Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I don't really like the Feminist Frequency videos. I find them quite dull and the analysis quite shallow. However, I did find it interesting to find out how she raised so much money to make the gaming videos. After she tried to raise funds to make them, she started to receive death and rape threats from people who really, really didn't want her to make the videos. You have to question why people reacted so violently towards the concept on a woman analysing the gendered implications in games. It was after see made this public that more people got on board with the idea and started donating.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by miser)
    I don't know anything about those activities, but if true then that's a criticism of her rather than her arguments. That kind of behaviour isn't necessarily applicable to feminism, unless you'd say feminism had a culture of it, which in general I don't think it does (there is for example a lot of discussion on the blogosphere). Radical feminism may be an exception as it operates in closed (self-affirming) circles.
    oh my bad. i was just talking about how anita more than feminism. must've not put my point out well enough lol
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jreid1994)
    I have a point she isn't going into the software industry, so why can she complain? If it was a guy saying "why isn't there a game where I can play as a puppy wearing a ski suit?" I'd have said go into computer science and make it yourself. So how am I being misogynistic by saying these things? She can't complain because the gaming market isn't to her taste. Do you see me screaming sexism at chick flicks for having an unrealistic portrayal of men?
    The gaming industry is not a software industry. Games need art, storyline, characters, dialogue - that's not the job of a programmer. Much like it doesn't take a food critic to describe foods, it doesn't take a games programmer to critique a game.
    Also, the software industry in general is irrelevant. I am a software developer - now tell me again... how am I any more qualified than her to give an analysis of a game?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by miser)
    But she's not making an appeal to the gaming industry, she's appealing to the consumers. She isn't pro-censorship, she's just highlighting gender inequality in video games - one manifestation of attitudes that still exist in society. Like you say, video games are representative of the market, so her criticisms apply to the market, not to the industry, which merely acts to reflect that market. There's no reason to believe she doesn't understand the 'fundamental principles of economics'.
    Except no one has an obligation to be egalitarian about their viewing preferences. I have no right to demand that people who read Glamour magazine stop liking the things they like. This is a fundamental principle of basic liberty. I highly doubt you'd argue that conservative Muslims have any moral license to condemn others for exercising their desire for pornography. Let's make this clear; there is nothing wrong with having certain preferences. Sure, not everyone is going to agree with them but that's okay.

    There is nothing wrong with her having the preferences she has. If she wants an all all female character roster developed by an all female team that fits within her list of "acceptable female narratives", that's her business. The reason it doesn't exist is because such a game would be an economic failure, but hey - that's no problem of mine. But it's not good enough for her to have her own likes and dislikes - she believes other people's tastes have to suit hers and that is what I call pro-censorship. The idea that one's choice of expression is innately more valuable than another person's and that one must make way for the other.

    Even with all that - I don't really understand your logic. "She's not condemning the industry, just the people who play them, how dare they express a demand for games that is different to mine?" If she wishes to inhibit, subjugate or suppress the choices and desires of others then she is advocating censorship regardless of whether her thoughts are aimed at the producers or customers.

    But let's put that all aside. She doesn't even believe in her own argument. She is, as thunderf00t explains, merely playing a game. A female in a passive role is one in which males are "turning females into damsels/objects" but even in her own masters thesis, she argues that 'strong' female characters still aren't valid because they're 'only pretending to be men'. This has very little to do with wanting to see more of a certain type of character but instead playing the perpetually offended feminist incapable of being satisfied whilst extolling that everyone else must meet her personal regimen for gaming preferences.
    • Section Leader
    • Political Ambassador
    • Reporter Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
    Except no one has an obligation to be egalitarian about their viewing preferences. I have no right to demand that people who read Glamour magazine stop liking the things they like. This is a fundamental principle of basic liberty. I highly doubt you'd argue that conservative Muslims have any moral license to condemn others for exercising their desire for pornography.
    You're completely correct, only I don't find much relevancy here unless she was in fact demanding that people be egalitarian about their viewing preferences.

    (Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
    There is nothing wrong with her having the preferences she has. If she wants an all all female character roster developed by an all female team that fits within her list of "acceptable female narratives", that's her business. The reason it doesn't exist is because such a game would be an economic failure, but hey - that's no problem of mine. But it's not good enough for her to have her own likes and dislikes - she believes other people's tastes have to suit hers and that is what I call pro-censorship. The idea that one's choice of expression is innately more valuable than another person's and that one must make way for the other.
    As far as I can tell she doesn't believe any such thing - why do you believe this about her?

    (Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
    Even with all that - I don't really understand your logic. "She's not condemning the industry, just the people who play them, how dare they express a demand for games that is different to mine?" If she wishes to inhibit, subjugate or suppress the choices and desires of others then she is advocating censorship regardless of whether her thoughts are aimed at the producers or customers.
    She's not condemning, she's exposing problems in society which have been reflected in the gaming industry. If you don't believe them to be problems then you're entitled to that opinion, but suffice it to say they're not conducive to an optimally cohesive, pleasant society.

    (Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
    But let's put that all aside. She doesn't even believe in her own argument. She is, as thunderf00t explains, merely playing a game. A female in a passive role is one in which males are "turning females into damsels/objects" but even in her own masters thesis, she argues that 'strong' female characters still aren't valid because they're 'only pretending to be men'. This has very little to do with wanting to see more of a certain type of character but instead playing the perpetually offended feminist incapable of being satisfied whilst extolling that everyone else must meet her personal regimen for gaming preferences.
    I haven't seen her argue female characters not to be valid because they're 'only pretending to be men'. On the contrary, her first example of Crystal was one she praised (only for it to be replaced by Starfox).
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by miser)
    After spending 30 mins or so reading through this thread I'm now convinced that it's impossible to have a sensible discussion about feminism on TSR. It's hard to tell whether some people are trolling or genuinely deficient (not that these are mutually exclusive).
    It's unforunate, but I've also noticed this. I find it amazing how quickly feminism threads turn personal or simply inflammatory, and lose sight of what the actual point of the thread is about (which I'm glad this one has been brought back to now). I don't think I've seen one thread feminism hold a sustained sensible discussion, and I've seen a lot.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CJKay)
    The gaming industry is not a software industry. Games need art, storyline, characters, dialogue - that's not the job of a programmer. Much like it doesn't take a food critic to describe foods, it doesn't take a games programmer to critique a game.
    Also, the software industry in general is irrelevant. I am a software developer - now tell me again... how am I any more qualified than her to give an analysis of a game?
    Oh so games and games consoles don't need a computer language anymore? Oh, I wasn't aware of that. :rolleyes: she isn't learning to become a graphic designer, artist or studying business either, so tell me again 1) when the majority of the gaming market is males why should it be geared towards female interests? That's bad for business. And 2) she will not have a role in the creation of games.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by miser)
    You're completely correct, only I don't find much relevancy here unless she was in fact demanding that people be egalitarian about their viewing preferences.
    Right, so you recognise that nobody has an obligation to augment their viewing preferences, but go on to defend her rhetoric by saying "she's only pointing out problems with society"? I don't understand why my personal tastes or that of others is a "problem" for her or for anyone else. I fundamentally abhor people who believe they can foist their ideas onto others through suppression or rhetoric that another perspective is somehow inherently "problematic". The only acceptable argument is that people should be allowed to express themselves as they wish. Any deviation from that ideal is the advocacy of censorship. If you don't agree with me, I suggest you strip off that ridiculous Green Party moniker you've applied to yourself and get packing for Somalia where freedom of thought and expression is treated the way you deem it should.

    As far as I can tell she doesn't believe any such thing - why do you believe this about her?
    There is a difference between having separate tastes, and then there is the advocacy against another group of people for having a different preference. I fall into the former and she falls into the latter. I feel equally 'alienated' by the content of female orientated celebrity/gossip magazines as she apparently feels the same about contemporary games.

    The difference is that I don't feel there's any problem with people choosing to express themselves by buying into fashion/gossip magazines. I don't choose to be offended by the fact that their content doesn't suit me. I don't advocate that it's terrible that these magazines aren't a space that's being augmented to make me comfortable. I don't claim that there's a "problem with society" simply because it doesn't meet my demand. I respect people's choices and exercise my economic will by not buying content that I don't feel suits me whilst allowing them to peacefully go about their business.

    The fact that she has no intention to respect other people's viewing choices in the way that I do demonstrates that she doesn't value freedom of expression.

    She's not condemning, she's exposing problems in society which have been reflected in the gaming industry. If you don't believe them to be problems then you're entitled to that opinion, but suffice it to say they're not conducive to an optimally cohesive, pleasant society.
    I don't know how you can say she's talking about things that she feels are "problems of society" whilst also claiming that she's not condemning them. You seem to be desperately clutching at some very thin straws to be making this argument. Suffice to say, her pro-censorship attitudes are regressive for society and it would be the same case for anyone. Muslims, Christians, gay people, females, males - anyone should be able to exercise their choices without having to be morally policed by another group that attempts to dictate what can and cannot be made in their presence. Not only do I not perceive them to be problems, I believe she has no business in 'extolling her virtues' in a way that is misleading and unfair. It is not the job of any one group to be dictating what does and doesn't constitute a "pleasant society". I'm sure conservative, evangelical Christians would use the same argument you're using to justify taking away gay rights. The truth is you can either chose the path of mutually respecting people's viewing preferences - or you export yourself to any number of authoritarian regimes where people like you can thrive.

    I haven't seen her argue female characters not to be valid because they're 'only pretending to be men'. On the contrary, her first example of Crystal was one she praised (only for it to be replaced by Starfox).
    Her master's thesis contains the following paragraph:

    "Female roles in science fiction and fantasy television that are viewed as strong and empowered embody many masculine identified traits, maintaining a patriarchal division of gender roles. For example, values adopted by female characters in the television shows I will examine in this major research paper maintain that traditionally masculine attributes such as rationality, cool-headedness and physical strength are superior and preferred over traditionally feminine attributes such as cooperative decision making, and being emotionally expressive and empathetic".

    If a female character is not portrayed in the apparently "strong" role she deems necessary, then she claims it's misogynist sexism against females. If a character is portrayed in the way she demands them to be, then apparently they're "just acting like men, and are perpetuating the patriarchy". It's a game in which she continually manufacturers reasons to be offended.

    She cherry-picks reasons to be dissatisfied with the portrayal of female characters regardless of the actual content. Damned if you do, damned if you don't; she argues against herself.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ArtGoblin)
    I don't really like the Feminist Frequency videos. I find them quite dull and the analysis quite shallow. However, I did find it interesting to find out how she raised so much money to make the gaming videos. After she tried to raise funds to make them, she started to receive death and rape threats from people who really, really didn't want her to make the videos. You have to question why people reacted so violently towards the concept on a woman analysing the gendered implications in games. It was after see made this public that more people got on board with the idea and started donating.
    I don't think you understand the 4chan/ED community..
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Maybe is she allowed comments and ratings on her vids, then people would take her seriously.

    But like any good closet Marxist, she believers her ideological views are beyond reproach.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dj1015)
    Maybe is she allowed comments and ratings on her vids, then people would take her seriously.

    But like any good closet Marxist, she believers her ideological views are beyond reproach.
    :rofl:

    I'm no fan of hers at all, but this is the most laughable critique I could have imagined.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
    :rofl:

    I'm no fan of hers at all, but this is the most laughable critique I could have imagined.
    A simple Google search reveals that feminism is deeply rooted in Marxist philosophy. Need I say anymore.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dj1015)
    A simple Google search reveals that feminism is deeply rooted in Marxist philosophy. Need I say anymore.
    Not really, the amount of neg rep you have says it all ready.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
    Not really, the amount of neg rep you have says it all ready.
    Do you even have rebuttal to my point or are you just going to put your head back in the sand and pretend that feminism isn't the little sister of this Frankfurt school of thinking.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jreid1994)
    Oh so games and games consoles don't need a computer language anymore? Oh, I wasn't aware of that. :rolleyes: she isn't learning to become a graphic designer, artist or studying business either, so tell me again 1) when the majority of the gaming market is males why should it be geared towards female interests? That's bad for business. And 2) she will not have a role in the creation of games.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Does it take a programmer to critique Windows?
    No, it does not. In fact, you could get a builder to do it and it would be just as valid.


    And to answer your questions:
    1) When the majority of the gaming market is males why should it be geared towards female interests?
    It shouldn't... but wait, who said it should? Because I'm certain it wasn't me.
    2) She will not have a role in the creation of games.
    Er... so?
    • Section Leader
    • Political Ambassador
    • Reporter Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
    Right, so you recognise that nobody has an obligation to augment their viewing preferences, but go on to defend her rhetoric by saying "she's only pointing out problems with society"? I don't understand why my personal tastes or that of others is a "problem" for her or for anyone else. I fundamentally abhor people who believe they can foist their ideas onto others through suppression or rhetoric that another perspective is somehow inherently "problematic". The only acceptable argument is that people should be allowed to express themselves as they wish. Any deviation from that ideal is the advocacy of censorship. If you don't agree with me, I suggest you strip off that ridiculous Green Party moniker you've applied to yourself and get packing for Somalia where freedom of thought and expression is treated the way you deem it should.
    Nobody has the obligation to change their preferences (in fact, I am not convinced that a person can choose their preferences at all) - just in the way that no one has an obligation to change any problem that someone perceives about them. There is no contradiction between saying she isn't demanding people to change and saying she's pointing out problems. You are manufacturing confrontation with me - let's keep it civil.

    (Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
    There is a difference between having separate tastes, and then there is the advocacy against another group of people for having a different preference. I fall into the former and she falls into the latter. I feel equally 'alienated' by the content of female orientated celebrity/gossip magazines as she apparently feels the same about contemporary games.
    That's all very well but she isn't advocating against people, she is advocating against attitudes that are a reflection of problems currently endemic to society. You appear to have conflated these things.

    (Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
    The difference is that I don't feel there's any problem with people choosing to express themselves by buying into fashion/gossip magazines.
    She hasn't advocated that people stop buying these games.

    (Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
    I don't choose to be offended by the fact that their content doesn't suit me. I don't advocate that it's terrible that these magazines aren't a space that's being augmented to make me comfortable. I don't claim that there's a "problem with society" simply because it doesn't meet my demand. I respect people's choices and exercise my economic will by not buying content that I don't feel suits me whilst allowing them to peacefully go about their business.
    You give the impression that you think it is out-of-line for a person to criticise anything so long as that thing can be supported economically. To raise a crude example: If dog-fighting were legal, would you not criticise it? Or would you not spend your money on it because it doesn't suit you, and allow them to "peacefully go about their business"? There is nothing wrong with creating awareness of the problems in society as you see them - attempting to make society a better place, if we were to make any judgement, is virtuous and admirable. Passively leaving everyone to it is not.

    (Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
    The fact that she has no intention to respect other people's viewing choices in the way that I do demonstrates that she doesn't value freedom of expression.
    People are quite welcome to perpetuate 2D female characters in games - no one has said any differently - but it is at least good to be aware of what it is you are perpetuating.

    (Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
    I don't know how you can say she's talking about things that she feels are "problems of society" whilst also claiming that she's not condemning them.
    If you refer to our last exchange you'll see that you accused her (or me of admitting of her) of condemning people - she is perfectly permitted and justified to be critical of the attitudes themselves.

    Spoiler:
    Show
    (Original post by miser)
    (Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
    Even with all that - I don't really understand your logic. "She's not condemning the industry, just the people who play them, how dare they express a demand for games that is different to mine?" If she wishes to inhibit, subjugate or suppress the choices and desires of others then she is advocating censorship regardless of whether her thoughts are aimed at the producers or customers.
    She's not condemning, she's exposing problems in society which have been reflected in the gaming industry. If you don't believe them to be problems then you're entitled to that opinion, but suffice it to say they're not conducive to an optimally cohesive, pleasant society.


    (Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
    You seem to be desperately clutching at some very thin straws to be making this argument. Suffice to say, her pro-censorship attitudes are regressive for society and it would be the same case for anyone. Muslims, Christians, gay people, females, males - anyone should be able to exercise their choices without having to be morally policed by another group that attempts to dictate what can and cannot be made in their presence.
    Again, she hasn't commanded anyone to change their preferences or purchasing behaviour so claiming that she is moral-policing is an unfair characterisation.

    (Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
    Not only do I not perceive them to be problems, I believe she has no business in 'extolling her virtues' in a way that is misleading and unfair.
    I think we've reached the root of why you have decided to argue against me: You don't believe the perpetuation of gender stereotypes is a problem, and you don't recognise people's right to criticise things that others might value. We fundamentally differ on both of these.

    (Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
    It is not the job of any one group to be dictating what does and doesn't constitute a "pleasant society". I'm sure conservative, evangelical Christians would use the same argument you're using to justify taking away gay rights. The truth is you can either chose the path of mutually respecting people's viewing preferences - or you export yourself to any number of authoritarian regimes where people like you can thrive.
    I would ask then exactly how do you think we should go about deciding what does constitute a "pleasant society" if it is no one's business to criticise anything? Let everyone put forward their ideas and criticisms, and rather than accusing them of 'dictating' and 'moral policing', let them be the subject of critical discussion. This, to me, seems better than a culture of silence where no one feels the freedom to criticise anything. Seeing as we're talking of absurdities, I'd contend that that was the closer route to authoritarian regimes.

    (Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
    Her master's thesis contains the following paragraph:

    "Female roles in science fiction and fantasy television that are viewed as strong and empowered embody many masculine identified traits, maintaining a patriarchal division of gender roles. For example, values adopted by female characters in the television shows I will examine in this major research paper maintain that traditionally masculine attributes such as rationality, cool-headedness and physical strength are superior and preferred over traditionally feminine attributes such as cooperative decision making, and being emotionally expressive and empathetic".

    If a female character is not portrayed in the apparently "strong" role she deems necessary, then she claims it's misogynist sexism against females. If a character is portrayed in the way she demands them to be, then apparently they're "just acting like men, and are perpetuating the patriarchy". It's a game in which she continually manufacturers reasons to be offended.

    She cherry-picks reasons to be dissatisfied with the portrayal of female characters regardless of the actual content. Damned if you do, damned if you don't; she argues against herself.
    There's not much need for me to comment here - you have switched from discussing the arguments in her video to criticising her conduct elsewhere, which is irrelevant. It would be unfair of either of us to debate her thesis without reading it.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tabzqt)
    I don't think you understand the 4chan/ED community..
    Eh? What is there to understand? They're losers with nothing else in their life gather together but to cackle about the nasty stuff they've posted to people who they don't like.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chief Wiggum)
    Some guy on youtube made a really long response to the video in opposition to it:



    (I haven't watched it all though, so the response could be complete nonsense, who knows...)
    This is actually my first time seeing any footage from Anita Sarkeesian's videos but honestly I feel like he's missing the point somewhat. Granted I didn't watch all of it (because I didn't want to) but for all the accusations of cherrypicking I've seen levelled at Sarkeesian he opens with a pretty bad example of it himself. Finding one example of the female character showing strength which I'm guessing was thrown in right at the end of the game as a sort of ironic twist of fate is hardly indicative of a strong female character, especially when the next segment shows the same character being carried off with her arse hanging out of her minidress.

    I also didn't like his analysis of her points about the 'damsel in distress' trope. He tries to compare it to real life situations and misconstrues her point to suggest she thinks we shouldn't help people who are in danger. I don't feel it's the actions of the characters that she is criticising, as such, but their portrayal. Needlessly to say when a woman is kidnapped in real life she has thoughts and feelings and a personality; she is a real human being. The woman in the game has none of these things. She is nothing more than a MacGuffin. She could be replaced with a briefcase full of money, a harddrive full of state secrets, or a really tasty sandwich. It doesn't matter as long as it's something the male characters feel is worth chasing after. Her only 'character traits' and indeed her only reason for existing are her helplessness and the fact that she is an object of desire for the protagonists. This is what Anita means when she talks about objectification.

    And that's where I got bored and stopped watching.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by miser)
    Nobody has the obligation to change their preferences (in fact, I am not convinced that a person can choose their preferences at all) - just in the way that no one has an obligation to change any problem that someone perceives about them. There is no contradiction between saying she isn't demanding people to change and saying she's pointing out problems. You are manufacturing confrontation with me - let's keep it civil.
    Except she is advocating against perfectly acceptable tastes in a way that promotes the interest of one set of people over another. Don’t get me wrong, I have no problem with her preference for content in which female characters are not sexualised but I find her implication that other people’s viewing preferences are somehow a problem or in any way afflict her frankly, authoritarian. She’s instigating the notion that other people’s choices in any way affect her, or others which they do not and it’s as draconian as conservative theists arguing that the presence of gay characters in shows like Will and Grace are a problem for a society. I draw a line when people start fear-mongering on the basis that things that don’t affect them, do.

    That's all very well but she isn't advocating against people, she is advocating against attitudes that are a reflection of problems currently endemic to society. You appear to have conflated these things.
    And she has no moral license to lambast the personal expression of other people’s sexuality. Indeed, there are many an anti-censorship feminist who’d find her regressive stance repugnant due to its policing overtones. If she attacks an individual’s freedom of expression, she is attacking that person themselves. The ‘attitude’ you claim she is advocating against is little more than that of being a healthy, reproductive individual and her choice to lambast people who don’t fit within what she deems personally acceptable is regressive and belongs nowhere in a twenty-first century democracy like ours.

    She hasn't advocated that people stop buying these games.
    If you look at the sentence you’re actually quoting me on, you’ll see I didn’t actually claim what you say I did here. What I did point out is that reasonable people should be able to express themselves without fear of retribution from people that claim that their choice to do so is somehow ‘oppressive’ to them.

    (Original post by miser)
    (Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
    The difference is that I don't feel there's any problem with people choosing to express themselves by buying into fashion/gossip magazines.
    She hasn't advocated that people stop buying these games.

    You give the impression that you think it is out-of-line for a person to criticise anything so long as that thing can be supported economically. To raise a crude example: If dog-fighting were legal, would you not criticise it? Or would you not spend your money on it because it doesn't suit you, and allow them to "peacefully go about their business"? There is nothing wrong with creating awareness of the problems in society as you see them - attempting to make society a better place, if we were to make any judgement, is virtuous and admirable. Passively leaving everyone to it is not.
    Straw man. Your analogy doesn't work because I'm not implying that we should be allowed to do things that are currently illegal. Here’s a more accurate analogy:

    “I’m not attacking gay people, it’s just that as a Christian, seeing a gay couple on television is offensive to my tastes. It’s a problem with society that gay people might want to have their tastes present in media”.

    What Sarkeesian seems to abhor is the legitimate expression of self and I just can’t stand in line with authoritarianism like that. Oddly enough, I’m not a huge fan of games with overtly sexualised female characters simply because I think it distracts from good gameplay. That’s why I spend so much time playing racing games more than any other genre. What I find unreasonable is the notion that anybody has a moral license to police what others should or should not like provided they are legitimate and that’s why I equally abhor theistic fundamentalists who believe they have the moral impetus to condemn people for watching pornography. Authoritarianism like the one you promote has no place in our society. You can either choose not to watch it, or get out of Europe to somewhere suitable.

    People are quite welcome to perpetuate 2D female characters in games - no one has said any differently - but it is at least good to be aware of what it is you are perpetuating.
    This media perpetuates nothing but the legitimate expression of self which people of in all of the spectrum have a right to participate in. If people like Sarkeesian wish to see games in a different way, I wish them all the best of luck and to be honest, I’d probably pick it up and play it. But I won’t stand by and watch people from one side of the spectrum try to de-legitimise the freedom of expression of the other side. It’s not on.

    If you refer to our last exchange you'll see that you accused her (or me of admitting of her) of condemning people - she is perfectly permitted and justified to be critical of the attitudes themselves.
    And I stand by my comment that by attacking and demonising one’s legitimate choice of expression, you are attacking the person themselves; “I'm not attacking gay people, I just find their preference for people of the same sex and its proliferation in our media to be a problematic attitude” :rolleyes:

    Again, she hasn't commanded anyone to change their preferences or purchasing behaviour so claiming that she is moral-policing is an unfair characterisation.
    Of course she can’t “command” anyone to do something, but what she can and has done is launch a multi-thousand dollar campaign to character assassinate people’s choice to express themselves in a way she deems unacceptable whilst simultaneously exclaiming that any deviation from her twisted norm is a form of misogyny.

    I think we've reached the root of why you have decided to argue against me: You don't believe the perpetuation of gender stereotypes is a problem, and you don't recognise people's right to criticise things that others might value. We fundamentally differ on both of these.
    The root of why I’ve chosen to argue against you is because your beliefs run counter to the philosophy that our gaming industry is built on; the right to legitimate freedom of expression. As it goes I'm pretty ambivalent when it comes to gender stereotypes, but in any case I abhor people who use the excuse that other people’s freedom of expression inhibits them. I am not inhibited or affected by women’s choice to buy glossy magazines and it would be authoritarian of me to claim it did. They have a freedom to express themselves without fear of being lambasted for a perfectly reasonable choice. The argument that you believe in is the same as that used on the right and far right to justify taking away the rights of gay people under the guise that their choices in any way affect them.

    I would ask then exactly how do you think we should go about deciding what does constitute a "pleasant society" if it is no one's business to criticise anything? Let everyone put forward their ideas and criticisms, and rather than accusing them of 'dictating' and 'moral policing', let them be the subject of critical discussion. This, to me, seems better than a culture of silence where no one feels the freedom to criticise anything. Seeing as we're talking of absurdities, I'd contend that that was the closer route to authoritarian regimes.
    This is a fair point and I should have elaborated more on that so I apologise. What I should have said is that “nobody has a right to dictate what constitutes a pleasant society if it implicates the freedom of expression of another group”.


    There's not much need for me to comment here - you have switched from discussing the arguments in her video to criticising her conduct elsewhere, which is irrelevant. It would be unfair of either of us to debate her thesis without reading it.
    I’m not “discussing her conduct elsewhere”. I'm choosing to expose how the arguments used in her video are irrelevant as she has personally illustrated that regardless what happens vis-à-vis the problems exposed in her video, she will be unsatisfied. She spends a 20 minute video telling us how all female characters must be ‘strong’ and that deviation from that is misogynist – but then elsewhere claims that even if a female character was ‘strong’ it’s still symptomatic of the problems she perceives in the first place. It’s lose-lose, there is no pleasing her. The notion that this is somehow irrelevant is like saying “that 47% thing is totally irrelevant to Romney’s economic policy because it happened elsewhere and is unfair to bring up”. What utter nonsense you've concocted.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ArtGoblin)
    Eh? What is there to understand? They're losers with nothing else in their life gather together but to cackle about the nasty stuff they've posted to people who they don't like.
    Exactly that. And losers such as that will never ever follow up on death threats they made on the internet.

    They mostly empty threats which ironically gave her more sympathy and money than she originally would've recieved
 
 
 
Poll
If you won £30,000, which of these would you spend it on?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.