• Feminist Frequency gets a Massive Score
    187 replies, posted
[QUOTE=milkandcooki;45443612]One thing I'd really love is for more people to respond to Anita's videos in a not terrible and condescending way like thunderf00t and all those morons. Fortunately, we've got tooltime9901! This is just the intro video, but he's got a ton of videos on this topic. In order to not blow up the thread I'll just link to one of my favorites instead of all of them. [/QUOTE] You really are a piece of work milkandcooki. I don't even know what to say to you anymore. This man's channel is a gold mine of real content and this video, the only one that doesn't actually discuss the topic at hand, is your favourite? At this point, is it even worth trying to debate any of this with you or do you just see everyone who disagrees with you as one of the people in this video? Because that's the impression I'm getting from you. Why do we even bother with you?
[QUOTE=HoodedSniper;45443478]Brand new words of wisdom from Feminist Frequency. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/ROAUnIK.png[/IMG][/QUOTE] I guess if one single facet of a game is not 100 percent realistic then the setting has to be a perfect, 0 conflict utopia.
[QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;45443705]This line of reasoning never sits well with me. Sure, succubi aren't realistic, but that's one of the things which are implicitly and deliberately different from reality. The Witcher team didn't set out to make their world's gender politics different to reality in the same way they didn't set out to make the weather work differently. One assumes these things work the same in the game/film/book as they do in reality because there's nothing to make you assume otherwise. It's like with TES, no one has any problems with dragons flying around, with hermaphroditic demigods, or interdimensional portals, and yet people look at how guards will shrug off an arrow puncturing their skill as ridiculous.[/QUOTE] I think the point is that people don't really argue for realism unless it is convenient for their argument. People deny any possible objectification of misogyny in a video game for the sake of realism. But then the game isn't set in our reality. If the game isn't set in our reality why does the realism argument really work for one aspect, but not another? Its kind of like cherry picking.
[QUOTE=Valnar;45444263]I think the point is that people don't really argue for realism unless it is convenient for their argument. People deny any possible objectification of misogyny in a video game for the sake of realism. But then the game isn't set in our reality. If the game isn't set in our reality why does the realism argument really work for one aspect, but not another? Its kind of like cherry picking.[/QUOTE] Calling it cherry picking to defend The Witcher 2 is laughable at best. The Witcher 2 is based off a fantasy extension of the middle ages and it does it's job of representing itself really well. Again, you're arguing for games to have a utopia society if they are not 100% historically accurate.
[QUOTE=Valnar;45444263]I think the point is that people don't really argue for realism unless it is convenient for their argument. People deny any possible objectification of misogyny in a video game for the sake of realism. But then the game isn't set in our reality. If the game isn't set in our reality why does the realism argument really work for one aspect, but not another? Its kind of like cherry picking.[/QUOTE] The Witcher series is (as far as I can tell, I haven't played them) medieval Europe with magic and shit. It is not medieval Europe with gender equality. They're very different things, and you can very well have one without the other.
[QUOTE=Valnar;45444263]I think the point is that people don't really argue for realism unless it is convenient for their argument. People deny any possible objectification of misogyny in a video game for the sake of realism. But then the game isn't set in our reality. If the game isn't set in our reality why does the realism argument really work for one aspect, but not another? Its kind of like cherry picking.[/QUOTE] The point of it is to make a story that's internally consistent, that's what they mean by realism. You might be able to suspend your disbelief that a fantasy world has magic and dragons because that's part of the world, but a Utopian society with no discrimination makes you wonder how backwards uneducated farmers got that way, and hand-waving [I]magic[/I] is just bad storytelling. I think it was a writer for Fallout that said there's a difference between a story being racist and a story containing people who are racist. You can't take a look at a few characters in the Witcher saying mean things about women and assume it is preaching misogyny. When you dig deeper and find a lot of that hatred and suspicion stems from the Sorceress's positions of power and plotting, you see it's obviously espionage and power struggles rather than baseless misogyny. It makes sense within context, so people are fine with it. Make a story with no discrimination whatsoever, and you ask why that is the case, and if that makes a good story.
[QUOTE=Devodiere;45444352] It makes sense within context, [/QUOTE] This is what I really hate about Anita's analysis. Everything she talks about is way out of context. And she knows that, also that her target audience won't know the context either.
[QUOTE=HoodedSniper;45443478]Brand new words of wisdom from Feminist Frequency. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/ROAUnIK.png[/IMG][/QUOTE] Jesus christ is she going to get an aneurysm when she finds out about Game of Thrones or what
I haven't played any witcher games but a piece of media can depict a sexist setting and be [i]textually[/i] sexist at the same time, yo.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;45445194]I haven't played any witcher games but a piece of media can depict a sexist setting and be [i]textually[/i] sexist at the same time, yo.[/QUOTE] The Witcher isn't in that situation though so who cares.
[QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;45443705]This line of reasoning never sits well with me. Sure, succubi aren't realistic, but that's one of the things which are implicitly and deliberately different from reality. The Witcher team didn't set out to make their world's gender politics different to reality in the same way they didn't set out to make the weather work differently. One assumes these things work the same in the game/film/book as they do in reality because there's nothing to make you assume otherwise. It's like with TES, no one has any problems with dragons flying around, with hermaphroditic demigods, or interdimensional portals, and yet people look at how guards will shrug off an arrow puncturing their skill as ridiculous.[/QUOTE] Who was it who said that readers will accept the impossible, but not the improbable?
[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;45443626]I think the best way to sum up Tropes vs. Women as a series is that even if it completely misses its intended target it's still definitely shooting in the right direction.[/QUOTE] That kind of seems like it defeats the purpose though, doesn't it? The series might have good intentions, but if it's completely off base then she's giving a LOT of people some very incorrect/misguided information. Like others have said earlier in the thread, it would be really nice to see a series that discusses these tropes and examples but to have it done by someone who not only has a lot of passion for games, but also by someone who has played each game to completion and is careful to explain the EXACT context behind their examples. That would be a much more informative and beneficial series I'd say.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;45443719]What? Thunderf00t addresses her points and points out her lies/mistakes. The mocking tone in his videos are justified in his videos.[/QUOTE] lmao nothing justifies being a condescending jerk unless you're doing it satirically, you're still being a dick regardless of the stupidity of the thing you're arguing against
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;45445194]I haven't played any witcher games but a piece of media can depict a sexist setting and be [i]textually[/i] sexist at the same time, yo.[/QUOTE] Good thing the Witcher has never been a sexist game.
The first Witcher game is kind of sexist considering you collect cards of women you fuck. But the second one is an improvement with more strong female characters and no card collections bullshit.
Anita Sarkeesian is not her real name, her real name is actually Anita Bath
[QUOTE=milkandcooki;45443612]One thing I'd really love is for more people to respond to Anita's videos in a not terrible and condescending way like thunderf00t and all those morons. Fortunately, we've got tooltime9901! [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjJBMfoN6GI[/media] This is just the intro video, but he's got a ton of videos on this topic. In order to not blow up the thread I'll just link to one of my favorites instead of all of them. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wu-0jEhavOs[/media][/QUOTE] Going through them, a few of them are about her series.
[QUOTE=Valnar;45444263]I think the point is that people don't really argue for realism unless it is convenient for their argument.[/QUOTE] Medieval Europe was sexist so its fair to have a sexist society in a medieval fantasy. Even than the Witcher series has some great female characters in it. I also don't see anything sexist in riding to the beach on the backs of some prostitutes. [editline]20th July 2014[/editline] [t]http://cloud-4.steampowered.com/ugc/450652742824319160/7BE2EC688FFE9FB671520E444E130368122B0267/[/t] I remember seeing some feminists flipping a shit about this a while ago. When a game tries to simulate a certain era that was sexist it makes sense to have some sexism. Its like arguing for removing racism in a game based on ancient times or the 19th century.
[QUOTE=Cl0cK;45446181]The first Witcher game is kind of sexist considering you collect cards of women you fuck. But the second one is an improvement with more strong female characters and no card collections bullshit.[/QUOTE] The thing is, the game and devs arent sexist, there just happens to be sexism in the game. Its like a comedian telling a racist joke, not like hes racist.
[QUOTE=HoodedSniper;45447156]The thing is, the game and devs arent sexist, there just happens to be sexism in the game. Its like a comedian telling a racist joke, not like hes racist.[/QUOTE] There's not much difference. Works are a reflection of their creators, and if a work contains misogyny than its creators are likely misogynist, unless misogyny is shown in an explicitly negative light of course.
[QUOTE=LurkyLurker;45447247]There's not much difference. Works are a reflection of their creators, and if a work contains misogyny than its creators are likely misogynist, unless misogyny is shown in an explicitly negative light of course.[/QUOTE] According to this Orson Scott Card is not a homophobe because his works don't contain any homophobic stuff. Works can but don't have to be reflection of their creators.
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;45446065]lmao nothing justifies being a condescending jerk [/QUOTE] Probably an unpopular opinion but I think his incredulous tone just comes naturally. He really can't hold himself back. "People can't seriously believe this shit right?".
[QUOTE=HoodedSniper;45447156]The thing is, the game and devs arent sexist, there just happens to be sexism in the game. Its like a comedian telling a racist joke, not like hes racist.[/QUOTE] sure, a comedian telling a racist joke might not mean the comedian is racist, but the joke still is. just like a game is still sexist regardless of whether or not the devs are [editline]20th July 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Rangergxi;45447325]Probably an unpopular opinion but I think he's incredulous tone just comes naturally. He really can't hold himself back. "People can't seriously believe this shit right?".[/QUOTE] if he's "naturally" a dick then he should learn to control himself
[QUOTE=LurkyLurker;45447247]There's not much difference. Works are a reflection of their creators, and if a work contains misogyny than its creators are likely misogynist, unless misogyny is shown in an explicitly negative light of course.[/QUOTE] No. A work containing misogyny, racism, etc says nothing about the creator other than the fact that they wrote misogyny, racism, etc.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;45447325]Probably an unpopular opinion but I think he's incredulous tone just comes naturally. He really can't hold himself back. "People can't seriously believe this shit right?".[/QUOTE] find or do an example of thunderf00t's videos about feminism holding up in a ENG 101 class as a positive example first
We're on the internet where people who act like fucknuts get treated like that. I think that's a big issue people take with this brand of feminism is the censoring type attitude it brings. That's not progress, to me. That's actively taking women's agency away from them to say that they are frail and fragile and the issues they find important should exist in a bubble where no harsh words or attitudes are allowed. I need to compile my grievances into a document because Anita's shit irks me so hard that I do end up saying mean things instead of contributing to the conversation. There's another problem I have with her. She gets up there on her soapbox to say ignorant and misinformed tripe. It almost seems like she's trying to incite the knee-jerk reaction out of people. Then when she starts getting berated, on the internet, in YouTube comments no less, she picks it up and uses that as fodder as to why she's right.
[QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;45447565]No. A work containing misogyny, racism, etc says nothing about the creator other than the fact that they wrote misogyny, racism, etc.[/QUOTE] well people who aren't racist don't go around doing and saying racist things. If they did, that would mean that they are racist. It's like how the act of murdering someone turns you into a "murderer," the term "murderer" becomes a valid descriptor of you when you murder somebody. That's what the word refers to.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;45448404]well people who aren't racist don't go around doing and saying racist things. If they did, that would mean that they are racist. It's like how the act of murdering someone turns you into a "murderer," the term "murderer" becomes a valid descriptor of you when you murder somebody. That's what the word refers to.[/QUOTE] So you consider John Ball to be racist because his books contain racist people? John Ball being the writer of "In The Heat Of The Night"
What asinine rationale. Its on par with, in fact identical to, those who want works like Huckleberry Finn and To Kill A Mockingbird banned for racist language. Yes they depict racism and bigotry but they're just that, depictions. They exist so as to make a more indepth and believable story. Look at just about any Tarantino work, they're filled with it, but its part of the reason they are considered such well done works. So in a work such as The Witcher where in the setting depicted misogyny is prevalant, depictions of misogyny go hand in hand.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;45448404]well people who aren't racist don't go around doing and saying racist things. If they did, that would mean that they are racist. It's like how the act of murdering someone turns you into a "murderer," the term "murderer" becomes a valid descriptor of you when you murder somebody. That's what the word refers to.[/QUOTE] So, obviously Stephen King has no problems with serial killers? I mean, if he did have a problem with them, he most certainly wouldn't write about them, would he?!
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.