# Anita Sarkeesian beats a dead horse. Then I call it problematic.



## Annoying kid (Jun 22, 2016)

In her video;_ Lingere is not armour_:

Anita asserts that female video game characters are for _presumed_  straight male players, based on nothing but the character design.  Erasing lesbians, bisexual women, gay males,genderqueer people and so  on. This is based on the notion that men are inherently more visual and  sexually explicit in their tastes. Women's tastes are better, see? More  romantic and wholesome. So once women are sexualized, only straight  males can be interested in that, according to Anita. She doubles down on  this by making a mock video of a (badly drawn) male character getting  out bed naked and in shower etc. A direct mirror of an advert of the  game Perfect Dark that features the protagonist of that series portrayed  by a model. Anita states how completely ridiculous the male version is  on it's face, and states explicitly, _that such a thing shouldn't exist._, to justify her point that the female version shouldn't exist. Showing her inherent interest in censorship. 

Sarkeesian  then goes after Bayonetta, calling her a sex object pandering to the  male gaze. I'm sure Anita is aware that Bayonetta was designed by Mari  Shimazaki (female). Anita has called the character a "fighting f*** toy"  on twitter. Liana K, a feminist cosplayer, has stated to derive  empowerment from Bayonetta and has called Anita's statements slut  shaming by proxy. If she can't shame real people, the next best thing?  Shame the characters they see themselves in. 

Anita tries to  refute the idea that it is shaming, as fictional characters have no  agency and are designed, and have no will of their own to choose what  they wear. Like a doll. This leaves the previous point unaddressed and  is a reductive, anti artistic criticism. That's like writing out her  favourite character unceremoniously, and her protesting, and me  responding, "What are you upset for? The character doesn't really exist.  She's just lines and ink right? By your own words." Furthermore, she  can't even keep her argument consistent. In the same video she talks  about characters being _forced_ to wear these clothes as if characters can protest.

She  says women are dehumanized by this sexualization, which is straight out  of Andrea Dworkin's anti pornography tirades. Anita seems to think  women and men are hive minds, as she also states that men can't identify  with these female characters on the level of human beings. She states  that it teaches men that they can have access to female sexuality  whenever they want, and as a reward. She provides no evidence for this  claim of male entitlement.

This leads to her most regressive and  misanthropic argument: The male gaze has the power to nulify female  sexual empowerment and that the two are mutually exclusive. Only in  fiction though apparently. See Anita wouldn't dare make this statement  about women in the real world, but, the two cross over. Pasted youtube  comment:

_ZombiiChixx1 week ago
As a woman who is empowered  by her sexuality, it really pisses me off that Anita feels the need to  talk down to me and tell me what I am doing is inherently wrong and  dangerous. To me, its harmful that she assumes that all male gamers only  have an invested interest in a female characters looks, and not their  actual character. Anita just loves shaming male sexuality :/?_

 An  empowering female character can't attract the male gaze. Anything that  attracts the male gaze is not empowering by default. Regardless of the  character's other actions. Anita regularly cites very well written and  strong female characters overall and calls them sex objects. For example  "The Boss" from the Metal Gear series. 

Anita then presents her  idea of empowering female sexuality. Bear in mind this whole time she  has been almost exclusively criticising outfit designs. Rather than  compare like with like and find an Anita approved sexy design, she  presents two instances of sexual _behaviour_ in games:

1) An underaged lesbian kiss. The characters are in casual wear.
2) A woman (presumably) declares her desire for sex over the radio to a male character. 

In  proposing this as the right way to show sexuality instead of those  sexualized designs, in even conflating the two, it is an association of  revealing clothing with being up for sex. Interesting that the only  heterosexual interaction she chose, the woman can't be seen at all. 

Anita  has no concept of tone and levels of realism. She repeatedly used  practicality arguments in wildly unrealistic games like Soul Calibur,  and cites dark, more realistic low fantasy games like Dark Souls III as  the standard to aim for across genres as well as using real world  athletes' wear to make her point. She openly scoffs at the very idea of  fantsy elements , like Quiet's story from Metal Gear. The idea that she  breathes through skin is so ludicrous self evidently according to Anita.  Because it's not realistic, see? Who ever heard of fantasy in fantasy?


----------



## 20oz (Jun 22, 2016)




----------



## BobtailCon (Jun 22, 2016)

Anita and her "Feminist" brigade are all a bunch of mongs, I don't even need to read your post to know that.


----------



## Guy Faukes (Jun 29, 2016)

Topics regarding this get pretty heated quick, so while I disagree with your notions, I do respect you as another member of the Green forums as well as your right to share and discuss your opinions.

Anita Sarkeesian is one of those figures in gaming media that, if no one threatened or harrassed, would have been in their own little corner of academia with an audience of four to ten people and a Kickstarter that probably would have raised $200 at most. She's an academic; her work is essentially an essay from one perspective that warrants debate. But hey, it's the internet, where criticism and civil debate simply, especially around gaming, are not viable options.

Hideo Kojima attempted to criticize the portrayal of overly sexualized women combatants with Quiet but,.. ended up just making an overly sexualized woman combatant without much else. She doesn't even need to wear the skimpy outfit to "breathe through her skin". You can unlock her in full uniform with only her face and elbows exposed. She's like The End in that regard.


----------



## Smith (Aug 14, 2016)

Her arguments never did seem to make a whole lot of sense to me.

For one, when talking about disparity in video games and how they don't include female characters, she includes games that CAN'T. Like a World War I game that is *somewhat accurately* trying to portray the war; in other words, it's fought by men.

So what... do we have to include every single race and gender?

Seems a little weird, like you're only doing it so that you're not considered a "racist" or "misogynist". As if every artist has to be afraid of their own vision now, or like there's some sort of check-list you have to go through.

Look, if a creator wants the main character to be a hot ass chick, fine. Let 'em make Tomb Raider. If the creator wants the Uncharted lead character to be sexy Nathan Drake, fine!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but she just doesn't seem to get it. I've learned a lot of good things from video games, but they have never changed who I am. Playing GTA didn't make me go out and murder hookers. Playing Assassin's Creed *inspired* my interest in parkour (which I never really followed through with), but I didn't go out trying to assassinate government officials. So, *while I understand killing people and sexualization aren't the same thing*, I don't see how a video game could influence either of those. I mean, all I'm saying is I've never played a video game, a *fictional* work of *art*, and been like, "Yup. Every girl needs to look like that now." OR, on the other side, I've never said, "Damn, I really wish I looked like Nathan Drake." Guess you just have to have low self esteem or something.


----------



## Annoying kid (Aug 14, 2016)

When she said it's time to look at how to show female sexuality without  sexualization. As an artist, I thought great. Lets see what designs she  counts as sexy but not sexualized. After all, she was talking about  that. 

Then she lists examples of female characters  propositioning others for sex. An underage lesbian couple, and a  proposition over the radio. 

 Therefore, she directly compares  wearing skimpy clothes with a sexual proposition. She literally argues;  Don't dress up your female characters in skimpy clothes, have them  proposition people for sex instead, cos that shows agency. 

She's  only bringing up that alternative, a sexual proposition, because these  characters are skimpy. She would not bring that up if they were wearing 3  piece suits. 

So it literally is a pro-rape argument, "Look at  what she's wearing, she was asking for sex.... so just have her ask for  sex!!"


----------



## Book Cook (Sep 2, 2016)

I don't know why people pay so much attention to this. Third wave feminism is an agonizingly forced and ridiculous process where ringleaders like Anita rake in money for nothing. The movement is an imploding fad. Just stay away from it and let the liver of society cleanse it out of its system.


----------



## Smith (Sep 2, 2016)

Book Cook said:


> I don't know why people pay so much attention to this. Third wave feminism is an agonizingly forced and ridiculous process where ringleaders like Anita rake in money for nothing. The movement is an imploding fad. Just stay away from it and let the liver of society cleanse it out of its system.



I think it's because there's a legitimate concern that it isn't going to go away. That it'll get worse.


----------



## Sam (Sep 2, 2016)

The gaming industry doesn't give a damn what Anita Sarkeesian says or does. Games companies will continue to make games the way they want to and no amount of gadflying from a delusional third-wave feminist will ever change that. It's called freedom of artistic expression. It is an artist's right to portray, depict, and display or describe a character any way they please. 

The moment that Anita Sarkeesian and every other member of the "I'm Offended!" movement stop trying to make the world do what they want just because "feelings" . . . 

Wait, who am I kidding? That's their entire credo. If they stop doing that, they wouldn't have a mission statement deluded ideology and they'd implode. And half the world would sing hallelujah.


----------



## Harper J. Cole (Sep 4, 2016)

Well, it cuts both ways. She has freedom of expression when creating her videos, and others are entitled to respond to them. The ensuing debates are intellectually stimulating, and good for society.


----------



## Smith (Sep 4, 2016)

HarperCole said:


> Well, it cuts both ways. She has freedom of expression when creating her videos, and others are entitled to respond to them. The ensuing debates are intellectually stimulating, and good for society.



I'll defend her right to say what she wants, except when it's trying to limit the freedoms of speech and expression of others.


----------



## Kevin (Sep 4, 2016)

Anita arguments aside, the fact is that artists derive sexual pleasure from nudity. Don't think so? Just try drawing a naked female.  Nude or partially nude images are alluring. When you have them walk and talk, depending upon the scenario,  the only reason to have them scantily clad is because they live in a tropical climate and/or you wish to have alluring (sexually attractive) images. As a hetero male I want to be like those male images (buffed and heroic) and be in the females. That's it. There's 3/4 or 9/10s of your male market.


----------

