren't the perpetrators - and the fact that when they point this out they themselves are branded perpertrators.
The idea of taking issue with "tone policing" displays arrogance because it's predicated on the idea that one is owed a (sympathetic) audience irrespective of what one says or does - something that applies to literally no other walk of life where it is common sense that you have to work to capture your audience's imagination if you want them captive. Feminism operates under a unqiue arrogance that it can do and say anything it wants, however it wants, and if you don't like it (no matter how reasonable the objection) "tough, you're sexist Hahaha. I have the moral high ground now".
How on Earth can any reasonable debate take place when that is the attitude of one side? Nevermind that the objections have literally NOTHING to do with taking issue with feminist values.
You say you don't care what people think of the language of your movement. I doubt it given that the way feminism conducts itself is one of the biggest obstacles (and the mother that gave birth to counter-feminism) in propogating its message. If you care about propogating your message you should care about those who point out why you are failing to gain traction in places.
And if you don't care then you're ultimately guilty of being vain; that is, being happy to content yourself with factionalising the debate into "good guys" and "bad guys" and settling for the tingly feeling that you are "one of the good guys" in place of actually making progress. Sure must feel good basking in self-created moral superiority right? Who cares if your beliefs are actually being understood or heard when you have that!?
If you geniunely don't care than you shouldn't be caring about what the impact of your words/actions have on others, and you most certainly shouldn't be taking issue with people effected by those words/actions because, as you said, you don't care right? You can't have your cake and eat it in this case. Go ahead, gloat empitly about your hollow moral victory.
To summarise: You don't get to act like an ass and then complain that someone's sexist when you get called out on it (TBH I'm not sure what the feminist is doing in the example you have in mind, but for the sake of argument lets say they are being an ass by conventional standards). That could only make sense if they were taking issue with your feminist values. What feminists are doing is essentially derailing the topic by selfishly claiming they, and only they, can possibly be pro-women's issues and if you dare to disagree with them, about anything, then you are on the moral low ground.
That's not intellectualism. It's moral warfare. And it's utterly stomach churning that it passes for being intellectual in any capacity.
I'm sure many people are already furiously banging aware some (pointless) criticism of my own tone totally oblivious to the fact that criticising me is trivial in the grand scheme of the debate. Whereas correcting one of feminisms biggest PR issues actually is of benefit to something important.
Or maybe they'll pointlessly (reflexively) tell me that I'm somehow "mistaken" in my interpretation of feminism when it's based on the words and actions of feminists I've actually ran into (which in my experience are in fact the majority, if not the at least a vocal majority) - if so then maybe the lesson those feminists should take away is that their message is unclear and, as part of the movement, managing their own PR is an issue for them to tackle (pro-actively), not something to shirk responsibility of onto those they are trying to court (can you imagine any other movement or organisation blaming their userbase/customers/audience for their PR issues?)
You now have two choices:
1) Reform and benefit from my advice
2) Ignore it and shout me down for being sexist
One of these will net an actual positive result, the other one will only make you feel like a positive result has been achieved.
Choose wisely.
This has turned out to be a long post. But I hope people the word count will somehow reflect the weight of the concept it grapples with. If it doesn't... well, it's not me that's going to be hurt by it (though the deluge of blind rage this post will no doubt incite might).
Edited 9 times. Last edit by Shehzaan Abdulla on 31st August 2014 5:38pm
I think one of the key differences between sexism and racism is that sexism, as the name implies, relates to sex and by extension, sexual fantasy - an entire realm of sexual material that can be compartmentalised from wider attitudes because it's intended as fantasy. And I think people will realise that no matter how you try, you can't stiffle expression of all the eclectic range of sexual fantasies out there; even puritan societies couldn't manage it.
The debate itself is useful in that it can actually help create awareness and allow people to compartmentalise how they process sexually charged material. And it's an important debate to have as unlike with violence (which are are conditioned to understand as a social evil from a young age) there's no wide-spread debate (other than topics like these) on where to draw the line/compartmentalise things with sex. And perhaps that's not surprising given how squemish our societies can be when it comes to sex-talk beyond the whos-and-hows.
Edited 1 times. Last edit by Shehzaan Abdulla on 31st August 2014 5:49pm
I understand there's scope for criticism without demand for change in a way that disrespects creative intent. But I don't believe the bulk of feminists topics on this issue or Sarkeesian's videos are the type of weighted, respectful criticism you are giving them the benefit-of-the-doubt of being.
Yes, criticism can be done without falling inevitably into censorship. But agreeing with you on that should go without saying. The question is, is the criticism in question that kind of criticism? And if it isn't should we just ignore the fact that it isn't and only grapple with the ideas presented? Isn't it fair to also take issue with the censorship angle?
Edited 1 times. Last edit by Shehzaan Abdulla on 31st August 2014 5:56pm
Was there an actual danger to her? Or its just a weirdo some twitter freaks sending her messages from a temporary account?
(UK)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18900384
Not really, because Sarkeesian isn't strictly arguing for that. As an example of what you are talking about, read some of the work by Gail Dines ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gail_Dines ). Dines has repeatedly misrepresented facts about porn/sex workers; ignored those in the sex industry (sex workers and porn entertainment professionals) when they argue against her anti-porn stance; and continuously rails against porn as anti-feminist, even though large swathes of it aren't, or are but are slowly making way for female creators. Gail Dines uses the above to force media and educational outlets into "being with her, or against her" - a form of censorship. I don't get the same feeling from Anita Sarkeesian. Not in any way.
Edited 3 times. Last edit by Morville O'Driscoll on 31st August 2014 10:07pm
"except if you are a man and woman is equally but not better qualified"
Equality of opportunity means everyone has the same opportunity, regardless of gender. So your point fails. Isnt this what you want, everyone to be treated the same?
"Except if you are a man "
Respect for everyone regardless of gender is what we are going for. Isnt this what you want, everyone to be treated the same?
I think your arguments are straight from the MRA play book. You see the idea of women being raised up to the same level as men as some sort of "loss" for men. The idea that people are treated the same means you "lose" something. Is that the case? Or will you strawman up another set of ideas in which "Oh noes, what about the mens".
Anyone that things the games industry is a bastion of equality currently is living in a dream world. That inequality is turned into a n inequality in terms of games narratives. For every example you can give of how the games industry is so equal, i can give you ten as to why it isn't.
But hey, im just getting agitated at a person receiving death threats for what i consider mild criticism of the games we make. You seem very agitated at the idea that, god forbid, a woman points out how terrible our industry is.
[link url=""]http://i.imgur.com/3A53b.jpg[/link]
That's all that needs to be said. If one side is angry about a situation in which they are made to feel less than equal then your job is to not try to say "Goodness, if only you said things nicely, people would listen".
Edited 1 times. Last edit by Jessica Hyland on 1st September 2014 5:30pm
This tangent of the conversation thread reminded me of a recent interview with Monica Lewinsky, in which she criticised her treatment at the hands of feminists - http://www.vanityfair.com/society/2014/06/monica-lewinsky-humiliation-culture (page 3). I'm not sure how relevant other people will think it is, but it's an interesting read, if only because it kicks the whole "feminists only support women" myth right out the window.
Edited 2 times. Last edit by Morville O'Driscoll on 1st September 2014 5:44pm
By all means, show dissent. I certainly do. But don't actively harm a large chunk of the population's chances at equality with a violent rant. Is the person responsible for this terrible? Yes. But fighting fire with fire only burns more stuff. We have to be better than them.
There, Just wanted to point that out since after 165 comments I think some of you completely forgot the original point on the article.
If this were about another programer being attacked for re-balancing a sniper rifle in CoD there would be no doubt that that harassment is something unacceptable, and the conversation would not be bigger than 10-20 posts. After all, when this happened (around a year back) that is was happened. I would humbly like to ask you to think about this for a minute or two.
And to those of you that, in some way, justify or find acceptable this kind of behavior towards a person based of genre: I wish you a daughter, so you can at least learn the hard way.
Now have a good day and continue the talking as you wish the most. Cheers.
Edited 4 times. Last edit by Aaron Parkes on 2nd September 2014 2:30pm