Is this some kind of reverse pitting that mocks the haters by pretending to be one?
When someone asks “who is the stronger leader” between two candidates, or “who is stronger on foreign policy”, or “who projects the most strength”, they’re not talking about bench press. I see no reason to believe that Anita Sarkeesian is talking about physical strength and not the other characteristics to which the words “strong” and “strength” regularly apply.
15:53
This is the best I could do… I will try to find it in her actual videos. Thunderf00t is NOT someone I endorse.
There is no direct causal link between playing violent games and performing violent acts. Games won’t make you violent if you aren’t already.
But that doesn’t mean that games can’t change how you think about violence. For example, playing a lot of games where “good guy” cops shoot “bad guy” criminals can certainly contribute to having a mindset that’s biased in favor of the police. This is no different than saying that watching a lot of *Cops *will tend to make you more sympathetic toward the police.
I agree 100% with your first point… it’s just that what she says is wrong. I’m not a strong man, and there are PLENTY of women that could kick my ass… But GENERALLY men are stronger than women.
The second point, I can see where you’re coming from, but all the studies I’ve heard of, back when Jack Thomson was fighting against video game violence, is that most people DON’T emulate games.
They probably do have real life effects… these effects just aren’t (probably) causing violence.
Why do you insist that Sarkeesian was talking about physical strength and only physical strength?
No… she can’t be talking about physical strength. It just so happens that video game characters often possess physical strength to overcome the enemy, and save the girl.
:rolleyes:
I suspect POE’s Law is in effect here.
Please explain what this means, so I am aware how you’re mocking me. 
How do you know whether she is or isn’t?
In many of the video games I’ve played, physical strength had little or nothing to do with ‘saving the girl’ – it was just as likely, or more likely, to be mental toughness and agility, good planning, good use of technology, and the like.
For a little context, here’s perhaps the speech discussed along with a transcript.
Some choice bits from it:
[QUOTE=Anita Sarkeesian]
This brings us to one of the core reasons why the trope is so problematic and pernicious for women’s representations. The damsel in distress is not just a synonym for “weak”, instead it works by ripping away the power from female characters, even helpful or seemingly capable ones. No matter what we are told about their magical abilities, skills or strengths they still ultimately captured or otherwise incapacitated and then must wait for rescue.
Distilled down to its essence, the plot device works by trading the disempowerment of female characters FOR the empowerment of male characters.
[/quote]
[QUOTE=Anita Sarkeesian]
The pattern of presenting women as fundamentally weak, ineffective or entirely incapable also has larger ramifications beyond the characters themselves and the specific games they inhabit. We have to remember that these games do not exist in a vacuum, they are an increasingly important and influential part of our larger social and cultural ecosystem.
The reality is that this troupe is being used in a real-world context where backwards sexist attitudes are already rampant. 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.
The belief that women are somehow a “naturally weaker gender” is a deeply ingrained socially constructed myth, which of course is completely false- but the notion is reinforced and perpetuated when women are continuously portrayed as frail, fragile, and vulnerable creatures.
Just to be clear, I am not saying that all games using the damsel in distress as a plot device are automatically sexist or have no value. But it’s undeniable that popular culture is a powerful influence in or lives and the Damsel in Distress trope as a recurring trend does help to normalize extremely toxic, patronizing and paternalistic attitudes about women.
[/quote]
In context, it’s really friggin’ clear she’s not talking about physical strength but the concept of helpless women to be rescued.
Major Pit Fail.
She also doesn’t tell the whole story about the games she speaks of.
Trust me, there are plenty of people who see through her, men AND women.
It’s not about sexism in video games, I WISH IT WAS. It’s all about her it seems. I wish I someone else covered this because I think it’s important.
Yep. OP, it looks like you are using tailored quotes from an anti-sarkeesian source, and that you need to do some more legwork in putting these quotes into context before assuming they accurately portray her meaning.
So far, you’ve presented nothing that suggests to me that “It’s all about her”, and not about sexism in video games.
Say this is a pit fail, if you want. I think she got a lot wrong. I think that’s bait for anti-feminists and MRA’s.
I’m sorry to have a different opinion.
You should be.
You should also be sorry for just being wrong. At least look up somebody’s actual words before putting new ones in their mouth.
You’ve failed to support your different opinion, at least in my opinion. You haven’t offered anything that suggests to me that Sarkeesian has presented things falsely or in a self-aggrandizing manner. The things you’ve offered as false turned out to not be false, or at least to be reasonable opinions.
Most people don’t *emulate *games. But that doesn’t mean games don’t have an influence.
So no one is going to play GTA and say “Woot! Now I feel like going out and finding a hooker to beat up!” But they might be slightly more inclined to treat the women around them as accessories or prizes, because that’s one of the subtexts in GTA.
She’s not saying that games like that shouldn’t exist. Just that we should be conscious of the themes they’re expressing. It would be like having a movie where all the black characters were servants. Even if the movie never came right out and said “black people are inferior”, it would be sending the subtle message that they are. Such a movie probably wouldn’t trigger any overt acts of racism, but it would contribute to a general atmosphere in which institutional racism is accepted as the norm. And, in fact, that’s pretty much how Hollywood worked until the 60’s. Any black person who appeared on screen would be portrayed as subservient to whites.
Portrayals of women as passive victims in games help to norm the idea that women are passive and easily victimized, even though there’s rarely a direct cause and effect relationship between a particular portrayal and a particular act of victimization.
You can say that a lot.
When it comes to proving it you came up waaaaaay short.
The problem is that you have a stupid and unsupported opinion. Refer to Harlan Ellison’s comments about rights to opinions.