The Feminist Frequency Kickstarter: The reason it's so important

[SaintRidley]

{Scrubbed}

[Seraph]

The Internet: where only white middle class heterosexual men are allowed to talk about how oppressed they are by the mean fascist minorities.

[Omergideon]

I agree with the principle. All forms of prejudice and bigotry need to be discussed and debated reasonably and rationally. And some of the response.......uggh. Truly idiotic and sickening.

ALL Forms though. Against all sorts, yes even the white middle class males in the world. No one type of prejudice is more acceptable than others.

Though I think people are more apt to notice things that depict their own group badly than others. Shame about that.

[cleric_of_BANJO]

ugh... people need to learn to use the word troll properly.

"a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion."
- Wikipedia

A troll is not just someone who disagrees with you, or someone who gets angry. It's someone who is looking to make other people angry only for the purpose of mocking them. For example, the kind of person that goes on every Justin Bieber video and posts 'jb sucks,' just so people will start arguing in the comments section.


/rant about trolling.


Okay, onto the actual topic. I absolutely understand someone wanting to do a feminist critique of video games, I think as an intellectual endeavor it is commendable, and (if she's a good critic) I'd be interested in what she has to say. HOWEVER, I am surprised she expects people to pay money for a simple review series (just five videos). There are dozens of talented reviewers who put lots of work into their reviews without guilting people into donating money. And I'm even more surprised she was so successful.


And, just as a last word on the "violent misogynistic racist homophobic trolls" you (and feministfrequency) keep referring to; I wouldn't be so quick to label them as such. Obviously, since it's the Youtube comments section, there are going to be very inflammatory comments, and those can't be taken seriously. However, misogyny is in no way alone in that regard, and in any video about, for example, President Obama, you'll find just as much (or more) hatred in the comments section. But if you work past these comments, you'll find that some people are making legitimate arguments, or have legitimate complaints, and calling them all violent, racist and homophobic is probably a bad way to promote discourse.

[Seraph]

ALL Forms though. Against all sorts, yes even the white middle class males in the world. No one type of prejudice is more acceptable than others.

see, that's the thing. talking about how WMCs get shafted sometimes isn't in and of itself a problem, because it DOES happen sometimes for legitimately bigoted reasons (My mom got rejected as a professor in favor of an underqualified person who satisfied UD's affirmative action quotas and told this to her face, for instance).

The problem is when the aforementioned White Middle Classers will crash any discussion of minorities, women, etc. being discriminated against with some ridiculous tirade about "A BLOO BLOO BLOO YOU HAVE AA AND CIVIL RIGHTS YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO COMPLAIN" that is very very clearly not rooted in any sense of reality and is, put bluntly, motivated by bigotry and butthurt.

[ArlEammon]

The Internet: where only white middle class heterosexual men are allowed to talk about how oppressed they are by the mean fascist minorities.

Why hasn't this political thread been reported to moderators for?

[Tengu_temp]

I'm happy this kickstarted gathered so much money so quickly. Hopefully the end videos will be interesting.


HOWEVER, I am surprised she expects people to pay money for a simple review series (just five videos). There are dozens of talented reviewers who put lots of work into their reviews without guilting people into donating money. And I'm even more surprised she was so successful.

Making good videos is costly, especially if you want to spend so much time and effort on research. Most big internet reviewers get money from their videos, because they're Youtube partners or use Blip. I assume she doesn't, and the money has to come from somewhere.

[Lord Seth]

Okay, onto the actual topic. I absolutely understand someone wanting to do a feminist critique of video games, I think as an intellectual endeavor it is commendable, and (if she's a good critic) I'd be interested in what she has to say. HOWEVER, I am surprised she expects people to pay money for a simple review series (just five videos). There are dozens of talented reviewers who put lots of work into their reviews without guilting people into donating money. And I'm even more surprised she was so successful.Indeed. These kinds of videos have been done by plenty of other people who didn't need $6,000 to do their "research." I'm baffled as to what could cost that much. This isn't something that looks like it'll need great special effects or something...and if money is that big of a problem, at this point it's not particularly hard to monetize your videos for YouTube.

I'm not sure what the point of donating to it now is, even. Even if it did somehow require $6,000 to make this video series, the kickstarter is up to $36,000 now, which is more than quite a few people make in a year. Donating to the kickstarter fund at this point is a lot less about actually funding the project and a lot more about giving someone free money.

[Tengu_temp]

Once again: making good videos costs a lot of time and effort. People like Nostalgia Critic, or Angry Video Game Nerd, or Spoony? Making internet videos is their job. They get money from it. If not Kickstarter, then who will pay for Anika Sarkeesian's food while she works on these videos?

Becoming a Youtube partner means that you're obliged to put out a new video every X days. It's not viable if you just want to make a short series and don't have specific deadlines for each episode.

[Lord Seth]

Once again: making good videos costs a lot of time and effort.From my experience, unless you're actually trying to do some kind of scripted fictional series (e.g. There Will Be Brawl, Kickassia), the biggest monetary cost is a camera and editing software. Maybe an external hard drive too. Clearly the individual already has those, and even if they need more space those things are a far, far cry from $6,000. And especially from $36,000.

People like Nostalgia Critic, or Angry Video Game Nerd, or Spoony? Making internet videos is their job. They get money from it.And they were able to do it before it became their job. Sure they did it more later on, but I don't think any of them actually started it up as a full time job.


Becoming a Youtube partner means that you're obliged to put out a new video every X days.Er...does it? It's not listed anywhere in the criteria that I see. And considering how long some partners have gone without uploading a video...

[Lothston]

I don't get it.

Art, especially mass art, has always relied heavily on tropes and stereotypes. Some have even evolved into genre laws. Some of these tropes have to do with women, others with men, children, animals, items, the weather etc. Some of the tropes are negative, others positive, yet others can be both. E.g. Femme Fatale is insidious, but she is also beautiful. The Action Hero is buff, but he is often lacking in intelligence (not that he needs it all that often, with the kind of movies he's in).

The project starter believes that women are "stereotyped" in games. But, women are "stereotyped" in all other media as well. And so are men. That's how entertainment industry works. That's how art works. Even "high art". Look at Shakespeare - many of his characters are what can be called "stereotypes". In Italian and Japanese masked theatre traditions characters aren't even unique - they represent archetypes rather than individuals.

Should we criticize Shakespeare for making his Juliet (and Romeo!) beautiful? Should we criticize Сommedia dell'arte and Noh actors for donning a "stereotypical" persona?

Should we reprimand the artists of Ancient Greece and Renaissance for choosing to chisel and paint handsome, beautiful, powerful people?

Should we tear down the Olympic ideal - and replace it with what?

Mediocrity? Obesity? Plainness? Weakness?

Personally, I see very good reasons for promoting strength, agility, resourcefulness, and physical beauty in mass media. It all gives us a lofty ideal to strive for. It encourages people to work towards self-improvement. And also shows that humanity is more than just a mass of "average joes and janes", that it includes many outstanding individuals. I think it's a good thing for humanity as a whole.

Attacks on this ideal are, in my eyes, oftentimes caused by personal insecurities and frustrations. Instead of overcoming these issues, the person in question lashes out at the external factor which is triggering that person's dissatisfaction with himself or herself.

Or, it can simply be a moneymaking scheme. Which, as the kickstarter shows, can be quite successful.

P.S. The video itself is actually quite funny. Smurfs and Lego figures as a reflection of society's view on women? Oh yeah, that stands up to scrutiny.

[blackspeeker]

@Lothston, I think it isnt a critique on beauty/characters that are physically strong or beautiful. Instead it seems to be a critique on the oversexualization of women in video games.

I don't understand why people have such a problem with what she's doing.

[endoperez]

From my experience, unless you're actually trying to do some kind of scripted fictional series (e.g. There Will Be Brawl, Kickassia), the biggest monetary cost is a camera and editing software. Maybe an external hard drive too. Clearly the individual already has those, and even if they need more space those things are a far, far cry from $6,000. And especially from $36,000.

More likely, the costs would go to hire someone to edit the videos. I mean, if she's serious about this, she's going to let the professional guys do their work. Very few people are good enough to be able to do the camerawork, the editing, the sound, the music, AND the research, all on their own and to the standards they'd like to.

Of course it could be something else too, and she seems to be getting a nice amount of trouble out of this. However, after reading through that comment page, she deserves it. Sheesh. I don't frequent youtube comments, but I had no idea it was that bad.

[SaintRidley]

I'm happy this kickstarted gathered so much money so quickly. Hopefully the end videos will be interesting.



Making good videos is costly, especially if you want to spend so much time and effort on research. Most big internet reviewers get money from their videos, because they're Youtube partners or use Blip. I assume she doesn't, and the money has to come from somewhere.

She also needs to acquire the games, too. I mean, she owns games, but she's going to want to look farther and deeper to get a better critique.

Also, more like an 11 part series now.

[Scowling Dragon]

Who needs 5 videos on the topic? Realy? I know whats wrong, whats sexist in games. I don't need it pointed out to me.

[Tengu_temp]

And they were able to do it before it became their job. Sure they did it more later on, but I don't think any of them actually started it up as a full time job.

And those early videos were kinda short and crappy in comparison to the latter ones. A video that aims to be as accurate as possible, and intended to be educational, not entertainment, will require much more effort than that.


Er...does it? It's not listed anywhere in the criteria that I see. And considering how long some partners have gone without uploading a video...

Every partner has a different deal, I believe. And in any case, you need to have a pretty big channel for them to offer you partnership in the first place.

I don't see what is the big deal with the fact that she asks for money for this. She's putting lots of time and effort into making 10+ videos and has to buy all the video games needed for the research, even if she gets more money than the costs, she deserves it for all the work. It's not like you have to pay to watch the video or that you lose anything if you don't pay, it's all 100% voluntary.


Who needs 5 videos on the topic? Realy? I know whats wrong, whats sexist in games. I don't need it pointed out to me.

Some people do, though. Heck, you can see that even in this thread.

[Scowling Dragon]

And those people will be too ignorant to learn from them.

[AtlanteanTroll]

Some people do, though. Heck, you can see that even in this thread.

Prove it then, oh wise one.

[Tengu_temp]

Prove it then, oh wise one.

Sure thing. You have a post which even starts with "I don't get it", not even half a page above this one.

[AtlanteanTroll]

Sure thing. You have a post who even admits himself he doesn't get it, not even half of the page above this one.

He doesn't get why the video is being made. He understands that the tropes and stereotypes exist. And it would seem everyone else does as well.

[Whiffet]

Those youtube comments. Oh... oh my... :smalleek:

Do they not realize they're doing this (http://www.smbc-comics.com/?db=comics&id=1067)? (Warning: specific page is okay, but browsing is likely to lead to stuff NSFW)

[Tengu_temp]

He doesn't get why the video is being made. He understands that the tropes and stereotypes exist. And it would seem everyone else does as well.

No, he's talking about characters being portrayed as attractive, which is something completely different (but which he thinks people consider the big issue). He also says that male characters are being stereotyped in the same way female ones are, which is simply not true.

Extra Credits did a few good videos on the issue. Look them up. For starters:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8ZVZRsy8N8
http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/true-female-characters

[AtlanteanTroll]

No, he's talking about characters being portrayed as attractive, which is something completely different (but which he thinks people consider the big issue). He also says that male characters are being stereotyped in the same way female ones are, which is simply not true.

Extra Credits did a few good videos on the issue. Look them up. For starters:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8ZVZRsy8N8
http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/true-female-characters

Perhaps I just read into his post wrong, but he never said that men were stereotyped as attractive on the whole. (I suppose he did once when mentioning Romeo and Juliet, but still.) He said they were stereotyped as less than intelligent and buff. Which just goes into his overarching point that people are stereotyped throughout entertainment. But, once again, perhaps I read into it wrong... But then again, perhaps you did as well.

[Othesemo]

I fail to see how anything meaningful will be accomplished by throwing more money at her. An admirable cause, but ultimately an ineffective, expensive and tired one. If I want to actually promote 'reason, rationality, intelligence, and finesse over brute, unthinking, reactionary trolling,' I'll find something for which the former qualities are actually a prerequisite. Oh, and people need to stop misusing troll. Reducing its meaning to 'anybody who disagrees with me' renders it meaningless.

To be honest, I'm more interested in buying more games than in paying her to criticize them.

On an unrelated note, taking youtube comments seriously is just silly. Even looking at them is essentially asking for somebody to make you angry.

[Omergideon]

I get if someone wanted to spend 3 months or so making professional level videos with interviews, media, critiques and the like they would need money. Living costs, equipment, interviews with people, media itself, lawsuit money etc. It all adds up.

And yeah, every group should have the right to mention the times it gets legitimately shafted. And I do think that male characters in games and media are often portrayed in extremely negative ways. Positive too (more often than female ones are tbh). But it is bad frequently enough that it should be commented on. The stoic badass ideal, the comedic man-child. Most advertising portrayals of men. Etc.

So I support this drive in many ways. I would also like companion videos regarding stereotyped male/minority/religious/atheist portrayals, why they are bad and how this is an issue. More often the problem is not as simple as "women treated bad, men not. Let is change". Not that this woman is saying this, but meh.

(note I am not fond of terms like feminist purely because they imply that other groups do not matter as much)

[endoperez]

Who needs 5 videos on the topic? Realy? I know whats wrong, whats sexist in games. I don't need it pointed out to me.

Video game developers, for one. Depending on how it's handled, this could be good.

[SaintRidley]

By way of proving it, I'll respond to Lothston's post. Not to say Lothston is a bad person or anything, but the post works well for exemplification.


I don't get it.

Art, especially mass art, has always relied heavily on tropes and stereotypes. Some have even evolved into genre laws. Some of these tropes have to do with women, others with men, children, animals, items, the weather etc. Some of the tropes are negative, others positive, yet others can be both. E.g. Femme Fatale is insidious, but she is also beautiful. The Action Hero is buff, but he is often lacking in intelligence (not that he needs it all that often, with the kind of movies he's in).



Art is the means by which culture expresses itself. Tropes are the commonalities of that expression. Indeed, art relies heavily on tropes and stereotypes. That is not at issue. What is at issue is what the tropes and stereotypes common to our modern art say about our culture and whether what they say reflects what we want to be as a culture.


The project starter believes that women are "stereotyped" in games. But, women are "stereotyped" in all other media as well. And so are men. That's how entertainment industry works. That's how art works. Even "high art". Look at Shakespeare - many of his characters are what can be called "stereotypes". In Italian and Japanese masked theatre traditions characters aren't even unique - they represent archetypes rather than individuals.

Women are stereotyped in other media. She's done many videos analyzing the sexist portrayal of women in other media. She has also covered how it happens with men and how it is different than how it happens with women. In "Women in Refrigerators" she discusses the propensity for otherwise competent and powerful female characters to be killed, off-screen, solely to motivate character development in male characters. You never see the reverse.

Art does work from the use of stereotypes. It is how these stereotypes are used that creates problems. Yes, Shakespeare used sterotypes, but here's something to think about. Shakespeare is not immune to criticism. Shakespeare (and other "high art") is not infallible. Shakespeare, who was admittedly a product of his time and seems to have been quite a bit ahead of the curve in some respects, still doesn't get it right - look at The Taming of the Shrew and The Merchant of Venice. These plays get a lot of heavy debate regarding race and gender. Shakespeare is still a controversial figure.




Should we criticize Shakespeare for making his Juliet (and Romeo!) beautiful? Should we criticize Сommedia dell'arte and Noh actors for donning a "stereotypical" persona?


First of all, the type of criticism here is academic literary criticism, not the kind of film review criticism that comes to mind to the layperson. We should not criticize (lay definition) Romeo and Juliet for being beautiful nor archetypical representations. We should, however, criticize (academic definition), the way these factors are presented.

We should look at Romeo and Juliet and question Juliet's agency, the values that they held and lived under. We should look at Shylock and really examine how Shakespeare writes his Jewish antagonist, how the marriage of Portia is set up to remove her agency. We should question the value of old archetypes and whether they stand up to modernity.


Should we reprimand the artists of Ancient Greece and Renaissance for choosing to chisel and paint handsome, beautiful, powerful people?


Nobody is suggesting reprimanding the ancients - how do you reprimand the dead anyway? There are issues that are discomfiting to modern audiences. Do the rage of Achilles and the Greek heroic ideal still seem like desirable traits? Why so? Why not? How do these ideas clash with the civilization we would like to become?



Should we tear down the Olympic ideal - and replace it with what?

Mediocrity? Obesity? Plainness? Weakness?


Should we find our own ideal? Should we recognize that perhaps the ideal is impossible, unobtainable, ultimately lacking in any real value? What is the worth of ideals?

Why the body shaming language in your clearly facetious options for new ideals? Or the fact that we have moved away from the Olympic ideal many times - the Victorian ideal and the Olympic idea were leagues apart.

Nobody suggests mediocrity, obesity, plainness, or weakness as ideals to strive for. In part this is because the attainment of these qualities more often involves a distinct lack of striving. They are not achievements and have no place in the question.



Personally, I see very good reasons for promoting strength, agility, resourcefulness, and physical beauty in mass media. It all gives us a lofty ideal to strive for. It encourages people to work towards self-improvement. And also shows that humanity is more than just a mass of "average joes and janes", that it includes many outstanding individuals. I think it's a good thing for humanity as a whole.


And this has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Should we as a society be putting our representations of women down to raise up our representations of men? Should we simultaneously praise female beauty while muttering that it is a way to trick men? Should we be content with a society where a woman has to work twice as hard as a man does merely to be considered on par? With gratuitous sexualization of women, regardless of context, merely to hold men's attention because those poor men don't think with the heads they keep above their shoulders?

That is the issue at hand. Women are by and large a decorative sex in media. There is a reason we look at the Smurfette Principle. Women get drowned out in a sea of men. Racial and ethnic minorities get drowned out in a sea of white faces. Gay characters will almost always be the flamboyant token gay among the entire cast. Because it's hard for writers to capture the experiences of these groups they don't try. They create a token to show that they're not completely out of touch, but the token only proves how out of touch they are.

Even when women are represented on a more equitable level, we run into the issue the Bechdel test addresses: the tendency for women's conversations to revolve solely around men.


Attacks on this ideal are, in my eyes, oftentimes caused by personal insecurities and frustrations. Instead of overcoming these issues, the person in question lashes out at the external factor which is triggering that person's dissatisfaction with himself or herself.

Yeah, this is pretty much completely unrelated to the issue at hand.


Or, it can simply be a moneymaking scheme. Which, as the kickstarter shows, can be quite successful.

P.S. The video itself is actually quite funny. Smurfs and Lego figures as a reflection of society's view on women? Oh yeah, that stands up to scrutiny.

***Yep. Media totally does not reinforce or expand social mores and definitely does not have any influence on how people think. The Smurfette Principle is completely innocuous and the tired stereotypes inherent in the Lego sets she discusses don't matter because real men deal with danger and women deal with food. It's totally natural. Analysis of sexism in media is completely worthless because the media is building blocks and tiny blue people. Only true art like Shakespeare is worthy of such analysis, but we can't do that because he's immune to criticism. Just shut up and take it, wimmenfolk.***


*** This section entirely sarcastic and and not a charitable interpretation of your argument. It is, however, what your argument may well appear to be to many, including myself.

[Scowling Dragon]

Video game developers, for one. Depending on how it's handled, this could be good.

They don't care. Sex sells.

[SaintRidley]

I fail to see how anything meaningful will be accomplished by throwing more money at her. An admirable cause, but ultimately an ineffective, expensive and tired one. If I want to actually promote 'reason, rationality, intelligence, and finesse over brute, unthinking, reactionary trolling,' I'll find something for which the former qualities are actually a prerequisite. Oh, and people need to stop misusing troll. Reducing its meaning to 'anybody who disagrees with me' renders it meaningless.


Yeah, because trying to tear her videos down as terrorism and hurling every racist, sexist, homophobic insult her way for pointing out the existence of a problem within videogames and the gaming community is totally not trolling.

[Othesemo]

Yeah, because trying to tear her videos down as terrorism and hurling every racist, sexist, homophobic insult her way for pointing out the existence of a problem within videogames and the gaming community is totally not trolling.

Neither is becoming outraged when somebody asks to be paid to tear down your moral, religious and cultural values. I'm not saying that they aren't stupid, or that they aren't wrong, but simply dismissing them as trolls (with the occasional adjective attached) does absolutely nothing productive. You're just tritely dismissing them.

[Serpentine]

In a hurry now, but big thumbs up to Tengu Temp. Thank you.

[thegurullamen]

Neither is becoming outraged when somebody asks to be paid to tear down your moral, religious and cultural values. I'm not saying that they aren't stupid, or that they aren't wrong, but simply dismissing them as trolls (with the occasional adjective attached) does absolutely nothing productive. You're just tritely dismissing them.

Might not be trolling, but it is absurd. Lots of people ask to be paid to do just that--check out the political sections of bookstores and tell me how many pundit books exist poking holes in various ideologies. Only difference is they ask to be paid after the product has been made. Kickstarter allows for people to ask for that money up front.

So yes, it's easy to dismiss their problems on that ground alone.

[Forum Explorer]

I don't see why it is unreasonable to have the expectation for a video reviewer to start off with already made free videos. For example my personal favorite video game reviewer made Zero Punctuation. When he first started he was making them for free and posting them online. Due to the high quality of his work and popularity eventually he got hired on and now is paid to make his videos. As far as I know the same is true for many other different online reviewers.



Also I don't see how what she will do will actually help. Yes it is a worthy pursuit and it will be nice to see. However I doubt the people who need to hear the message would actually see it, or listen to it. Something I would rather see is a kickstarter for the making of a video game that transcends the stereotypes that we are bothered by.

[thegurullamen]

Also I don't see how what she will do will actually help. Yes it is a worthy pursuit and it will be nice to see. However I doubt the people who need to hear the message would actually see it, or listen to it. Something I would rather see is a kickstarter for the making of a video game that transcends the stereotypes that we are bothered by.

There's always going to be a problem with your approach, no matter which approach you take. Set out to make a game about something as contentious as feminism and it'll draw press both good and bad which obscures the actual value of the game. I'm a fan of the grass roots video approach--it's just about having a place to centralize arguments about these issues that people can point to when they need to. Also, if they get big enough, they could cause some small yet noticeable changes in PR and game production, which is both the point and a good first step.

[Othesemo]

Might not be trolling, but it is absurd. Lots of people ask to be paid to do just that--check out the political sections of bookstores and tell me how many pundit books exist poking holes in various ideologies. Only difference is they ask to be paid after the product has been made. Kickstarter allows for people to ask for that money up front.

So yes, it's easy to dismiss their problems on that ground alone.

It is absurd, agreed. I'm just not fond of simply dismissing other people's arguments and beliefs with the word 'troll,' as if that carries all of the rhetorical power to just make them go away.

The main issue that I take with the actual project is that it's a waste of money. People who donate will be able to feel morally superior and nod to themselves saying 'That's right! I'm right and she agrees with me!' whereas the people who don't care (or the people whose behavior it specifically aims to correct) won't watch it. There are better uses for $36,000.

[Forum Explorer]

There's always going to be a problem with your approach, no matter which approach you take. Set out to make a game about something as contentious as feminism and it'll draw press both good and bad which obscures the actual value of the game. I'm a fan of the grass roots video approach--it's just about having a place to centralize arguments about these issues that people can point to when they need to. Also, if they get big enough, they could cause some small yet noticeable changes in PR and game production, which is both the point and a good first step.

Well ideally you wouldn't make the game about feminism. It would just be an ordinary game, without sexist stereotypes. If you made a really good game it should become popular which might encourage others to make similar games.

[thegurullamen]

Well ideally you wouldn't make the game about feminism. It would just be an ordinary game, without sexist stereotypes. If you made a really good game it should become popular which might encourage others to make similar games.

Yes. I agree. Lots of examples of that. Or, some anyway. I just assumed that since we're in a thread about raising money for raising awareness of these tropes, that the hypothetical money would go towards a game with that as its conceptual foundation, which I think would be a mistake.


The main issue that I take with the actual project is that it's a waste of money. People who donate will be able to feel morally superior and nod to themselves saying 'That's right! I'm right and she agrees with me!' whereas the people who don't care (or the people whose behavior it specifically aims to correct) won't watch it. There are better uses for $36,000.

Alright. You're definitely entitled to that opinion, it's just that there are $36,000 worth of proof that many people feel otherwise. People willing to spend that kind of money to see this come to light should not be easily dismissed either, even if you disagree with them.

[Tengu_temp]

The main issue that I take with the actual project is that it's a waste of money.

Am I the only one who sees nothing wrong that this woman will get much more money from this project than she expected? She tries to make a difference, wants to make interesting and informative videos. Way more money is thrown away at a much worse projects worldwide every minute.

[Traab]

Might not be trolling, but it is absurd. Lots of people ask to be paid to do just that--check out the political sections of bookstores and tell me how many pundit books exist poking holes in various ideologies. Only difference is they ask to be paid after the product has been made. Kickstarter allows for people to ask for that money up front.

So yes, it's easy to dismiss their problems on that ground alone.

Meh, the majority of the people who buy those hole poking books are likely the same ones who already agreed. I bet the "prove me wrong" market isnt very flush with sheer numbers of customers. And the people who already agree with you dont exactly need to read more on the subject. "By god, I was RIGHT! If you TEACH that man to fish, he really WILL be able to eat for a lifetime! This book even says so!"

[Othesemo]

Am I the only one who sees nothing wrong that this woman will get much more money from this project than she expected? She tries to make a difference, wants to make interesting and informative videos. Way more money is thrown away at a much worse projects worldwide every minute.

Perhaps. And I have the same problem with those projects. Personally, however, I do see something wrong with so much money, time and effort being funneled into a project that will ultimately achieve nothing. A good will, however Kantian, doesn't deserve so much.

[Bulldog Psion]

Well, actually, I think this is a train wreck of a topic, so I'm gittin' while the gittin' is good.

[Gnoman]

Meh, the majority of the people who buy those hole poking books are likely the same ones who already agreed. I bet the "prove me wrong" market isnt very flush with sheer numbers of customers. And the people who already agree with you dont exactly need to read more on the subject. "By god, I was RIGHT! If you TEACH that man to fish, he really WILL be able to eat for a lifetime! This book even says so!"

Either that, or people are buying the books specifically to arm themselves against that person's arguments. You'd be stunned at some of the books I've seen stamped with "Property of -political organization-." In that case, it's usually a rection to the work being a success and causing damage, rather than a cause of it.

[thegurullamen]

Meh, the majority of the people who buy those hole poking books are likely the same ones who already agreed. I bet the "prove me wrong" market isnt very flush with sheer numbers of customers. And the people who already agree with you dont exactly need to read more on the subject. "By god, I was RIGHT! If you TEACH that man to fish, he really WILL be able to eat for a lifetime! This book even says so!"

Usually yes, but I'm hoping this series will be more intellectually sound than any of those books. And again, having a series to serve as a touching point when discussing these topics elsewhere is a good thing.

EDIT: ...Aaaand I think we've reached critical mass for this thread. I think I'll just continue my arguments on the KS page itself.

[Othesemo]

Usually yes, but I'm hoping this series will be more intellectually sound than any of those books. And again, having a series to serve as a touching point when discussing these topics elsewhere is a good thing.

What new information is she going to bring up? She may be a very intelligent, well read person (apparently, some women's studies courses have used her videos, which is somewhat impressive), but without some innovative aspect to her work it's meaningless, except for the aforementioned moral superiority.

[Surrealistik]

Colossal waste of money.

In short, I stand behind most of what Othesemo has said.

[SaintRidley]

Hey, Kickstarter person, if you want an ad on this site, BUY ONE like everyone else.

Anita has no idea that this is here. I am not Anita, nor am I affiliated with her. I posted this because the discussion about sexism (and bigotry in general) in video games and the gaming community at large is important.

Likewise, the part of the quote you bolded seems like the very worst part of that quote. It is dismissive of the value of media based on cosmetic aspects and dismissive of the entire field of Critical Theory. Media criticism exists to unpack the issues that inform our society in all their ugliness, their beauty, their faddishness, and their historicity. The discussion is needed and dismissing the tools which lay down the foundation of the discussion is counterproductive.

[Moff Chumley]

They don't care. Sex sells.

Which is, of course, why Valve hasn't made a penny and no one's played their games.

[Kindablue]

Media criticism exists to unpack the issues that inform our society in all their ugliness, their beauty, their faddishness, and their historicity. The discussion is needed and dismissing the tools which lay down the foundation of the discussion is counterproductive.

Very well said. I won't be donating to her project (I don't play video games), but I wish it luck.

[Avilan the Grey]

I think it might be needed, but I can already tell that I will disagree with her on lots and lots of things.

[Talya]

Speaking as a woman, I hate most forms of Feminism. (Not all forms of it, though (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-positive_feminism).)

[Kindablue]

Also, is it just me or is that image of the coquettish Pacwoman really, really disturbing to anyone else? Not in an abstract "oh what horrible stereotypes" kind of way either. It's visceral, like seeing a deadly insect on your hand.

[Othesemo]

Likewise, the part of the quote you bolded seems like the very worst part of that quote. It is dismissive of the value of media based on cosmetic aspects and dismissive of the entire field of Critical Theory. Media criticism exists to unpack the issues that inform our society in all their ugliness, their beauty, their faddishness, and their historicity.

Media in general exists to satisfy our desires and get rich in the process. If it's actually accurate, lovely, but that isn't why it exists.


The discussion is needed and dismissing the tools which lay down the foundation of the discussion is counterproductive.

Why? Why must we debate, discuss and argue? What grand design do you hope to achieve with your small, pixelated text?

[Forum Explorer]

Yes. I agree. Lots of examples of that. Or, some anyway. I just assumed that since we're in a thread about raising money for raising awareness of these tropes, that the hypothetical money would go towards a game with that as its conceptual foundation, which I think would be a mistake.



Pretty much everything by Valve is a good example of that. But yeah if the money was spent on a game instead it would likely fail and just be a game about feminism.

[SaintRidley]

Media in general exists to satisfy our desires and get rich in the process. If it's actually accurate, lovely, but that isn't why it exists.


And that's immaterial to the point of criticism.




Why? Why must we debate, discuss and argue? What grand design do you hope to achieve with your small, pixelated text?

What more reason could we need than to improve ourselves through the effort?

[Othesemo]

What more reason could we need than to improve ourselves through the effort?

Oh? Do you consider yourself in some way flawed? Surely you realize the truth here; surely you are supporting the right cause. What flaw do you possess that can only be ameliorated by criticizing others?

[SaintRidley]

Oh? Do you consider yourself in some way flawed? Surely you realize the truth here; surely you are supporting the right cause. What flaw do you possess that can only be ameliorated by criticizing others?

I have the flaw of intellectual curiosity and the need to ameliorate it through literary and media criticism.

[Othesemo]

I have the flaw of intellectual curiosity and the need to ameliorate it through literary and media criticism.

The satiation of curiosity is hardly tantamount to improving ourselves as a whole, and certainly isn't good without qualification. Regardless, you already seem quite decided about your opinions here. Do you think it at all likely that your mind be changed (by the posters on youtube or by her)?

[Lothston]

By way of proving it, I'll respond to Lothston's post. Not to say Lothston is a bad person or anything, but the post works well for exemplification.

Well, at least you're not saying I'm a bad person. I'll take it as a compliment :tongue:


Art is the means by which culture expresses itself. Tropes are the commonalities of that expression. Indeed, art relies heavily on tropes and stereotypes. That is not at issue. What is at issue is what the tropes and stereotypes common to our modern art say about our culture and whether what they say reflects what we want to be as a culture.

Can't argue with that. Rather well put, I'd say.


Women are stereotyped in other media. She's done many videos analyzing the sexist portrayal of women in other media. She has also covered how it happens with men and how it is different than how it happens with women.

I wonder if her next financial plan is to make a huge umbrella project for all these efforts of hers. With the current state of affairs, she might make millions off the Internet populace.


In "Women in Refrigerators" she discusses the propensity for otherwise competent and powerful female characters to be killed, off-screen, solely to motivate character development in male characters. You never see the reverse.

There are tons of cases when men get killed in media. In fact, it's highly likely that men are killed much, much more in media than women. And very often it is done to motivate character development in the protagonist. The partner cop, the teacher/martial arts sensei, the father, the friend, the comrade-in-arms, even the son - they are all being killed by the plot so the protagonist can shake his fist at the heavens and go on a revenge-fueled rampage. "The girlfriend/wife" is just one among many types of "plot sacrifices".

I am not even talking about war movies when there are literally heaps of male corpses everywhere with not a single dead woman to be found.

And of course, if the protagonist happens to be female, then the victims serve to promote her character development. Your claim that this never happens is totally detached from reality. Just to offer a few examples off the top of my head:

Classics:

"Romeo and Juliet" (Romeo's death vs. Juliet);
"Hamlet" (death of Hamlet's father vs. the Queen; death of Polonius vs. Ophelia);
"Macbeth" (death of King Duncan vs. Lady Macbeth);
"King Lear" (death of Lear vs. Cordelia);
"Dangerous Liaisons" (Valmont's death vs. Marquise de Merteuil and Mme de Tourvel) (also made into 2 modern movies);

Modern visual culture:

"Heathers" (a number of male characters die so that the female protagonist can grow out of her teen angst);
"Buffy the Vampire Slayer" (Spike's death in Season 7 vs. Buffy)
"Dexter" (the Ice Truck Killer vs. Debra Morgan)
"The Descent" (the death of the female protagonist's husband - which actually does happen off-screen, or at least in a flash-back - has a great impact on her psyche and is at the root of the entire plot).

As for video games, I can't say I play the particular variety that the project author seems to be using (suffice to say, I have a steady disappreciation for console gaming), but I did play a substantial number of RPGs, and there men often die to "motivate" the protagonist, who can be played as a female (examples: Fallout 1-2, Baldur's Gate (Gorion), Dragon Age, Mass Effect etc.). I would say that the project starter should have used these games as benchmarks rather than the mindless, trite action games she's using, but, to each his own.


Art does work from the use of stereotypes. It is how these stereotypes are used that creates problems. Yes, Shakespeare used sterotypes, but here's something to think about. Shakespeare is not immune to criticism. Shakespeare (and other "high art") is not infallible. Shakespeare, who was admittedly a product of his time and seems to have been quite a bit ahead of the curve in some respects, still doesn't get it right - look at The Taming of the Shrew and The Merchant of Venice. These plays get a lot of heavy debate regarding race and gender. Shakespeare is still a controversial figure.

Oh, so we're bashing Shakespeare now /facepalm

Seriously though, let's not talk about how old Bill "didn't get it right".


First of all, the type of criticism here is academic literary criticism, not the kind of film review criticism that comes to mind to the layperson.

First off, how would film review criticism be not as "academic" as literature criticism?

Second, I would not go as far as to suggest you're implying that we are the laypeople and you're the "professional" here. However, the dichotomy of the word "criticism" can be explained more simply via dictionary:


crit·i·cism (krt-szm)
n.
1. The act of criticizing, especially adversely.
2. A critical comment or judgment.
3.
a. The practice of analyzing, classifying, interpreting, or evaluating literary or other artistic works.
b. A critical article or essay; a critique.
c. The investigation of the origin and history of literary documents; textual criticism.

As you can see, there is no need for any "laymen vs. professional" controversy.


We should not criticize (lay definition) Romeo and Juliet for being beautiful nor archetypical representations. We should, however, criticize (academic definition), the way these factors are presented. We should look at Romeo and Juliet and question Juliet's agency, the values that they held and lived under.

When you start "questioning" the values, you're coming dangerously close to "criticizing" in, as you have put it, the lay meaning of the word.


We should look at Shylock and really examine how Shakespeare writes his Jewish antagonist, how the marriage of Portia is set up to remove her agency. We should question the value of old archetypes and whether they stand up to modernity.

Why is Shylock suddenly an "archetype"? One of the most promintent Shakespearean characters, he has a very strong and unique personality. Are you saying he's an archetype and not an individual just because he's Jewish? Would Othello then be an "African" archetype, and Hamlet a "European" archetype? What about Claudius and Iago and Ophelia, are they archetypes as well?

A lot of this is in the eye of the beholder, I would presume.


We should question the value of old archetypes and whether they stand up to modernity.

That's not really academic criticism - it doesn't deal with art itself, but rather with the morality of the author.


Nobody is suggesting reprimanding the ancients - how do you reprimand the dead anyway?

Easily. It can be done posthumously. E.g. by declaring their work hopelessly outdated, "not standing up to modernity", and based on inferiour stereotypes that are "discomfiting to modern audiences".


There are issues that are discomfiting to modern audiences. Do the rage of Achilles and the Greek heroic ideal still seem like desirable traits? Why so? Why not? How do these ideas clash with the civilization we would like to become?

Those are all good questions. Would you mind answering them?


Should we find our own ideal? Should we recognize that perhaps the ideal is impossible, unobtainable, ultimately lacking in any real value? What is the worth of ideals?

How is the Olympic ideal unobtainable and lacking in any real value? With some systematic exercise and a healthy diet basically anyone can come reasonably close. Of course, perfection may be unobtainable for most, but perfection is not the reason behind an ideal anyway: striving towards perfection is.

E.g. Neither of us will ever be as good at physics as Albert Einstein or Nils Bohr, but we still did our homework and studied physics diligently at school.


Why the body shaming language in your clearly facetious options for new ideals?

"Body shaming language" - what does that even mean? I am sincerely at a loss.


Or the fact that we have moved away from the Olympic ideal many times - the Victorian ideal and the Olympic idea were leagues apart.

Really? Didn't think it was quite as much as leagues. In fact, didn't think they were all that different. Would you mind giving some examples? And bear in mind that the Olympic ideal includes not only Heracles and Aphrodite, but also Apollo, Athena, Artemis, Cupido and Psyche etc.


Nobody suggests mediocrity, obesity, plainness, or weakness as ideals to strive for. In part this is because the attainment of these qualities more often involves a distinct lack of striving. They are not achievements and have no place in the question.

That is very good to hear. I can wholeheartedly agree. But what ideal then do you offer? And what does the project starter have in mind on this aspect?


Should we as a society be putting our representations of women down to raise up our representations of men?

Definitely not - but what exactly are you talking about here?


Should we simultaneously praise female beauty while muttering that it is a way to trick men?

Female beauty - or rather, female attractiveness per se - has always been a major cause of men making dubious choices. It's the same in reverse, though.


Should we be content with a society where a woman has to work twice as hard as a man does merely to be considered on par?

Are you talking about our modern society now?


With gratuitous sexualization of women, regardless of context, merely to hold men's attention because those poor men don't think with the heads they keep above their shoulders?

And the gratuitous sexualization of men, regardless of context, merely to hold women's attention. When was the last time you've seen an ugly man in a glam magazine, on an advertisement or in a TV commercial? Only when the ugliness was somehow warranted by marketing (e.g. "user of opposing brand X"). Is it because women don't think... but I will stop your hapless analogy here.


That is the issue at hand. Women are by and large a decorative sex in media.

With the advent and pervasiveness of Action Girls everywhere that is simply not so. Furthermore, as the project starter herself demonstrates, there are many games with female main characters, which by definition means their role is central and pivotal, rather than merely decorative.

Finally, the male characters are just as decorative. In games and other media they are usually powerful and attractive. E.g. the "Conan" franchise: the men are just as monstrously ripped as women are considerably endowed.


There is a reason we look at the Smurfette Principle.

Can we please stop referencing an 80-s cartoon for small children as the epitomy of modern zeitgeist regarding women's place in society?


Women get drowned out in a sea of men. Racial and ethnic minorities get drowned out in a sea of white faces. Gay characters will almost always be the flamboyant token gay among the entire cast. Because it's hard for writers to capture the experiences of these groups they don't try. They create a token to show that they're not completely out of touch, but the token only proves how out of touch they are.

Which is untrue, e.g., for those films, games, and books where a woman is a central character, or the protagonist.

"The French lieutenant's Woman" by Fowles is an excellent example of a female character getting excellent literary treatment, despite not actually being the protagonist.


Even when women are represented on a more equitable level, we run into the issue the Bechdel test addresses: the tendency for women's conversations to revolve solely around men.

Really? So the girls in "The Descent" or "Girl, Interrupted" (another good movie with a nearly all-female cast) were only talking about men, they had nothing else to discuss?

Also, men's conversations pretty often revolve around women. In fact, entire plots with male protagonists all too often revolve around women. Yet nobody's making a big deal out of it.


Yeah, this is pretty much completely unrelated to the issue at hand.

It is related, since it may be the root cause of many such outcries.


***Yep. Media totally does not reinforce or expand social mores and definitely does not have any influence on how people think. The Smurfette Principle is completely innocuous and the tired stereotypes inherent in the Lego sets she discusses don't matter because real men deal with danger and women deal with food.

No, it's because the Smurfs is an ancient cartoon only remembered by geeks select few, and lego figures are for the most part simply asexual. I know, I played with Lego when I was a kid, there was no way to tell whether the particular spaceman was a man or a woman under the spacesuit (and we didn't care, at that age). Some of the sets had gender-defined characters due to a particular setting: e.g. a knight and a princess. But you could easily swap armour, weapons and body parts to have a skirted knight or a lady with a sword. If that were your fancy.


*** This section entirely sarcastic and and not a charitable interpretation of your argument. It is, however, what your argument may well appear to be to many, including myself.

I would advise against such sarcastic and un-charitable "interpretations". Let's keep this discussion civilised and not put words in each other's mouths.


No, he's talking about characters being portrayed as attractive, which is something completely different (but which he thinks people consider the big issue). He also says that male characters are being stereotyped in the same way female ones are, which is simply not true.


If you have something to say about my post, why not reply to it? At the very least I would ask you not to "explain" my opinions to others: I am capable of doing that myself.

[Bulldog Psion]

"Body shaming language" - what does that even mean? I am sincerely at a loss.



It means mentioning that obesity exists. You're not supposed to notice, unless you're going to scream enthusiastically "how beautiful and wonderful, just in a different way", except that doing so would probably be offensive for another reason. Just thought I'd provide a translation from "political-correctness-speak".

I don't want to get too involved here, Lothston, but I would like you to know that there's someone standing on the sidelines applauding your efforts. :smallcool:

[Makensha]

I'll watch the videos in an attempt to improve my own female characters, but I'm not about to give money for a single web series when I make less than a third of what she has already acquired in a year.

[Boci]

I wonder is she will address the fact that in real life girls sexualize themselves more than boys in the way they dress, since there are far more ways a girl can acceptably demonstrate her natural (or unnatural) "assets".

[AtlanteanTroll]

Speaking as a dude, that may not be 100% true. If you're a straight dude you probably notice that because you're not looking for sex appeal in the way men dress, but men do definitely dress and style themselves in ways to show off. Women may do it more, and that's iffy, but if so it's because they get more stuff thrown in their face saying they need to be sexy. Men get stuff thrown in their face saying they need to be, well, manly.

On that note, I agree with Bulldog Psion and by and large agree with with most everything Lothston's been saying.

[Othesemo]

Alright. You're definitely entitled to that opinion, it's just that there are $36,000 worth of proof that many people feel otherwise. People willing to spend that kind of money to see this come to light should not be easily dismissed either, even if you disagree with them.

I am opposed to the sale and usage of cocaine, and yet there are billions of dollars of proof that people want it. Doesn't make it good by a long shot.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff of Moddingham: Thread locked.