djpretzel

What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.

Sorry, but I don't think so. First off, I was specifically objecting to the article -"THE patriarchy" as opposed to "patriarchy" - and your own response acknowledges the existence of multiple societies and hence multiple patriarchies. Furthermore, the word does not have as clear a definition as you would again desire. There are different models of patriarchy - the feminist model is one, but there are also other social models, biological models, religious models, and models based on evolutionary psychology too. Which you are referring to when you invoke the term is unclear; you may be describing a similar state of affairs, but the causality is radically different, and the causality is of paramount importance. I'll happily double down - referring to "the patriarchy" left and right is vague, as is referring to "the feminist agenda". In both cases the vagueness helps to support a bogus us vs. them mentality. I again reject the continued oversimplification, and the continued need to state things as categorically one or the other. Why should feminist arguments attempt to counter irrational categorization with.... more irrational categorization? Fighting fire with fire makes larger fires.

Those might be examples of evolutionary psychology that employ faulty logic or bad science - where do you see the "political purposes"? You seem to be dismissing things in their entirety without much analysis. You seem very comfortable labeling these arguments as politically motivated or reactionary, literally comparing them to fecal matter, without much consideration of the content. In the second case, the author in question has been discredited, but not disproven outright. His claims seem highly questionable, and the majority of evolutionary psychologists have distanced themselves from him, but most of what he's claiming just seems like unfounded hypothesis that would be difficult to prove either way. In the case of A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion, I'm glad you bring this up. I'd like to know which arguments these biologists are making appear to be politically motivated, to you. It is very difficult for science to even ATTEMPT to explore topics that are heavily politicized in the first place, and to me their key point - that rape has sexual motivations - should be blatantly obvious to all. The book is attempting to refute the common feminist argument that rape is about power, NOT sex. The mistake it might be making is arguing the exact opposite, when the reality is it isn't black-and-white, and that multiple motivations and factors are at play. Still, as a debunking of the feminist mantra that rape has zero sexual motivations whatsoever, there's merit to the book. Its reception and controversy only serve to prove my point about not trying to twist the physical universe to fit your ideology. You mention The Blank Slate synopses don't make it look "promising," but you don't explain why. Your statements show a pattern of blanket dismissal, outright denigration, and unfounded accusations of politicization, with no actual articulation as to why, or how. You are doing EXACTLY what I've been talking about in most of my posts on this thread, and it's interesting to see so precise a reflection of my concerns.

I just cited specific examples from this thread. Whether or not you can "think of any feminist" is immaterial, as we are not using the "Who can Xelebes think of?" standard of proof... You're the one talking about "bullshit" and "cow patties" - obsessed with fecal imagery much? - without actually offering ANY tangible examples of what you consider as such. And yes, he is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Pinker Read this: http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/debate05/debate05_index.html Read The Blank Slate... twice. Actually, everybody reading this thread should read The Blank Slate. I can't recommend it enough.

I'm pretty sure that was all nonsense. I won't need to be anything, and your own level of specificity - as per the above meandering reply about aggressors re: objectification - was about as vague as it gets. Also, it's nice to say "strawman" and illustrate that you know what a logical fallacy is, but you do need to apply them in the right scenarios. In this case, the point can be seen in Andy's expectation that there be an exactly equal number of websites with hot pictures of men as there are women. The RPS article also talks about "balance" quite a bit. There seems to be a notion that in a just world, all forums would naturally tend toward equilibrium. I think the gaming industry needs some diversity, no argument there, but I reject notions that it or any other field will only be devoid of sexism when a 50/50 ratio (or corresponding to population diversity) is attained. And you're telling me *I* need to be more specific? That sentiment's meaning is nearly inscrutable. I cannot respond to it because as far as I can tell it is bereft of relevancy. Cow-patties? Really? "every discourse needs to remove themselves from the omphaloskepsis of their discourse" - this is a sentence that should never have happened. For the benefit of others: Steven Pinker.

That's a fair question. It's difficult to talk about feminism and THE feminist agenda because there are differing views, and hence differing agendas. The phrase "feminist agenda" has unfortunately been demonized enough by conservatives that I think it now mentally translates for many people directly into "radical feminist agenda," representing the most extreme positions possible, which I doubt many here would endorse. In this case, I think the concern is specifically about a few things: Attitudes towards objectification that instantly equate it with sexism and condemn it outright Attitudes about the sexes that operate from a position that any activity, role, institution, etc. that is not comprised equally of both sexes is inherently sexist Attitudes about the consumption of media that attempt to make concrete statements about cumulative subconscious psychological impacts Attitudes about gender roles that ignore any aspect of evolutionary pscyhology whatsoever and chalk up nearly all differences between the sexes to "social construction" and "the patriarchy" This would be an excellent time to point out that talking about "the feminist agenda" is just as nebulous as talking about "the patriarchy" and avoid the double standard. These four attitudes/beliefs are a common part of many feminist agendas, including those being put forth in this thread and in Anita's videos. The black-and-white, oversimplifying nature of them, paired with #3 - which is disturbing in that it establishes causality out of thin air between media/art and "the populous" - would result in pretty crappy art in my opinion. Last I checked art was about exploring the human condition, not denying it. This is why I think simply pointing out the overuse of tropes, the lack of depth & variety in female characters, and the wealth of alternatives for game developers to pursue is a much more persuasive argument, because it is additive and not subtractive in nature, and doesn't rely on any of the positions mentioned above. So yeah, it was a good and fair question, and while I know it wasn't directed at me, I feel like I've answered it.

Prejudice against the unattractive is fundamentally different from prejudice against women. Also, it's not prejudice at all - the sphere of relevance IS physical attraction itself. Prejudice would only apply if the articles were making OTHER judgments about the women, BEYOND their physical appearance. It isn't pre-judgment, it's just plain old judgment. Nothing about emphasizing appearance over merit is inherently sexist, and these lists aren't interested in abstract "merit" in the first place. So yeah... I read the words that are there. I quote them. If there are 99 booths that are okay and one that has weird spanking electrocution shit, the environment is welcoming to most people, most of the time, and probably makes A LOT of people uncomfortable in that 100th booth, not just women. Then again, if that's your thing, those other 99 booths were bollocks. I have already stated that I do not agree with a knee-jerk equivalence of sexism and objectification, and so I find no justification or reason. I encourage you to read Paglia on this topic, although I'm sure she's not the only one who has pointed out that modern ideas about feminism and sexism should not de facto condemn objectification. But the poster is FROM THEIR GAME... that caters to men. If it's okay to make the game, surely it's okay to promote it? How they handle the hiring process and how they treat their own employees is another matter, but I find it odd to propose that a company that makes games with "boobies for the men" should hide those boobies when they are attempting to hire women. I mean... they'd find out eventually, right? And of course, we're operating on the assumption that they'd be offended in the first place.

No, by definition, that is not sexism. That is trend analysis. It would be sexism if women were prevented from creating such lists, or instructed that they shouldn't look at such lists. They aren't. They don't (as much). Men just seem to be more interested in wasting hours upon hours looking at pictures of naked ladies than women are in looking at naked men. That by definition is NOT sexism, nor does it bother me, nor should it bother you. It's a little embarrassing for us, but it is not: It's plainly not the first, and the second requires that you believe that the hotlists themselves are "conditions fostering stereotypes of social roles"; seeing as they're QUITE popular, and not mandatory, and are usually bereft of meaning other than the obvious prurient interest, I strongly disagree that they fit the bill. Simply because there is not a precisely (or even remotely) equal amount of the corresponding counterpart does not instantly make something sexist. My "whole" response that you just admitted you didn't have time to completely respond to? Okay... Lists on websites can be and usually are ignored. This one catered to heterosexual men, clearly. Websites that cater to different audiences, and are indulgent and stupid and clearly not part of any commentary on the actual field are JUST that. People need to be expected to have BASIC filters. The Rock Band incident got exactly the amount of negative feedback it deserved, but where you seem to think there was a "message," I prefer to use Hanlon's Razor and chalk it up to incompetence. I am not persuaded there was any intention behind it, nor do I think a reasonable person should be expected to interpret it as a commentary that any women entering the field of games will be electrocuted and spanked. You mention an "unwelcoming" environment, but the author of the article SPECIFICALLY uses the phrase "physically harmed victim" - his words, not mine. That's beyond unwelcoming; the point is not so obvious as you would have it. Sure. But would their loss of interest be justified or reasonable? There are people who would lose all interest in working for a company based on a bunch of reasons. As long as you agree that it is fundamentally okay for companies to make games that DO cater to men - regardless of the quantity or percentage - then it is not unreasonable for them to have this poster. If it's not okay to make games that cater just to men, it's not okay to make games that cater to any one group, and all of the sudden we've significantly neutered the art form. The coherent argument is that there is a disparity between the number of female gamers and the number of games that either cater to them, or avoid catering so directly to heterosexual men so as to make them lose interest. If there's a market there waiting to be realized, then its realization should improve the overall quality of games, which I'm all for, but that neither starts OR ends with knee-jerk labels of "sexism" and demonizing objectification. Hey, you profited from that everything!! I like that everything, too. Not ashamed to admit it. Games have a ways to go before diversifying into an art form that has titles that are less indulgent in general - it's a medium that naturally attaches itself to instant gratification. A lot of indie games are really branching out, but they usually avoid objectification & many tropes by simply being abstract enough for those concepts to not even apply - it's almost like "cheating" but it nevertheless creates games that can truly offer a fairly universal experience, like Journey, Flower, etc. As for this stuff accumulating, that IS plainly a slippery slope argument, and revolves around the imagined cumulative subconscious mass of mainstream imagery in the hearts & minds of individuals. I wasn't aware we had the science to measure that; once you start invoking it, you go dangerous places. That's mostly what I'm objecting to. I think making developers feel a little embarrassed about overuse of tropes or perceived over-sexualization is fine; calling it sexist, though, and arguing that the cumulative effect is subconsciously building up inside brains and causing rampant feelings of unwelcomeness, well... you lose me. You don't need to go there (other more persuasive arguments), you shouldn't go there (weakens your point, aligns with undesirable arguments), you actually CAN'T really go there (no real data), so... why go there? It speaks for itself? Let me phrase the question a different way: What number of results would strike you as NOT sexist? 50/50? Or will we have eliminated the sexism when BOTH searches return zero results? All I'm seeing here is that men like looking at women more than vice versa, which doesn't strike me as an epiphany of any great magnitude, nor as inherently sexist in and of itself.

Right, I suppose this was a quick cameo to conveniently sweep aside most of what I wrote as being purely semantic, when I went to great lengths to explain the substantive, meaningful implications of Anita's statements as made, with plenty of examples, and pointed out how they could easily be modified to avoid demonizing, exaggerating, contradicting, etc. - very much questions of substance, not style. Talk about moving goalposts... if you had the time to read what I wrote, I think you'll see that in the midst of rewriting her statements, I was actually doing exactly what you describe - focusing on what I find is actually problematic about this topic. If you didn't have the time to read it all, no worries, but don't play the semantics card as a replacement for doing so, especially when we've been discussing how the damsel-in-distress trope is "lazy"... It was worth a read, and it is different from other articles I've seen. I'd hesitate to call it great, but it was at least unique. The article is full of attempts to head off any objections by employing the rhetorical "we" and trying to second-guess and/or denigrate potential avenues of criticism. Crafty, and can come off as VERY compelling to some, especially when executed with a little more subtlety. "We're not going to get distracted"... okay, I guess we're not. I didn't realize this was a dialogue, I thought it was a monologue. But let's look at his two examples: Weird-ass electrocution & spanking of women as part of Rock Band promo 40 Hottest Women in Tech list that focuses on physical appearance in photos but has descriptions that read more like bios #1 - Seems like more of a WTF marketing failure to gauge the audience. Is the presentation itself offensive, or is the fact they thought a general Rock Band audience would enjoy it? It's the latter, right? Otherwise, aren't we basically saying that all consensual BDSM - its own minority with its own share of misunderstandings - is de facto sexist and misogynist? Just be a little more careful... obviously this was quite silly & could easily be anticipated as offending many. #2 - It's a god damn hot list. It's a list of photos of attractive females, and what's apparently "insidious" is the play on words & the fact that the descriptions focus on the women's ACTUAL accomplishments. The word "patriarchy" is actually applied without irony. Really now? So I guess what's insidious is the cognitive dissonance, and that if there had been NO descriptions, or the descriptions had said "CHECK OUT THOSE BAZONGAS!" it would have been fine... or at least not INSIDIOUS. But the second you link the two up, you've transgressed beyond ANY reasonable doubt, because you're obviously saying that in order to succeed in tech, you need to be hot. It couldn't POSSIBLY be that you're saying, "Hey, check out these hot chicks who are also successful in IT!" - there's zero room allowed for that interpretation. It's clearly, categorically, without question, a manifesto stating that being hot is a prerequisite for success in IT. Right. Absolutely persuasive, and unarguably insidious. We're still talking about the above examples, here. Apparently they're all-permeating, in that they permeate all. "Physically harmed victim" is an odd way to describe a misfired BDSM-themed marketing ploy, especially since based on the description it was all quite consensual. Completely bad taste and completely misjudged its audience - and 99% of most general audiences, I'd guess - but does it powerfully communicate a message that women's place in gaming is as a physically-harmed victim? To me it communicates that some ad exec's head is gonna roll, and rightfully so, but I really start to question how impressionable we're characterizing women here... this entire RPS piece is actually rather INSIDIOUS itself in essentially denying the possibility that women can differentiate between marketing and reality. I'm not saying marketing gets a free pass, but I also don't think a reasonable adult should witness something like this and say "DAMN, I was gonna go into games, but I'm a woman, and I don't like being electrocuted OR spanked." Yes, I realize it's a cumulative, psychological, even sub-conscious effect that's being pointed out, but in that case, don't label it as the "powerful" "communication" of a "simple" message. Wrong, wrong, and wrong. And let's endow thinking adults with a LITTLE bit of agency & autonomy and the means to weigh evidence and observe the world around them with competence, please. I guess this is true, "just because"... I find this line of thinking interesting; I don't think it's wrong 100% of the time, although it may be wrong in the case of this writer. I do think people come at things from different motivations, and I can't see making a blanket denial that this one is ever valid. I'm surprised he took this approach. I think the point is more that it doesn't matter, right? If someone is writing something because they think they'll get laid, it speaks to their motivations, but not the worth of their actual statements. Right? So why insist that it's never accurate? Finally it comes out. Finally we can talk about what no one wants to talk about, because it INEVITABLY brushes up against censorship sentiments SO uncomfortably that you can hear a pin drop. It's those SCANTILY-CLAD WOMEN!! Being used to sell video games!!! Run!I think characters in video games need more depth & variety & HUMANITY in general, and I think the situation is worse for female characters. Sold, 110%. None of this has jack to do with objectification, in my opinion. I think these issues are far better DECOUPLED than considered together. If we wanna talk about objectification, let's do it. We haven't so far, because Anita opened with the DiD trope, but it's clear from the titles of subsequent videos that she's gonna go there. Let me make my position clear: totally okay with it. Also totally okay with porn. It is preposterous to me that anyone would be shocked or appalled at relatively modest levels of sex in video games when the violence is over-the-top. One is natural, recreational or even procreational, and the other is destructive, wanton, and truly cruel. Of course, I'm fine with violence in games as well, because I believe that most gamers have the ability to separate fact from fiction and to distance themselves from fantasy worlds. It is very, very, very, very, very, VERY difficult to make a cogent case against scantily clad female characters that doesn't Venn-diagram ALL OVER similar arguments towards violence, or any particularly indulgent behavior or spectacle that isn't particularly realistic. By very difficult, I may as well mean impossible, as I've yet to see someone do it. Instead, there's a tendency to employ rhetorical slight-of-hand and dismiss the blatant similarities as being a "slippery slope" argument or simply unrelated. I know what he's talking about, but that doesn't make the individual wrong, or him right - it just means that both of them aren't dealing in the realm of actual data or statistics. That doesn't give ANY argument an upper-hand, it just dismisses both the criticism and the counter-criticism equally. Does anyone want to defend this paragraph? It seems to me like he's saying: Pointing out exaggerations on both sides is dishonest and simply pretending to want to bring balance. But it's great to call people out on exaggerations - a good thing to do. But it doesn't actually get anywhere, and is "usually employed" (statistics on this?) to maintain the status quo. Here's what I find hypocritical: The "white knight" argument is WRONG, because it incorrectly assumes dishonesty and questionable motivations on the part of the accuser. Pointing out exaggerations is WRONG, because it's dishonest, and usually has questionable motivations. Right. So if I question your motivations, I'm wrong and I'm actually revealing more about me than I am about you, i.e. my flaws. But if I point out exaggerations on both sides, it's okay for you to dismiss me as being dishonest, and having questionable motivations. The logic here needs some major recalibrating, in my opinion. Well, I WOULD have pointed out the false equivalence here as being (wait for it) an exaggeration, but then I would be forever doomed to dishonesty and questionable motivations. Really though, the argument here discounts that SOMETIMES, sometimes, sometimes... it IS just a bit of fun. Can't our human complexity and advanced civilization still allow for that? Aren't we kinda-sorta expecting SOME degree of reasoned response? Shouldn't adults have SOME degree of capacity to be able to delineate between offensive and inane, or sordid, or lewd, or bad taste? Aren't degrees kinda... important here?You want video games to be acknowledged as an art form? Start treating them like one. That doesn't mean going after the boobs, that means writing better parts for women. As it is with film, those parts will probably be in the types of games in which giant boobs everywhere would be out of place and would clearly detract from the craft. It also means audiences that reward & clamor for deeper characters, and more women involved in every level of game design. Did anyone else envision "Battle Hymn of the Republic" playing during this bit? Seriously, it's a pretty good article, and I'm glad they're serious about continuing their coverage. As with Anita, I guess I'd like... better, more thoughtful coverage. And I don't really think boobs or hotlists are examples of "cruelty" or "inequality". And I don't think diminishing or stereotyping Call of Duty there was really necessary.I think it's time to talk about objectification. Here's where you're REALLY gonna lose me. I'll end with some Camille, because on this specific topic, I love her:

What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.

Yes, we're back to looking at content. So what's wrong with THIS statement? Well, I could pick on the phrase "basically all" quite a bit as simply being bad writing - you've already qualified that there are exceptions, so the adverb is superfluous. It's also hyperbole, as there are more than a "few" exceptions of note. Furthermore, it sidesteps entirely a point that I think is quite relevant - most video game characters, male or female, fall under a relatively small number of clichés, stereotypes, archetypes, etc. So do most fictional characters! Let's rewrite again: Not difficult. I'd go one step further, because the point she's making isn't (or at least shouldn't be) that stereotypes and clichés themselves are inherently bad - they are merely inevitable trend analysis and self-similarity that results from the human brain's need to categorize, etc. So why pick on them in the abstract? They'll be around forever, we just need to improve them, diversify them, update them, and as Tensei said, developers and writers should be aware of them. She's throwing them out there for the knee-jerk OMG STEREOTYPES! reaction, but I think the actual sentiment is better expressed without them: There we go. Cogent, concise, and articulates the core issue without sweeping generalizations or red herrings. But wait just a minute, I'm not done yet, if you call in the NEXT 24 HOURS I'll give you a version that doesn't even need a dichotomy to make its point! Yours for only $0.00: Fanbubulous... now we aren't constrained by framing this as simply a problem of sheer parity... I realize she didn't explicitly do that in this specific statement, but to me the implication was clearly there, and it certainly comes through in her first video. For my money? Drop the "Have you ever noticed" as well... if this is the point you're trying to prove through persuasive observation, don't treat it like a concrete fact that the viewer is either aware of or has somehow missed. That's more a question of style over substance, though.

I think it's important to distinguish between animosity/criticism that is commonly leveled at MANY kickstarters as opposed to actual criticism of the content itself. The former is incidental and I think attacking (OR defending) it doesn't really accomplish much, personally - my two cents. I still think she said quite a bit in her first video that has not been persuasively defended by those who apparently view it as without flaw or defect. I pointed out more than a few examples at http://ocremix.org/forums/showpost.php?p=911230&postcount=658 But perhaps chief among them is: Empty, unqualified, condescending, and ignorant claims like this are not necessary to persuasively argue her point, and only serve to weaken both the perception of feminism and the reception of her overall thesis, which I (more or less) agree with. I'm worried that she's preaching to the choir and doesn't care at all about persuading those who might be skeptical of her ideas when she says things like this. I'd love for someone to stand up for this one, single sentence as being analytical, defensible, or anything other than pure dogma recitation... any takers?Here's what I like to think she MEANT to say, and also what I believe: There you go, I fixed it.We're no longer dealing in the tired trade of false booleans, we're no longer pulling unfounded "facts" and unquantified "percentages" from thin air, we're no longer demonizing "sad" people who are "clinging" to something, we're no longer denying that there's at least a POTENTIAL instinctual/evolutionary motivation at play, etc. If you see the difference between these two statements, and see why my version is preferable, I respectfully request a high-five. You want something shorter and more colloquial? Okay, that's obviously not MY style, but how about... That works, too. I mean, I still think it oversimplifies things, but it's truer to the original intent without involving faux-facts, black-and-white fallacies or condescension. I think "should always" is a key improvement over "need" because it's the universality of the assumption that's truly problematic. At this particular point in human history, or in a particular culture, women as a group may actually NEED to be protected by men. Because of... other men. It's the underlying assumption that this is always true, and how things should be, that is actually the issue. I know this is subtle and may seem like semantics, but I think it's quite key. Feminist dogma wants to emphasize the "need" because it sounds dismissive and condescending, whereas the general sentiment of wanting to protect, shelter, and take care of someone is potentially (even likely) coming from a positive place. Taken too far, however, it operates under a categorical assumption that it is accurate 100% of the time, that no legitimate alternatives exist, and furthermore it tends to diminish the capacity of the protected & sheltered in completely unrelated realms. However, you'll notice that THIS version of the statement doesn't sound so harsh... doesn't sound so objectionable, or inciting, or outrageous. It's a little bit harder to instantly & strongly agree with. I believe that's because it's a couple steps closer to the truth, and the truth is more subtle, but always worth taking the time to explore. I think women should be talking analytically about the portrayal of females in games, and I think it should be done in a high-profile manner that gathers a lot more visibility, but I'm not at all convinced she's the right woman for the job. The only way she can do more harm than good is by making needlessly polarizing and oversimplifying statements like the one above. So far there are relatively few examples, but I do wonder why there need to be any...

What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.

As you could clearly HEAR from the video, the money went towards the MUSIC, not software or fonts.

What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.

Good post, Moguta. Just wanted to reply to let you know someone read & appreciated it! I think ultimately that it's a good thing someone's doing this in a high-profile manner, and that it's generating discussion, and from that perspective, I can't fault it one bit. The brand of feminism being varnished at times in the first video is a superficial, textbook variety that doesn't have a lot of depth and deals more in slogans than analysis, and it doesn't bode well for future videos, but as mentioned, it's not super-mega-blatant or over-the-top obnoxious. I primarily wanted to make the point that there are multiple schools of feminism out there, and some of them are a lot more analytical & pragmatic, as opposed to the "OMG BOOBS OBJECTIFICATION PATRIARCHY!" knee-jerk dial-a-mantra crowd. I wish we were getting analysis of a higher quality, from a different echelon of feminism, but perhaps something is better than nothing.

What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.

What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.

What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.

"tapped into adolescent power fantasies in order to sell more games to young straight boys & men" "tapped into" & "in order to" = pretty darn close to a statement of perceived intent, wouldn't you say? So many ways to phrase the sentiment... just bad writing, then?

Mmmph. You've now conveniently characterized my entire post as a misunderstanding of insider jargon. My objections - and criticisms - all spoke to substance more than style. I have pointed out how, and why, I feel that her arguments are flawed oversimplifications, and I have offered alternative means of making the same fundamental point about video games without employing such means. If that's the end of the story and there's nothing left to do but assume I didn't know what she meant because she was using secret Feminist codewords that would take too much time to explain and reconcile with my apparently inadequate understanding, I guess we're done.

For the record, I was quite careful to make it abundantly clear that I wasn't comparing this type of analysis to advocating censorship. I went out of my way to clarify that I was comparing the reasoning & analytical style behind it - and the faults of both - to the same types of arguments we hear from the let's-ban/censor-games political cadres from time to time. If you're claiming I made a direct comparison and exiting in a sudden dearth of free time, well... okay. Her agenda is relatively transparent when she uses phrases like "adolescent power fantasies" and "socially-constructed myth" and lumps "young straight boys & men" into the same tired "hetero while male privilege" power breakdown. I completely agree that she's not actively shoving that agenda down throats, at least in this first video, and that her ideology is tempered enough that anyone with an open mind should still be able to get something out of what she's saying. In fact, after watching it again, I appreciate more the percentage breakdown of how much time she spends showing vs. telling, and the relatively small amount of feminist criticism. And just to harken back to an earlier thread of commentary, I think the videos are relatively well-produced; any critique there is probably coming more from a place of kickstarter-enmity & funding-skepticism, which we ourselves are now somewhat familiar with. To be concrete, let's talk about some actual quotes... "tapped into adolescent power fantasies in order to sell more games to young straight boys & men" Unnecessary potshot. Same old lumping. Also, if the power fantasies are there, who put them there? If they're innate, that's a hit to "social construction"... Also.... the "Capitalism - deal with it" argument actually seems semi-legit here. Dear lord, someone's tapped into an aspect of human behavior to make a profit! We're all screwed now!! PATRIARCHY! I'd rather adolescent power fantasies be fulfilled by video games than repressed, or manifested in reality... There is also a subtle, specious implication to the phrasing: that only young straight males have adolescent power fantasies of any kind, and that the Damsel in Distress trope only appeals or taps into those specific fantasies... this may have been unintentional, but even so it's the type of collateral damage that occurs when painting in such broad strokes. [*]"problematic and pernicious" (X3?) Just pointing out because it seemed like a mantra, and reinforces the "value judgment" aspect of what she's doing. [*]"larger ramifications beyond the characters themselves" It's fiction. This line of thinking is fundamentally flawed and is what I've been objecting to repeatedly. We don't need fewer weak female characters because of the "larger ramifications" of how fiction MIGHT be interpreted, we need more strong female characters to better reflect social progress, and because it's simply more interesting. You end up in a similar place, but how you get there is CRITICAL. Don't invoke a larger effect you haven't bothered to measure if you don't have to. It's JUST AS LAZY as employing the Damsel in Distress trope in the first place. Anyone can claim to divine the "larger ramifications" of anything - don't pin your argument on it unnecessarily! [*]"important & influential part of our larger social & cultural ecosystem" It's also part of a healthy & nutritious breakfast!! Seriously, she's just saying words at this point. They're completely devoid of meaning other than sounding good and probably earning some head-nods and faux-gravitas points to any viewers not paying close enough attention. Phrases like this are red flags to me: someone has an agenda, and they're going to use smoke & mirrors to sound convincing. That doesn't inherently mean they're wrong, or even that I don't fundamentally agree with them, it's just not meaningful analysis... [*]"It's a sad fact that a large percentage of the world's population still clings to the deeply sexist belief that women as a group need to be sheltered, protected, and taken care of by men." Sad fact. DEEPLY sexist. So there are levels, then - which is good - and I guess ideas can be superficially sexist, moderately sexist, etc. Does believing in protecting women as a priority really deserve to be so DEEP then? And doesn't this entire statement completely ignore any evolutionary psychology or even basic game theory? Large percentage... survey says.... 65%? 89%? Look, we don't know, okay? It's LARGE. And it's SAD. And it's a FACT. It's a large, sad fact. Someone please comfort it. "Clings"? Really? I know this is just one sentence plucked out of a larger whole, but to me it is an Atom bomb of revelation, and full context provides no real fallout shelter. Forgetting everything else for a second, if you can't see the fundamental problems with this statement as I have articulated them - and there are probably many more - then my challenge of persuasion is too great. [*]"Socially-constructed myth" This is truly the laziest mantra of well-meaning liberals. I'm a liberal, and I often agree with the underlying points being made, but to coin a phrase... I know it when I see it... It's not that things are never socially-constructed - the concept itself does have significance. But it's as overused - again, see the pattern? - as the very trope being cited, and - again - just as lazy. It's dead-end analysis that writes off further investigation and attributes all of X or Y to -archies and -isms. It's oversimplification personified. It's also completely uninformed by evolutionary psychology. Evolutionary psychology will become more and more prevalent and we will discover more and more about the human brain, and the differences between sexes. And yes, it's NO MYTH, there ARE differences. I'm sorry nature doesn't work the way you want it to work, but that's why you shouldn't try to pin your arguments on it, and dismiss everything that deviates from your vision as being "socially constructed". We should always be moving towards equality, and in this case we should analyze and attempt to improve & diversify video games in particular, not out of a belief that we have strayed from nature, but out of a conviction that we are perhaps the only species on the planet that can improve our nature by force of will. That doesn't require, nor should it involve, trying to warp the physical universe to fit your ideology. There you go, specific examples, as requested. If you watched her video and missed the significance of these phrases - good... you probably got a lot more value, that way. But they're nonetheless in there...

Oh okay; I insist that the global supply of cheese be transferred into my personal care, so I can throw the biggest fondue party ever. Let's see how our demands pan out... I legitimately think that a large part of why Anita's arguments are met with such hostility is due to their uncanny resemblance to arguments made advocating censorship. I've already pointed out the similarities for you: Using an unclear definition of a loaded term and accepting "know it when I see it" burdens of proof as being acceptable and... Drawing solid lines of causality between fictional entertainment and real-world actions/implications, with more certainty than is appropriate, and less scrutiny. We've got the first two-thirds of the formula in place. You're absolutely right that no one's explicitly suggesting the third, but... does it matter? If you're buying into fuzzy standards and tenuous causalities without much scrutiny, aren't you basically endorsing the same methodology? We don't need to talk about censorship, we can dance around it all you want, but I insist that you meaningfully differentiate what's happening here with the first and second points from what has happened elsewhere with the third "c-word" result. We can call it Charlie if you want, or chimichanga. Bleck, well... you're Bleck. But I *did* lol at that one.

So sexism is invented, and will cease to exist if we're not aware of it? I understood your intention with the statement, but I don't see it as any sort of excuse not to work towards more solid definitions for the fuzzier terms of human interaction, as was being implied.

Part of the problem is that you're dealing in labels - booleans - which often oversimplify things. It's unfortunate, too, because part of what's being oversimplified as de facto "sexist" is the oversimplification of female roles itself, and the analysis falls into the same trap it is attempting to expose. I have no problem with arguing that something is sexist, and I agree about trying to move the goalposts - although I disagree that they can be moved easily... History has shown that moving them is actually rather challenging, with every inch hard-won, so your optimism almost seems trivializing to me... At any rate, if you're gonna argue, argue - make a cogent case. That doesn't need to involve projecting, mind-reading, layers upon layers of assumptions, or the same type of oversimplification you're attempting to point out in the first place. I want accusations of sexism to be persuasive, I want them to be heard, and I want them to move goalposts, that's part of why I decided to participate in this conversation. Critique doesn't need to be so reductionist and so Boolean, and when it is, those misfires open doorways to parallel implications you might not want to be associated with... read on to see what I mean. No one will ever experience the harm of the DiD trope "first-hand" though - it is only a potential problem in its ubiquity, and even then it requires fuzzy, indirect, & nearly unmeasurable causality to be felt. If you start throwing the "sexist" label at it, it dilutes the label. Part of your point in the first place is that too many people DON'T know it when they see it. If the standard by which "it" is being determined is individual perspective, you've got some major problems. Unless you disagree with the fundamental tenets of democracy, you're basically opening yourself up to identifying bias using majority perspective as a barometer. That's a shitty barometer for something like minority oppression, for all the obvious reasons. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potter_Stewart - You should note a few things here... one, the individual most associated with the "know it when I see it" phrase recanted it and regretted its implications. That's a little incidental, but he was a smart dude, was actually arguing AGAINST censorship (i.e. saying he DIDN'T see it, in this case), and later acknowledged that something a little more deterministic would be helpful. Two, the context in which the statement was made dealt with obscenity, and censorship of obscenity. That's the etymology of the sentiment, and so you can see why myself and others might draw some parallels. Third, let's extrapolate a bit here... "I know gratuitous violence when I see it... " "Violence in games will clearly lead to violent acts, because people are so impressionable that they can't tell fiction from reality." "We need to address this problem!" You could accuse me of making a slippery slope argument, I suppose, but I disagree, because it's step #2 that's so damn troublesome to me, and it's step #1 that you're articulating right here, right now. You're doing it on the side of an issue that I AGREE with, but that doesn't excuse its faults or exempt it from scrutiny. A truer understanding? A more personal understanding, a more emotional understanding... but a truer? "I know it when I see it" sounds a lot more like feeling than truth, to me. Feeling is important and by contrasting the two I don't want to diminish it, but the distinction is nonetheless important. It's not about making arguments palatable, it's about making arguments at all, as opposed to knee-jerk labeling and oversimplification that uses the same mechanisms that the Jesse Helms' of the world employ. No one is requiring that ANYONE tip-toe as part of this conversation, so that does come off like a straw-man, unless you're reaching for a much broader scope. At any rate, this specific analysis of video games doesn't feel like working "extra hard" to me at all, it feels like the exact opposite, and that's what I'm objecting to. More deferential... than we would be to whom? Or more deferential than we're being? And if so, who's the "we"? I generally give everyone the same starting degree of deference, and from there they either get more or less depending on their words & actions. Am I doing it wrong? I don't think so... As for direct relevance, well, those "dudebros" - I notice you've engaged in pejorative name-calling you'd label as crude and sexist in a heartbeat if it were reversed! - also happen to be gamers. And from the perspective of that demographic, there's a pretty direct relevance, since we're talking about games. I wouldn't for a second align myself with their views, but by the same token, you're dismissing their opinion as being less relevant and of less worth by default, whatever it happens to be. Take a good long look at this latest post of yours, and then in the mirror. Know that I agree with you on a fundamental level about equal treatment for all, but without hubris or even satisfaction, I feel like I've pointed out some serious flaws. I hope you consider at least exploring this possibility. First sentence paradox... mathematics and physics were both invented using language and are both expressed by it. Clearly, when we try really, really hard, we can do a pretty good job of pinning things down, and usually such energies are well-spent. The problem with a capricious attitude towards accusations of sexism, racism, or any similar issue of bias that is difficult to pin down is that they at least have the potential to be exposed as whimsical, reductionist, dishonest, unfounded, prompted by ulterior motives, etc., all of which one would suppose would have SOME weakening effect on the perception of legitimate claims. I'd never want that concern perceived as grounds for people keeping quiet when they feel compelled to speak out; what I'm trying to say is that speaking out in and of itself is a bold and brave act and should be optimized for maximum impact, and that no one gets, or should expect, a free pass from civil scrutiny.