She calls for these changes and everything, but then turns around and states that there are companies that are already making games that do what she states she wants. Games are an form of artistic expression and if there are companies that make games that don't use damsels in distress, don't misrepresent women, don't objectify women and don't use them as background objects already then her whole platform has been destroyed by her from the start.

My impression is that she's not saying that games that "do what she states she wants," but that she wishes that more games and game studios would "do what she states she wants." If my impression is correct, then there is no contradiction and no destruction of her "platform," because if my impression is correct, her "platform" never included the notion that there are no games that "do what she states she wants."

Is my impression correct?

Anita makes all her good points void in her own series

Let me try and understand your argument. Anita says A is bad and she'd like there to be less A. Then she says some people don't do A. Therefore Anita contradicts herself... because of artistic expression?

Fair enough, and thank you for returning to explain.

I didn't want you to think I left the site of this disagreement.

I was so hung up on her language thinking she was calling for censorship, but watching the playlist I linked above (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLbGeY5L25KBr_OtPsRJWfKoNslm2UZA6a) in one video he pointed out something I hadn't caught during my watching of Anita's videos. Anita makes all her good points void in her own series. She calls for these changes and everything, but then turns around and states that there are companies that are already making games that do what she states she wants. Games are an form of artistic expression and if there are companies that make games that don't use damsels in distress, don't misrepresent women, don't objectify women and don't use them as background objects already then her whole platform has been destroyed by her from the start.

Right - you can agree or disagree but her critiques were always somewhat reductive. Ultimately she would've disappeared into relative obscurity, if a certain online community hadn't decided to flip the table and go berserk, thus converting the whole thing into big news. Same goes for the other couple people who became targets. That's what assigned any power to her, not a handful of kickstarted YouTube videos. Even the Intel deal was basically a result of this lunacy, after Leigh Alexander was made a target. Even now, we have this 250+ post discussion about her work.

If the idea was not to give her any power over the industry, all you had to do was ignore it...

Fair enough, and thank you for returning to explain.

I didn't want you to think I left the site of this disagreement.

I was so hung up on her language thinking she was calling for censorship, but watching the playlist I linked above (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLbGeY5L25KBr_OtPsRJWfKoNslm2UZA6a) in one video he pointed out something I hadn't caught during my watching of Anita's videos. Anita makes all her good points void in her own series. She calls for these changes and everything, but then turns around and states that there are companies that are already making games that do what she states she wants. Games are an form of artistic expression and if there are companies that make games that don't use damsels in distress, don't misrepresent women, don't objectify women and don't use them as background objects already then her whole platform has been destroyed by her from the start.

Right - you can agree or disagree but her critiques were always somewhat reductive. Ultimately she would've disappeared into relative obscurity, if a certain online community hadn't decided to flip the table and go berserk, thus converting the whole thing into big news. Same goes for the other couple people who became targets. That's what assigned any power to her, not a handful of kickstarted YouTube videos. Even the Intel deal was basically a result of this lunacy, after Leigh Alexander was made a target. Even now, we have this 250+ post discussion about her work.

If the idea was not to give her any power over the industry, all you had to do was ignore it...

This. This is so true. I think that she'll probably still end up fading into obscurity as it is. It'll take longer, but it'll happen.

She calls for these changes and everything, but then turns around and states that there are companies that are already making games that do what she states she wants. Games are an form of artistic expression and if there are companies that make games that don't use damsels in distress, don't misrepresent women, don't objectify women and don't use them as background objects already then her whole platform has been destroyed by her from the start.

My impression is that she's not saying that games that "do what she states she wants," but that she wishes that more games and game studios would "do what she states she wants." If my impression is correct, then there is no contradiction and no destruction of her "platform," because if my impression is correct, her "platform" never included the notion that there are no games that "do what she states she wants."

And if the people sharing her view are niche market, which I don't believe, a few games out of thousands isn't enough to cater to that market - once they play those games and finish, they'd want new ones, obviously.

Not to mention if I want games that do X, Y, and Z, I might hold up examples of games that do X, examples of other games that do Y, and examples of games that do Z, but that doesn't automatically mean there are games that combine X,Y, and Z smoothly enough. And even if there are a few XYZ games, that doesn't automatically mean they were well-designed and worth playing.

The goal isn't "a single non-sexist game". I naturally assume Anita's goal is, "enough non-sexist games to satisfy non-sexist gamers, and the games must be actually enjoyable to play". Well, her goal possibly might even be, "...and the removal of everything else I don't agree with.", but we can ignore the unrealistic parts of her desires without throwing out the more valid parts of her arguments and desires.

What interests me is that in any discussion of Sarkeesians work, the discussion almost instantly turns into a series of Ad Hominems (or should that be "Ad Feminem"? :D )

"She doesn't actually play games"

"She wants to censor games"

"She's the female hitler"

and so on.

To which, I say... so fucking what? Even if her personal goal is completely at odds with everyone elses, that does not render her existing critique of the current state of the AAA industry invalid.

You would have to be either completely misogynistic or in complete denial not to acknowledge that the portrayal of women in videogames can be pretty bad. Some of Sarkeesian's methodology could be better, absolutely, but it's kinda hard to deny her central theme. Especially when the reaction is as petty and defensive as it is.

If the idea was not to give her any power over the industry, all you had to do was ignore it...

True.

Even the Intel deal was basically a result of this lunacy, after Leigh Alexander was made a target.

"made a target" is subjective for me when I look at a few facts. Alexander wrote the article proclaiming the gamer identify dead and telling developer that gamers didn't have to be their audience. That article can be viewed as an attack on the gamers that make up GamerGate, but also clumped all gamers together. Wu posted memes making fun of GamerGate. She then went on to make a GG comment in the Revolution60 game changelogs [09/12/2014 version 1.2: After three weeks of #gamergate nonsense, the women on the dev team were lifted to new levels of faith in humanity.]. During her Greenlight she did this: http://www.reaxxion.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/B9XBXrBCEAAIxhj.jpg Harper attacked both 4chan and 8chan. Anita stated in a 2011 video that she had been harassed by 4chan for a long time and simply blocked or ignored them. It was only after GG got media attention that she appeared saying GG was harassing her and suddenly could no longer just ignore them. Most of her proof has no actual proof it is from a member of GamerGate. Some of the tweets the post to their twitter as "proof" of harassment is usually nothing more than someone being critical of them. I have trouble feeling sorry for them due majorly in part to their actions that put them in the radar of the trolls in GG. It would be like me attacking a group and then being shocked they are mad and come after me for it.

There are terrible people everywhere who are naturally drawn to drama and controversy, but I think it is foolish to claim a group like GG is about harassment only. My other reasoning is that games media sites (at least some) have changed their ethics policies, which wouldn't have happened if GG was entirely about harassment.

I wrote this on the 18th for my blog, but I won't promote the blog here out of respect so I simply copy and pasted the entry to pastebin: http://pastebin.com/ZJktwwUE

I thought we weren't discussing GG?

I haven't read every post in this thread, but my stance is as follows:

Anita Sarkeesian has no credibility or experience whatsoever in the field of game development. Who is she to dictate how games must be made? Computer games are an expression of art - I don't see anyone going around telling artists how to paint their canvas. Why should games be any different? Objectifying women in games seems to be an issue, but teaching kids how to blow up people using scientifically accurate weapons in MW3, or ripping someone's spine out of their body in the game "Alien", is acceptable? What's wrong with this picture?

Anita Sarkeesian and everything she stands for is a joke. I read her paper and it was abysmal at best - I don't know what her professors were thinking when they let her pass that kind of delusional crap. I've also watched her videos and read some of her articles. She's cherry picking everything to fit her perfect little world.

Anita Sarkeesian is a complete waste of everyone's time and money. She's the laughing stock of feminism. This kind of thing really pisses me off, because all of the money spent on this bitch could have been invested into real problems, something that actually matters - like working towards equal wages for men and women.

Dropping this here: https://www.change.org/p/ea-games-remove-anita-sarkeesian-from-mirror-s-edge-2-game-development

And this: http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/01/09/intels-300m-diversity-drive-is-discriminatory-and-wrongheaded/

She's the laughing stock of feminism.

Have you seen the state of feminism now? She just did a panel where she basically said women shouldn't be able to have choice because their choices could have a diverse effect on all women. So she is advocating feminist be able to speak for all women rather than them being empowered themselves and making choices. The feminists in the audience cheered at that.