Blogs
Jul 9, 2012 at 11:36 am
Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
With that line, it became meaningless to read the rest of the linked article, because the writer clearly did not know what they were talking about.
The victim complex oozing out of the article is way to thick for me.
That said, is the whole 160k that she raised really going to go towards researching "tropes vs women in videogames," as she promised it would? Because if suddenly she's cruising in a new BMW, there would be some issues there. I mean, that's basically funding three researchers full time for a year, or a nearly endless number of undergrads.
Sigh.
Shorter version: I am a self-righteous reporter who disagrees with a thing this woman is doing, so I am constructively criticizing her by asking that her death certificate be sent to her. You know, in a nice non-threatening way.
Hypocrite.
I mean, I get that dudes be hating women, but why this became such a focus of their ire...
Look at #7's picture, assume it's really him, and you have your answer.
"Welp, THAT sentence wasn't phrased in the way I would have put it. Guess this is total bullshit! My work here is done. Sorry, ladies, but if you can't slant your hyperbole to suit me in your blog posts, you deserve to be abused."
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…
Uh, she made no such promise. Kickstarter is a site that allows people to set a certain goal for how much money they need to accomplish a project, and in Sarkeesian's case it was $6,000. It's not her fault that people donated way, way more than that, she didn't ask them to donate that much, and she's under no obligation (legally or morally) to use that money in any way other than what she deems fit.
So what you're say is: due to the fact Cienna maybe said something potentially dumb once, no opinion with which she agrees with is ever valid ever again?
Fascinating.
Tell me; how does this reasoning apply to your opinions?
As the project gained funding, she added a bunch of extra stuff she was going to do.
Also, wrt the 160k thing, it's been hilarious to watch a bunch of RONPAUL™ e-supporters cry about someone potentially personally profiting off their efforts. (I guess that's another thing women aren't allowed to do).
Dude, do you really think that public displays like that are acceptable forms of anger management? And does being ignored by a woman really make you that angry?
Also, what 23 said.
Speaking of incendiary gamers:
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2011/0…
I think there are plenty of good uses for $160,000 along the lines of what she promised, and hopefully it's used towards that. But I don't think it's universally agreed upon that any money above what the person was asking for could ethically be used for whatever that person wants. Anyway, it's complete conjecture on my part that the money isn't going to what people might expect it to.
And I don't have a problem with the idea of her making a profit off of this - I didn't donate. I don't think it's unreasonable, though, for people to question what their money is actually being put towards when they donate to a cause.
Please explain how that is innocuous.
It's fuckin' satire. It's like making a 'dress Pat Robertson in Drag' video game. You're taking the thing they're complaining about and delivering it back to them in spades. It's clearly trolling, and it worked very, very well.
He wanted to see how many prudes clutch their pearls, and you bought right into it. Though he was pretty dumb to stick his name on it.
"I dumped that bitch before I hit her, so it's cool."
It isn't misappropriation of funds if there is absolutely no indication by anyone that funds received beyond the project's target goal will be spent on the project, genius. I don't appreciate being accused of "having no problem with" something that is absolutely *not* what is going on here, and not what I described.
You realize how fucked-up and utterly groundless that statement is, don't you?
Is there something else of value to add to the conversation on that subject? I mean, his actions speak for themselves.
"It's fuckin' satire."
I don't think that word means what you think it does. How, exactly, is it "satire"?
"It's like making a 'dress Pat Robertson in Drag' video game."
Would that be because Pat Robertson has publicly stated that homosexuals should not have the same rights as heterosexuals?
So what you're saying is that you support the right to punch women in the face?
Because there has got to be two sides to that in order for that analogy to work.
Gays = okay
vs
Gays not okay
Punching a woman in the face = okay
vs
Punching a woman in the face not okay
"Because it sounds an awful lot like you actually believe this:
[...]
You realize how fucked-up and utterly groundless that statement is, don't you?"
If you aren't in lock-step with the circlejerk, you must totally agree with whatever jerk started the flamewar. Because that's how things work. For us or against us.
OMFG stereotypes, ideals, and gross oversimplification of a subset of society in an art form! Stop. the. fucking. presses!
Of course I'm fine with it. Again-- how she spends the money is her decision. You don't have to spend a single cent of the money you make on Kickstarter producing something for the people you donate-- all you have to do is deliver the rewards you promise to them for donating a certain amount.
"I don't know why you're debating me"
Because you said something false and dumb, and when it was pointed out to you, you doubled down rather than saying "Oops, I didn't know what I was talking about. My bad."
I'm just saying it's not something to get the vapors over. Clearly you're too busy enjoying your self-righteous indignation to actually consider that fact.
Bear in mind, this is just simulating punching someone in the face. A pretty goddamned tame act in a video game.
"So what you're saying is that you support the right to punch women in the face?"
Oh please, if that's the best you can come up with, then I have no reason to communicate with you.
wikipedia-satire: 'Satirical works often contain "straight" humour, usually to give relief from what might otherwise be relentless preaching.'
I could list many, many more examples that support this as satire.
"Of course I'm fine with it. Again-- how she spends the money is her decision. You don't have to spend a single cent of the money you make on Kickstarter producing something for the people you donate-- all you have to do is deliver the rewards you promise to them for donating a certain amount."
I agree that those are the terms of Kickstarter. And so long as those who donated aren't under the impression that she has any obligations outside of those, I don't see any ethical issues with it, either. I think, though, that a large number of people donated because they agreed with her cause - not because they wanted to personally give her money. I could be incredibly wrong, and I'm sure you'll advise me that I am.
Anyway, good on her for raising as much for her cause as she did, and I'm looking forward to seeing her achieve great results from this boon.
Not "someone." A specific, real life person who did nothing worse than propose a video series discussing sexism in video games.
Comparison utter fail.
So if you've heard it all before, then don't listen. No one's forcing you to. But your overt hostility to the very *idea* of Sarkeesian's project belies something else, either opposition to examining sexism in video games (for some reason that's totally reasonable and not hateful) or, more likely, given your response to Spurr's game, hostility to *women*.
Female gamers are surpassing male gamers in purchasing and playing video games. If you don't care that the gaming industry ignores the interests and preferences of the majority of its consumers, that's YOUR fucking problem. Other people obviously do care.
"I'm just saying it's not something to get the vapors over."
Well that's good. As long as it isn't something that you're concerned about.
"Bear in mind, this is just simulating punching someone in the face. A pretty goddamned tame act in a video game."
And yet you, somehow, missed the entire point.
That is the ONLY item in that video game.
And it is against a specific person.
But it's cool because it doesn't bother you.
Hey! What do you tell a woman with two black eyes?
Nothing you haven't told her twice already! Ha ha ha! Amirite guys!
"Oh please, if that's the best you can come up with, then I have no reason to communicate with you."
In order for your analogy to work, there has to be SOMEONE who thinks that punching a woman in the face is an acceptable act.
Is that someone you?
If not, then who? Name names, okay?
"I could list many, many more examples that support this as satire."
Except you haven't listed one yet.
You're position depends upon violence against women being funny as the sole "punchline" in the joke (that you claim is "satire").
As opposed to it being offensive.
But violence against women isn't something that you'd "get the vapors over".
He wanted to get Sarkeesian's attention by physically threatening her. Nothing new there, nothing defensible. So why are you making excuses for him?
I'd also say that because sexism is games and other media is so popularly viewed as simply being a permanent and immutable fixture, it's even more worthy of research. There is enough ground to cover in that field that the $160,000 that she raised isn't an excessive amount to spend on it, provided that it's well-planned and doesn't just finish up with "yep, there's some sexism here," which is what I think TortoiseTurtle is talking about.
Maybe I should start a Kickstarter to research the dovetail of homoeroticism and homophobia in sports. *hrm*
Beyond the fact that this is a silly Kickstarter (and if people want to fund it by throwing good money at it, then that's their loss and Anita's gain), this dude's reaction is entirely representative of the gamer community's tendency to reinforce the white male privilege that is exerted by most games.
Your giving TortoiseTurtle way too much credit. He's claiming that the issue isn't worth exploring at all and that anyone who wants to explore the issue deserves the treatment Spurr and others* are dishing out.
*Spurr is not the only shit-head in this story. Sarkeesian has received death threats.
*You're giving*
"Really? $160k to research sexism in video games? REALLY?!"
No, not really. Most likely a small fraction of that to research sexism in video games, another chunk to receive an actual product (the video series on sexism in video games), and still more donations out of sympathy and encouragement.
"Maybe I should start a Kickstarter to research the dovetail of homoeroticism and homophobia in sports. *hrm*""
Sounds like a good premise in terms of appealing to a sympathetic audience that is likely to be altruistically aroused by a backlash from a large number of technologically proficient haters. However it would help to get an MA in researching depiction of homosexuality in media and producing a Youtube series on the topic entirely for free beforehand, so everyone can see your chops.
The thing is, Sarkeesian has gotten that many donations in large part thanks to the shit-storm that misogynists have stirred up over it. Had Spurr and others not gone ape shit, few people would have heard about the project and she likely would have gotten only as much money as she was asking for (or less).
So, if you want to get donations for your homophobia/homoeroticism project, try to get the attention of well-known homophobes.
If you're just looking to fleece some group, may I suggest going the other direction with it, and trying to outrage gay rights groups in order to elicit donations from people who strongly align themselves with anti-gay, conservative organizations? I'll bet they have deep pockets, too. Or you can take one, I'll take the other, and we'll both do well off of co-outrage.
I dunno, 1 out of 11 seems like a pretty balanced look at how often positive female characters are in video games.
Maybe then, when someone makes a game about brutalizing someone he disagrees with, the reaction will be, "Yeah, that's a dick move," not a raft of excuses and explanations and justifications on why hey, maybe the bitch deserved it.
Here is a purported screenshot from the game depicting Sarkeesian as she might look after being brutally beaten -- both eyes blackened and swollen, nose broken and bleeding lips swollen and bruised.
This is an appalling allusion to physical violence inflicted on those with whom one disagrees. It is made all the more horrendous by the fact that it depicts violence against a woman. In human history, there have been many instances of a man beating up a woman. There have been relatively few instances of a woman beating up a man. In general, men have held physical hegemony over women, and countless men (individuals, not the gender as a whole) have wielded that power abusively. It is ignoble to make light of that history of abuse and oppression.
To present the vicarious experience of "beating up" (in Ben Spurr's own words) a woman is beyond despicable.
It should come as no surprise that the likes of Teddy Gorath (@2) would defend such abhorrent actions by Spurr. (WTF is a "victim complex"?)
Lesson learned from that: if you think you're going to win friends by participating in these conversations, you'd better be in lock-step with what everyone else is saying.
Also, should that comma be in that fist sentence? Probably not, is my guess.
The attempt to lay claim to victim status by people who are actually perpetrators. See, for example, douchebags like Spurr who whines about a woman not wanting to engage in dialogue with him after creating a game about beating the shit out of her.
Anita Sarkeesian is a pretty well-known feminist analyst who produced a similar series on tropes v women in movies/tv last year. Her Feminist Frequency videos are well known in feminist/media critique circles, and have been used in high school & college curriculum. She's an avid gamer and started a Kickstarter campaign to raise $6,000 to start a new series on tropes v. women in video games. Taken directly from the Kickstarter website: "Creating these videos take a lot of time and money to produce. I will be researching and playing hundreds of titles from across the gaming industry (including some truly awful games that I wouldn’t wish upon anyone!). Your support will go towards production costs, equipment, games and downloadable content."
She originally wanted to create 5 videos, but once her campaign got a metric fuckton of attention from misogynists and trolls and people started giving wayyyy more money than she anticipated, she kept upping what she would make, as well as the production quality and available rewards. She will now be developing 12 games at a higher production quality than she could originally afford, and will be writing an entire classroom curriculum on the subject.
People give to Kickstarter voluntarily. If they were concerned that Sarkeesian was going to mismanage their funds, they wouldn't have given her the money. Period, the end. Not to mention that this campaign is now just sorta-kinda in the public eye now, so do you seriously think that she would just start rolling around in a beemer and then not deliver on what she promised, cause she thinks no one would notice? Come the fuck on.
But at the same time, there are people who say things like in these responses to my original comment, which did nothing but reinforce my concern over people giving to kickstarter thinking that they're giving to a "cause" and not simply entering into a "pay me x for y reward" type of relationship:
"Kickstarter is a site that allows people to set a certain goal for how much money they need to accomplish a project, and in Sarkeesian's case it was $6,000. It's not her fault that people donated way, way more than that, she didn't ask them to donate that much, and she's under no obligation (legally or morally) to use that money in any way other than what she deems fit."
"Again-- how she spends the money is her decision. You don't have to spend a single cent of the money you make on Kickstarter producing something for the people you donate-- all you have to do is deliver the rewards you promise to them for donating a certain amount."
That said, I may be greatly overstepping when I make guesses about the motives of people who donated to this project.
Why do you have this "concern" which apparently entails assuming people are stupid? People know they're giving money to a person-- not a cause. They know that if the Kickstarter has reached its goal, and they donate anyway, they're just giving money to the person. If they give enough money, they're also buying whatever reward is promised for that amount. They might hope that Sarkeesian uses most or all of the money for further research, but she has no obligation to do so.
Seriously?
"but she has no obligation to do so."
Agreed.
After reading this, I feel really badly that hers is this serious and mine just comprises of douchebags who have too much time and too little talent. I don't really think that people understand that all of this is COMPLETELY VOLUNTARY.
You absolutely should! MORE commentary is good.
It is not art, it is not satire, nor is it overblown. It is the threatening of another human being because of her thoughts. It is a crime.
I really hope the word I bolded isn't a mistake. There's no shortage of academic data showing that if you look for misogyny in games, you'll find misogyny in games. What we really need is for someone to put their money where their mouth is, make a game that lives up to the feminist principles they espouse, and actually test how well it does on the open market.
It's worth noting, I think, that the entry being "Blammed" on NG means that the people who pay games on NG voted it down so much it got removed (barring a population who doesn't ordinarily play games visiting the site specifically to vote it down, which I concede is very possible).
Please keep in mind that sometimes the most vocal members of a group do not necessarily reflect the beliefs of all, or even the beliefs of a majority. That being said, I can't deny that there's a lot of gamers out there who say terrible things from their (relatively) anonymous sanctums. I would argue, however, that demographics play at least some role in this.
@88:
"No shortage of academic data..."
- Show some, please. Otherwise this sounds like the trope of "Oh, you'll find x in anything of you look hard enough." Does that mean we don't look at the places where misogyny exists? Speaking as an academic, I hope not.
"...actually test how well it does on the open market."
- Why? Is financial success the same as the overall success of a game? In fact, is financial success how we measure success in every medium? If so, that "academic data" you mentioned earlier is probably not real successful, since it probably didn't sell a whole lot of anything.
Games can be successful if they sell well, sure, but they can also be successful if they communicate a certain message, or are enjoyed by people, or if they bring a sense of success to the author, or any number of other reasons. Games are art. If art is *only* successful through financial success, then a lot of artists are going to be disappointed.
Not to belabor the point, but here's a thought experiment: what if I make a flash game about not paying for art, and distribute it for free? How will we measure it's success? How about if that game is about some other social commentary?
m!
Which is exactly what I'm saying.
In response to a couple comments, my comment @2 was really just a critique of what I saw to be a hackneyed, poorly researched and poorly written article. Any extrapolations apart from that come from within yourselves.
I think Spurr is clearly very emotionally immature, but I am unsure why a lone doof making flash games has gotten so much attention when there are actually people trying to take basic rights away from women. Focus on what actually matters, because you can not change the minds of lone morons.
@92: http://funnycontainer.thefunnypicspage.c…
I typically play a female character when I play RPGs, and has always pissed me off. At least the Elder Scrolls series has realistic armor/body shapes for women. I think it is a holdover from comic books, which offend worse regarding this than any medium.
That said, I am baffled about the discussion overlap between what this man did and what this woman is doing. You don't have to agree with the latter (and I don't, I think it's money down a tedious and preachy ideological hole for yet another yawnerific studies of studies that will sit on a shelf after papering somebody's PhD thesis) to realize the obvious about the former: that the punch-her-in-the-face reaction is that of a vicious, creepy, twisted little mind who should be but isn't thoroughly ashamed of himself, and who should be shunned from decent company. People have commented on the google effect and that may be one of the best punishments: I sure as hell wouldn't.
I sure as hell wouldn't hire him. I wouldn't even want to be near him.
Point: it took almost no time at all for this creepy little flash game to be blammed out of digital existence.
Question: Does that blamming not better describe the gaming community's attitude towards this sort of slimy attitude than does the flash game? It's a bit like being black and having a meal in a new town: some guy uses the n-word, and is promptly thrown out of the restaurant by enraged fellow diners. Isn't the angry crowd more reflective of the town than the mouth-breathing bigot?
"I think Spurr is clearly very emotionally immature, but I am unsure why a lone doof making flash games has gotten so much attention when there are actually people trying to take basic rights away from women."
Who says that he is not part of that group?
If nothing else, both him and them share a similar outlook towards women who do not conform to their preconceived image of "correct behavior for women". Including how it is reasonable to portray women who do not conform.
You could start by taking a peek at Sarkeesian's website, where you'll see that the story has, in fact, made quite an impact. It's been picked up by the CBC, the Guardian, Forbes, Wired, MacLean's, the Globe and Mail, Slate, and Salon among others.
2 important points to think about before complaining:
1. She might very well bring new items to the table. These videos will likely touch base on the basics, but you don't know how it will turn out until she produces the series. Only then should she have to answer to the critics..
2. "Rehashing" = Bad? "All the valid points about misogyny have been made! JUST SHUT UP ABOUT THEM ALREADY" is a terrible sentiment because misogyny is still dominating the video games industry. Apparently the point hasn't come across yet. Maybe--just maybe--the turmoil surrounding this kickstarter might get people to LISTEN to all these valid points.
As far as raising a ton more money than she was asking for, I honestly don't know what she will do with it, but neither do you. Kickstarter doesn't have a way to say "Woah guys, this is too much! STOP IT!" so you cannot blame her for raising nearly %2000 of her goal. It just puts an air of validity to her claims because people apparently want to hear what she has to say.
Money = Speech in this country, remember?