The big Phil Fish, Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian discussion thread

Retr0gamer wrote: »

The problem with Anita's videos is she is a feminist which suggests an agenda and bias and she pretty much shows this in her videos where she presents evidence to back up the conclusions she as already made. There's no grey areas, counter arguments or analysis meaning the whole thing is unscientific and entirely worthless.

This is an incredibly problematic point of view. This isn't a scientific study. 'Cultural criticism' is a thing - in fact it's a major thing that dedicated academic schools have sprung up to explore, alongside the vast amounts of more casual examples. Marxism, feminism, philosophy, politics and many other schools of thought of thought have been used to offer some of the most fascinating, intelligent and even revolutionary formal and sociological readings of art and media. People with an ill-disguised feminist 'agenda' have gone on to make some of the most radical, progressive, important and straight-up wonderful works of contemporary times - take filmmakers like Agnes Varda, Jane Campion, Chantal Akerman and others. Feminist theory and writing has changed the way we think about art, and even the very form of the art itself - it is so very far from 'worthless', and all without offering counter arguments. If you want a coldly neutral, rigorous study, a study in one of the scientific fields is where you want to be looking, not a series of accessible YouTube videos with a very clearly defined set of parameters and perspective.

That's not even going into the clear impact the feminist movement has had in real-world social and political terms - and given some of the controversies raging at the moment, it's not going to be rendered a redundant school of thought any time soon. It pushes for equality above all - and when the world is this unequal, sometimes 'scientific balance' is not something that can be reasonably factored in.

All that said, I'd actually say Anita's videos are very generous with evidence - when identifying the tropes, she tends to provide dozens and dozens of examples of games where they apply. There are times when she stretches aspects of her argument thin, but for the most part the length of the videos is used to offer examples upon examples and to give the opportunity some clear, straightforward commentary on them.

I'm always very curious to see the evidence that these tropes don't exist and why it isn't important to highlight them. No doubt there are quite a few individual games that have an excellent handle on their portrayal of female characters, but even with a slowly changing tide these are more exceptions than the rules (and the Tropes series has acknowledged them when the opportunity arises, even though that's not its primary function). I've been fascinated at how definitively Anita has highlighted some of the tropes - there's an insane amount of games, for example, that create female characters by slapping a bow or the colour pink on an existing male one. Maybe people refute that being a bad thing, but it's most definitely a thing worth drawing attention to and having a conversation about.

Games will definitely be better when developers learn to express themselves in different, varied ways; when strongly defined female characters are more of a rule than an exception; and when games capture a whole range of different ideologies and perspectives the way other media does. I'd go as far as calling that a pretty much irrefutable fact. Things are changing for the better, but slowly, so the discussion needs to keep happening.

In some ways Sarkeesian's commentary are basic and relatively crude, certainly in comparison to the deeper formal analyses employed by many of the great feminist cultural theorists. But it's also vitally important that these issues are raised in a more mainstream context as opposed to the inherently niche realm of academia. Sarkessian's greatest achievement is starting a very public conversation - one game developers of note are actually listening to. No doubt her work will be succeeded by more in-depth and radical studies - perhaps they're already happening in quieter corners. For now, though, she's kicking off an important discussion in a way few before her have managed.

nesf wrote: »

No, but in too many places including here any attack on her is seen as an attack on feminism by some.

There are definitely valid criticisms to be leveled against her videos, all without being an attack on feminism. People are always encouraged to articulate them.

However some comments like "also feminism is fine, being a feminist means you are going into it with an agenda already. Both are different and both aren't necessarily bad. This critique could definitely be done by a feminist but to do that you have to leave any bias at the door" illustrate to me a fundamental misunderstanding of how feminism has worked (and often worked wonders) since its inception, and a need for some defense.

Timmyctc wrote: »

[/B]

She actively ignores anything that refutes her point because she's only looking to prove the viewpoint she has. The bias may not be feminism related, maybe its just her inability to approach a study in an objective manner.

The study makes no pretenses of being totally scientifically objective, though - very few pieces of cultural critique would, because that's not how it works. It's as much a personal response as it is a theoretical one. I have little doubt that Sarkeesian's terms are based on many years of observation, analysis and indeed play, during which she has reached her own conclusions and is now expanding on them. After all, we've all independently come to our own conclusions about the 'state of gaming', and I'm sure many people were concerned about these types of issues well before Sarkeesian launched her kickstarter campaign.

It's unfair to suggest she doesn't address points that refute her own. She has taken the time in almost all her videos to acknowledge and comment on the most common rebuttals and criticisms to the points she is making. She has also on several occasions taken the opportunity to point out games that do challenge or step beyond the tropes (there's a positive section on Papa & Yo in the latest video), and indeed a whole video later in the series is set to focus entirely on 'positive female characters', so it's not unreasonable to expect her to point out positives in games she has already criticised (as she has stressed repeatedly, it's wholly possible to enjoy a game while finding issue with certain aspects of it). Indeed, one of the problems here is that we're talking about an incomplete series, and truly definitive conclusions on its range and success will have to wait until its done in the - distant, it seems - future.

I'd liken it to a school or college debate. A team's first goal is to express their point of view, and then rebut. That's what as far as I'm concerned Sarkeesian is doing here - laying out her cards and point of view, while taking the time to address some of the rebuttals. You need to stand your ground. It's a defensive approach as much as offensive, but then most writers or authors have to be be willing to stand up for their convictions and express themselves in a clear and concise manner (although the latter is not something we can accuse Tropes vs Video Games of ). From a personal perspective, I fear one of the main reasons she doesn't present more counter examples is that they're actually quite thin on the ground - and it's very difficult to point out examples of works that are in opposition to tropes unless they explicitly make an effort to do so.

As I said earlier, to me what's so useful about the series is that it's being offered in such an easily digestible form - full of straightforward language and copious amounts of clips to accompany the points. Making the arguments in an accessible manner has already gotten the issues a lot more attention and wider discussions than any rigorous academic study on the topic ever will (and I'd also agree with Radiosonde a rigorous academic study would be quite limited in its ability to explore these types of issues anyway). I can only restress that I think there's a whole lot of room for improvement in terms of gaming criticism generally, and I look forward to more critics exploring this sort of territory in fresh and innovative ways.

Can we clarify what type of evidence we're talking about here? The latest video offers lengthy clips from 30 different games to back up the points she makes, which to me is more than sufficient to support her commentary and general concepts.

Retr0gamer wrote:

What Anita is doing is far from scientific which is my problem

Cultural criticism in general is far from scientific, and I doubt its foremost practitioners would argue otherwise