Rock, Paper, Shotgun

Tropes Vs. Women In Video Games Vs. The Internet

By John Walker on June 13th, 2012 at 4:00 pm.

Thank goodness for April Ryan.

The question of sexism in videogames really oughtn’t be a question at all. Videogames are rife with the thickest seam of sexism, and have been since the first had front covers on the cassettes. Not just in the games themselves, but in the culture surrounding it, from the prevalence – and misogynistic reaction to – ‘booth babes’, to the wretched response received in all corners of the internet when people attempt to discuss it. Pretending otherwise is pointless, and responses of being “tired” of the topic are a statement of acceptance. And there’s no clearer or more revolting evidence of this than the reaction to a Kickstarter by Feminist Frequency‘s Anita Sarkeesian, aiming to raise money to create a web series about the issue. (Here be a trigger warning – and various links from this article go to some pretty unpleasant details.)

Let’s be absolutely clear. I am not saying gamers are all sexist, obviously. And in this particular example, the wonderful side is that a project aiming to raise $6,000 is (at the time of writing) on $89,380, with 65 hours remaining. Most people are pretty decent. But wow, the negative response to this particular project has been deeply disturbing. So, to begin, here’s the Kickstarter video for Tropes Vs. Women In Video Games:

The project looks and sounds very interesting and relevant to me. It will look and sound uninteresting or be perceived as irrelevant to others. People who are interested can respond by donating money, or simply waiting until the videos are completed before viewing them. People who are not, you would imagine, could click away and get on with their day. Most of course will. But quite the most extraordinary reaction has occurred from many who did not.

It kind of terrifies me that reporting that Sarkeesian has received multiple threats of rape and death feels like it won’t make a significant impact on the reader. Perhaps that the internet’s more wretched areas are so commonly filled with such threats has normalised our reaction to reports of them. The key to snap out of this, and take it on board, is I think to not read about it as a thing that happened to someone else, but to imagine being the person on the receiving end – to imagine being an individual who is reading person after person saying they will sexually assault or murder you. That’s the beginning of the response Sarkeesian has seen over the last couple of weeks.

Organised campaigns have attempted to attack the project from many angles. A great number of people, Sarkeesian reports, have been attempting to get the YouTube video labelled as “terrorism” in an effort to have it banned. Another organised group tried to have the Kickstarter be defunded or banned. Sarkeesian’s Wikipedia page has been repeatedly vandalised, including adding images of hardcore porn (a woman with a cock in her mouth, naturally), and descriptions of Sarkeesian such as “an entitled nigger kitchen and hooker who focuses on drugs in popular culture and their association with tropes.” It goes on to make remarks about inserting sex toys in her “posterior”, multiple links to the more notoriously unpleasant sex acts, and perhaps most sinisterly of all, refers to her throughout as “it”. You don’t have to be a psychoanalyst to draw conclusions from the attempt of such vandals to render her as without a sex. Another vandalism attempt saw a description of Sarkeesian as a “cunt” make it into the excerpt on the first result for her name on Google – something that was posted with pride on various forums, including the Escapist. According to Wikipedia, at least a dozen people were actively part of this attack.

Then there are the YouTube comments. And while it’s tempting to hear the words “YouTube comments” and just roll your eyes and wonder what anyone expected, again it’s crucial to imagine that it’s you, and your YouTube video, and a comments thread about you. It’s too easy to allow the constant cesspit that is YouTube’s comments to become ignorable when we don’t do this.

They’re predictable, they’re foul, and they focus on a few different subjects. There are the streams of “jokes” about how she should be in the kitchen, making sandwiches, etc. There are the death threats, or wishes that she would die. There are the implications that she must be a victim of sexual abuse, and “therefore” she should shut up. There are references to her being Jewish, with accompanying anti-Semitism. There are insults about her looks, make up, clothing, etc, with suggestions of hypocrisy. There are suggestions that she needs to get laid. And perhaps most of all, there are furious people arguing that games are sexist against men too, and therefore she should be quiet. But overridingly, in all these categories, the central message is that Sarkeesian should be silenced. (And just in case anyone is feeling left out, one commenter hopes that “them people who funded this get raped and die of cancer.”)

On top of this, Sarkeesian reports that she’s received threatening messages on Twitter, Facebook, through Kickstarter, and on her own website. Because she wants to do some research and make some videos concerning the topic of the representation of women in games.

I feel compelled to react to one particular theme: That men are poorly represented in gaming too. They are. Men in games are often represented as huge, muscled heroes, essentially weapons of war with biceps, gruff and focused and all-powerful. It’s not an accurate representation of men at large, indeed not. Because it’s a power fantasy. It’s aspirational (as much as very many men may have no desires to be anything like that). It’s about being big, and strong, and in control. Oh boo hoo. Yes, it is daft, and cliched, and tiresome. But to compare it to the default representation of women in games – either huge-titted, scantily clad sexual fantasies, or helpless, pathetic and weak – is deeply erroneous. And yes, of course there are exceptions to both, although I can immediately think of vastly more exceptions for the better presentation of men than I can women.

But to say that the topic of female representation in gaming is deserving of investigation is not at all to suggest that the representation of men is not. In fact, were someone to do the research into this, perhaps start a Kickstarter to fund a video series about it, I’d absolutely be a backer. I’m fascinated to learn more about how my sex being portrayed in this way affects my understanding of myself, and other men. I’m sure there are consequences, both in terms of a negative sense of self in the comparison, and in skewed expectations of being a man based on what I’m being told I should aspire to. Perhaps even, studying the subject from this angle could reveal even more about the portrayal of women, and even address some root causes of it. Sarkeesian’s project in no way precludes this being studied. And I’d be willing to bet a fair amount that a man launching such a study wouldn’t be on the receiving end of hundreds and hundreds of calls for him to be raped or killed.

We’re incredibly blessed at RPS with an audience that doesn’t tend to behave this way. But whenever we post on topics about female representation, or the treatment of female gamers (and indeed gay, lesbian, bi, and trans gamers/game topics), we get comments similar to those above. We choose to delete them, because we have a greater interest in creating a pleasant environment, than we do in pretending we could give a shit about vile tosspots’ “freedom of speech”. (They’re free to speak their hate elsewhere.) And while I’ve certainly received numerous descriptions of how people wished I would die for disagreeing with them, I struggle to imagine what it might be like to be in Sarkeesian’s position. For saying she plans to say something people want to disagree with.

This is not preaching to the choir (not least because RPS is read by a great deal of people, not just the regular community), but instead an attempt to boldly state just how serious a mess we’re in as a culture. The prevalence of homophobia and misogyny in the gaming world is on a scale so large we like to dismiss it. “But we don’t do that.” “That’s just forum X, though.” That’s not good enough. We need to own this – to acknowledge that as gamers this is our community, no matter how far we may wish to distance from it, and no matter how much we may not take part in it.

I’ve no clear idea what the solutions are. Education is my instinctive reaction, and – oh – that’s what Sarkeesian is trying to create. I think a more representative portrayal of women in the medium would go a hell of a long way too, since were it the norm to see women portrayed as something other than sexual fantasies or weaklings to protect, people might not scream out that “games are mostly played by guys, and that’s what guys want,” as so many have in the reaction to this Kickstarter. Maybe if men and boys were shown that games are still just as thrilling and entertaining without resorting to such aspects, then not only would women and girls feel less alienated by the medium, but maybe people would be less inclined to defend it.

If you want to donate toward the video series, there are just under three days to go.

__________________

« | »

, , , , .

1,100 Comments »

  1. Vexing Vision says:

    It is also one of the most successful projects made.

    I am not condoning what happened, by all the good gods, no. People who attack other people’s viewpoint and products in such a vile (it’s exactly the right word) manner deserve to be locked out of the internet forever.

    But the resulting controversy did help to reach more than 10x the goal, and I’d be surprised if there’s not another 5k in there.

    Behold the Streisand-Effect – would this have happened if she had not attracted such rabid… err.. “fans”? And more importantly, was it worth it?

    I am very glad she didn’t back down and sees it through.

    • ReV_VAdAUL says:

      Grim Dawn, Wasteland 2 and other projects have also been exceptionally successful without their creators getting a single death threat, threat of rape or a bit of harassment. This vileness is not a necessary part of a good idea getting funding from crowdsourcing.

      The vileness on display is a coincidental aspect not a causal one, the work this project wants to do is valid and interesting outside of any controversy or harassment. It is not necessary, acceptable or condonable, there is no silver lining to the awfulness Sarkeesian had to suffer through.

      • Xocrates says:

        The “vileness” brought loads of attention into the project as well as generating a lot of sympathy to Sarkeesian.

        As successful as the project might have been without the controversy, I find it disingenuous to claim it would have been equally successful without the controversy. (she won over 100$ in multiple donations in the time it took me to write this)

        Personally, it fills me with glee to see the “vileness” backfire this hard.

        • Cooper says:

          Quite. But John is right: Supporting this kickstarter is only part of what can be done about it, but this is an issue of a culture of hate as much as pop culture tropes. Throwing money at it may show support but money is not magic.

        • dreadguacamole says:

          I agree. It’s horrible that the creator had to endure this sort of thing, but I find it kind of incredible that this horde of sub-humans didn’t just shine a spotlight on the project – they provided clear and immediate proof of just how big the problem is, and made it that much more successful than it would have been. I hope that fact’s not lost on them. (It will)

          Hell, I will donate to this, and I probably wouldn’t even have heard of the kickstarter if the fine folks at the gameological society’s comment boards hadn’t mentioned the backlash against the project.

        • InternetBatman says:

          The amount of money she’s receiving does not give me any great relief. While it is noble on behalf of the backers, it makers her and her show into a symbol, something that she might not be able to live up to.

          Or in other words, what if the show didn’t receive this attention and it sucked? What if it has and it sucks just as much?

        • ReV_VAdAUL says:

          Very interested to know why you put vileness in scare quotes. Do you think the harassment Sarkeesian faced isn’t vile? You very carefully did it each time you mentioned it.

          The problem with this whole assertion that controversy and vile behaviour led to the project doing so well is that it legitimises their behaviour in a way, implying that a woman wanting to produce a project like this in some way benefits from such vileness being put her way. That suffering through and coming out the other side is somehow a necessary part of the project.

          The harassment she faced was wholly unacceptable and no financial reward of increased funding for the project justifies this. Her project stood on its’ own merits and its’ success is drawn from that, not a backfiring of vile behaviour.

          • Xocrates says:

            Scare quotes?

            I used quotes because I was quoting the term from you. Since, personally, I find “vileness” to sound kind of silly and it’s probably not the term I would use.

            Rest assured, I hate the harassment she received as much as you.

          • sysdefect says:

            While I totally agree with you, in a purely logical sense could one honestly say one way or the other? It’s obvious to say that the merits of the project stand on their own, and may even transcend that as a particularly noble cause but still to discount external factors would be foolish.

          • Redkid says:

            “The problem with this whole assertion that controversy and vile behaviour led to the project doing so well is that it legitimises their behaviour in a way…”

            No.

            No, it does not.

            Good(More money and publicity to fix the problem) can come from bad(hostile and crazy people). It does not make the bad good.

        • Salvian says:

          Dialectics FTW!

      • KalevTait says:

        Not to condone the attacks (quite the opposite actually), but there are some direct causal relationships here.

        The YouTube comments caused me to a) rethink my position on freedom of speech (something I’ve long held as sacrosanct) and b) fund the project in protest. While my funding can in no way be construed as important to the success of the project, I chose to watch the original tropes vs women as a direct consequence of my choice to fund. The sixth episode, in turn, has caused me to rethink my position on feminism. I had always presumed unconsciously that we live in a post feminist world where men and women are essentially equal… even though this is clearly not the case.

        This experience as a whole has convinced me as a game creator that I need to ensure that female characters on the projects I work on are more than just tools to advance the plots of male characters.

    • SanguineAngel says:

      Sort of a catch 22. If it wasn’t a problem, it wouldn’t have gotten all the negative attention and then all the subsequent positive reaction. But if that were the case then sexism wouldn’t be a problem so she wouldn’t need to produce this series in the first place.

      Is that a catch 22? It’s late a can’t follow the logic

    • Oculardissonance says:

      I think it should be noted that it’s also a rather good presentation. The nature of the attacks against her might have first placed her on many people’s radar, but if the presentation was just a person moaning on a poorly lit webcam I don’t think people would have gone on to offer as much financial support.

  2. rocketman71 says:

    This is depressing. It’s the kind of thing that makes me lose faith in the human race.

    I’m going to donate to this immediately. I hope that the luminaries that posted all those comments never ever reproduce or have any contact with women. They don’t deserve it.

    • Richard Beer says:

      Interesting that this is copping up at the same time as a law in the UK is being debated about the ability to identify ‘trolls’ (although I think that’s an over-used misnomer).

      I will defend free speech to my last breath, but I would absolutely love all those people who have wished rape/murder/etc on this interesting woman to be identified. And then I would like someone from the Internet Police to go round and tell their mothers exact details of what they’ve said and done.

      They shouldn’t just be ashamed, they should be shamed.

      • DrGonzo says:

        It’s amazing. You will defend free speech to your last breath, but then went back on yourself in the same sentence.

        First, they came for the pirates, and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a pirate.

        Then they came for the homophobes and the sexists, and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a homophobe and a sexist.

        • Myfyr says:

          No, he didn’t go back on himself. Freedom of speech and lack of anonymity are not mutually exclusive. Speaking out in disagreement of someone’s speech, or informing others of said speech, is not equivalent to a restriction on their speech. It is certainly not equivalent to the holocaust.

          I’m not sure what I think is the right way of handling this stuff, but your accusation is false. Your analogy is mildly offensive.

          • Etheric42 says:

            Except that classically, the only defense hated minorities have is anonymity. It’s the whole reason we have the term “in the closet”. I must admit, I’m prejudiced against people who harass others too, and I generally consider myself pretty open-minded. I happen to live in a country that both idolizes free speech, and then has an unwritten list of things that aren’t considered free speech. Obscenity. Bullying. “Likes” on Youtube or Facebook. People lose their jobs over these ill-defined things. People go to prison. We haven’t started executing anyone over this yet, but we’ll take years away from their life and slap them with a stigma that they will bear forever. For what? Words. Stupid juvenile words.

          • Shuck says:

            Gosh, I must be some paragon of virtue to have gone through life without ever once having threatened anyone with rape or murder.
            Yes, how terrible that if you harass or threaten someone there are consequences that you have to live with. Except, unfortunately, there almost never are. (For the abuser, that is. The person being harassed has to live with the consequences of those actions, of course.)

          • Phantoon says:

            Freedom means people will abuse it. I’ll take people being absolute miserable cunts to one another over having no anonymity. Those would trade freedom for security, blah blah blah, disregard the constabulary.

            “According to Wikipedia, at least a dozen people were actively part of this attack.” I laughed at this. Do you realize you accidentally a meme?

            “(And just in case anyone is feeling left out, one commenter hopes that “them people who funded this get raped and die of cancer.”)” Yes, that is very unlikely to be genuine, pure hate, much less based only on the woman’s gender.

            Look, I agree that mysogyny is a problem. Things are very clearly not equal. However, I’m worried about this project. It’s going to be a Big Thing because of the hate it received, and its end message could easily be “men are evil”, thus undoing the point that both genders, all races, etc, should be equal in all mutable forms (women getting child custody even when the father is clearly the only capable parent, anybody? Or women winning most property in a divorce?)

            Because anything that portrays either sex as The Reason for Evil is wrong. People are just people.

          • scatterbrainless says:

            Also a simple point in any debate regarding morality: you can’t force a moral viewpoint upon someone through shame. You might make them curtail their behaviour, that isn’t the same as getting them to morally agree with you, ala Clockwork Orange.

        • Shuck says:

          Free speech doesn’t (even remotely) cover rape/death threats or speech intended to purely harass. So no, not a contradiction.

          • Ragnar says:

            Exactly right! It ceases being free speech when it’s actively hurting her.

            And being identified by losing their shield of anonymity is not the same as losing their free speech. I don’t want them harassed or targeted in response, but I don’t want them being able to continue spewing anonymous hate.

          • Grargh says:

            I totally agree, and this baffles me every time. Freedom of speech means I can say what I want, but much of what has been said there actually qualifies as crimes, and that is a completely different topic. I am also free to go where I want, but if I violently enter someone’s home I cannot expect that to be without consequences. I’m in no way for full name disclosure on the internet, but free speech is no excuse for hate crimes, or whatever you want to call that stuff.

          • Etheric42 says:

            Does freedom of speech, in the form of the versions of law as interpreted in many countries, protect speech meant entirely to harass? No. Why do people believe this has anything to do with the concept of freedom of speech? A law could be called freedom of muffins and state that a $1 campaign contribution must be made for all pistachio muffins, it doesn’t mean there is actually freedom of muffins. Instead most nations have forms of “protected speech” and “unprotected speech” based on what is popular at the time. For example, educating people about contraception was illegal in most countries at one time or another, even ones with “freedom of speech” laws. Today we’re for removing the shield of anonymity because somebody’s words “hurt” someone else by describing violent acts. One day we’ll be taking action against someone because their words “hurt” someone’s chance of being re-elected. Are the people who did this acting like cretins? Sure. But in the end their words mean nothing. No one is brave enough to put a face behind it, this expression of the meme will pass, and people like Sarkeesian will put in the good work it takes to shift the culture away from that. Threatening someone in a public space is in no way similar to invading someone’s private space (body, property, etc). Religious fundamentalists had the right idea in early American history to push for freedom of religion because they didn’t want other religions making theirs illegal. Don’t push for censorship of speech (and revealing identities does have a chilling effect on speech) just because you don’t like what these people have to say.

          • Phantoon says:

            I suppose to change the discussion way too late, after 21 pages of comments and probably the only post to have hit 1k comments+, you do not change the way people think by forcing it upon them. Let’s call this a civil rights struggle, even though it is absolutely not comparable to the civil rights movement of the 1960s (in the US). People then were brutalized, threatened in person, jailed without cause, and sometimes even outright just plain murdered. But the people then kept a peaceful demonstration, and shifted national perspective when Martin Luther King Jr was killed. In the end, sticking to their principles worked. I’m not saying things are completely equal- but they’re certainly far better than they used to be. I dunno, maybe I’m old fashioned, but I think people should have to suffer the slings and arrows that show them no mercy to make a change, rather than having it handed to them.

            Now take this, instead. We have someone being stereotyped as a GAMER GRRL by the nature of their arguments, not helped by the fact they don’t do much to refute this image (GAMER GRRL is not the same thing as a female that enjoys video games, and if you do not understand this term please go look it up). Add to that this idea that trolls should be identified- even if she doesn’t explicitly say it should be done, it’s being co-opted under her banner. The message needs to be refocused for this to gain any traction, as sexism surely is still a thing. I also like how Samus from Metroid isn’t on that banner, when the new game Other M is probably the worst offender of this all. But then again she probably doesn’t play very many video games.

            Back to the idea of “identifying trolls”, what in the fuck is wrong with you people that think that’s even slightly an okay idea? Lemme be bombastic for a second: this will increase incidents of rape and murder. Why? Because now you can find out, one way or another, where that guy that teabagged you and called you a dick smoker in Halo is, in real life. This won’t matter to you, but it will matter to someone. Like, for instance, that crazy guy that spent six months hunting another guy to stab him when he died in Counter-Strike. And about rape? Your crazy ex can find your new house, and since all your stuff is tied to one identity…

            Let’s say the most ridiculous examples I just gave won’t happen, because of a comprehensive system run by the government. Why in the seven hells would you give ANY government that power willingly? Or say it’s done by the corporations- that’s even MORE insane than giving the government that power.

            This idea that trolls should be identified is launching a nuclear bomb at something that needs a steady hand and fine tweezers. Changing the dichotomy of things would be hard, but being out there and defending your points rationally is better than hiding and claiming you’re doing social justice. Because in a world where people starve to death, I just can’t find any fucks to give.

          • Gormongous says:

            Phantoon, your analogy is terrible. People didn’t magically change their minds about racial integration after a few noble martyrs. The government spent decades busing black children to white schools, overseeing county elections, challenging miscegenation laws, and prosecuting unreported crimes to ensure that their laws became reality. And guess what? In the South, you can still get the shit kicked out of you for being black in the wrong place and time. But at least the overwhelming majority of the population recognizes that it’s not only illegal but morally wrong.

            Laws are a powerful force to enact change in society. They regulate the division between licit and illicit behavior, which will pass into the realm of ethics as the offending subculture loses its advocates and begins to decay. Proper enforcement the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments a century after their ratification, supported by a dedicated minority willing to provide the manpower for such enforcement, strangled the culture of institutionalized racial discrimination in the United States, and you can bet your bottom dollar that without overt government complicity no such thing would have happened.

          • Sheng-ji says:

            @Phantoon – I don’t know what kind of sick world your head is where you think that identifying people who made death threats will lead to increased crime or that allowing the Crown (Or your countries equivalent) the power to easily prosecute someone who threatened someone with rape is somehow giving the government too much power.

            I can only assume you are an internet troll of some description and fear your mummy and daddy finding out.

        • FriendlyFire says:

          Freedom of speech in no way implies freedom from consequences. In fact, freedom of speech often goes hand in hand with acknowledging your position and defending it.

          Most of those trolls shelter under the anonymous internet to spout their bile, but would never say the same thing open faced. I don’t see why they should be given any sort of pity or defense.

        • Skaxz says:

          Concerning the freedom of speech thing, I don’t know about other countries, but in Croatia article 38. of the Constitution states that everyone has the right to speak their mind, in any kind of media – in other words, complete freedom of speech.
          However, article 39. of the Constitution states that it is forbidden and punishable to speak in a way that encourages/entices people to war, use of violence, national, religious and other kinds of hatred and intolerance.
          Just saying.

        • Ergates_Antius says:

          Yes, because people who suggest that vile internet misogynists should be identified and shamed are *exactly* the same as Hitler.

          Good. Grief.

        • The13thRonin says:

          You’re really comparing a famous quote regarding the shame of prominent German intellectuals for not resisting the genocidal actions of the Nazi Party to the internet should ‘back-up’ the right of internet trolls to hurl death threats at some innocent woman?

        • Eddy9000 says:

          …and then they didn’t come for me because my views don’t marginalise people who don’t marginalise others?

        • DodgyG33za says:

          Threatening to harm or kill someone or a group of someones (AKA hate speech) is quite different to freedom of speech. It is a difficult line, as seen in the US where the deluded folk of Westboro church picket the funerals of dead servicemen in the name of free speech.

          My take on this is that if you say something with the sole intent of causing emotional harm to another human being, that is not really free speech – it is little different from a physical attack.

        • JackShandy says:

          My freedom to swing a knife around ends where your face begins. You only have the right to do things that aren’t constricting the rights of others, so harassment and bullying are not protected by free speech.

        • zbeeblebrox says:

          And we were all a-okay with that, you false-dichotomy-making moron.

    • Orija says:

      One would suppose that wars and strife would make you lose faith in humanity rather a bunch of men acting like children, but whatever.

      • TwoDaemon says:

        I don’t think this kind of reasoning is particularly fair – to trivialise something because other things are worse doesn’t help. In this enlightened age we may lose faith in the human race for multiple reasons at once, sadly.

        • DrGonzo says:

          No, it’s silly people on the internet. If you can’t block them out then you have something wrong with you, or need to get some perspective.

          • nimmo1492 says:

            And being on the internet makes it OK, yeah?

          • gwathdring says:

            Why is the Internet any different? I spend a significant portion of my time here, and I expect to be treated like a human being when I’m here. I try very hard to be as polite and respectful on the Internet as I would be anywhere else and I simply don’t understand why sending communication over the Internet instead of through the post or through telephone wires or through the air suddenly gives me the responsibility to suck it up and take abuse from strangers without comment, complaint or expectation of consequence.

          • nearly says:

            …they’re still people, on both sides of the screen.

          • Bootstraps says:

            It’s not just internet comments, mate. It’s everywhere, and comments are just part of it. Congratulations on missing the point.

          • Jay says:

            I don’t think blocking them out or ignoring them helps anything.

            That so many people are having such disproportionate, misogynist reactions (to something that wasn’t even that confrontational in tone) is telling in itself. A few outliers could maybe be dismissed as 4chan or whoever trying to stir up some trouble, but this has been vocal enough and coming from so many quarters that it seems indicative of a much larger issue. One that keeps coming up whenever this subject is even touched on, remember.

      • Droopy The Dog says:

        Funny, I find people in a position of relative comfort and safety who find the need to inflict cruelty on a complete stranger much more damaging to an inherent sense of goodness in humanity, than people in extreme environments acting violently or selfishly

      • rocketman71 says:

        You’d be amazed by how few people are needed to cause wars and strife. And this is definitely not men acting like children, this is men acting like criminals, just because this woman dares (the nerve!) to make a series of videos showing the mistreatment of women in a big chunk of the games released every year. Death threats are NOT ok. Rape threats are NOT ok. Slander is NOT ok. Online abuse (wikipedia et al) is NOT ok.

        But hey, whatever floats your boat. It’s your conscience.

        PS.- By your rules, don’t EVER complain about anything. And I mean ANYTHING. If you do, remember that there are people in Africa dying of hunger. You have no right to complain.

    • Continuity says:

      It is depressing but this is how progress is made, slowly and painfully. One day, hopefully one day soon we will look back at the current state of video games in grimace.

    • Metonymy says:

      I made several of those comments, and she deserves worse.

      Keep kissing feet, keep being beta, Europe. It’s not the woman or the immigrant who will be your master, but someone far worse.

      • Malawi Frontier Guard says:

        Aliens?!?

        • Sarigs says:

          Silly Malawi, everyone knows the Ants will rise up first

          • Ralphomon says:

            I thought it would be the mole people with their lizard king.

          • Droopy The Dog says:

            My money’s on undead Marie Curie and her bitumen golems.

            Or the dragons you find at the end of the RPS comments thread when it passes 1K.

      • maninahat says:

        B3ta is a great website, thank you.

      • Toberoth says:

        Are you serious Metonymy? To think I’ve engaged you in conversation before. Knowing that you’re one of the people who made those comments means I want nothing more to do with you, and will be blocking you immediately. Goodbye.

      • The13thRonin says:

        A comment which strike eerily close to the sentiments of Anders Behring Breivik the Norwegian serial killer who murdered children.

        You must be proud.

      • Jay says:

        >>’It’s not the woman or the immigrant who will be your master’

        Really? And she ‘deserves worse’? I think you might have a few issues more pressing than who your ‘master’ may or may not be, mate.

      • Senethro says:

        I’ve got what is probably an unhealthy fascination with weird ideologies. I’m kind of titillated by such strange slang as things being beta, and implied apocalyptic fates for Europe. Does anyone know where people like this hang out?

        • Metonymy says:

          They’re mostly honeypots anyway, best thing for you to do is have your own outlook. It’s better to choose something different and be wrong, than it is to nod your head with everyone else.

          • Senethro says:

            No, I’m pretty sure wrong is wrong no matter how much of a freespirit apart from the herd of sheeple you are. While I’m sure that you must have necessarily arrived at your views by disregarding the opinions of others, I don’t see why you elevate it to a virtue.

            Quit teasing, just gimme some places I can go internet safari. The ridiculous narratives are my favorite bit. White European Man as an endangered species with brave internet twits trolling feminists in an effort to save him.

          • Metonymy says:

            I disagree, and I won’t be helping you since you’ve just stated you want to laugh at people. You seem clever so find it yourself.

            Remember that divisiveness is the ultimate objective of these kind of people. They don’t actually care about their message, they just want to drive a wedge into stable societies, so they can move in after the catastrophe and benevolently enforce their leadership.

        • Ralphomon says:

          What does ‘beta’ mean in this context?

        • Gimnbo says:

          A good place to start is reddit.com

        • Cerebulon says:

          The only one which I’m aware of is englisc-gateway.com
          Now, these aren’t your run-of-the-mill fundamentalist Christians. They aren’t Muslim, Sikh, Hindu, Buddhist or Scientologists either. Nope, these guys believe in Thor.
          I could go into great detail but the gist of it is that they seek to preserve the white/”ethnic” English. EDL/BNP sorts. They have strong opinions on Jews, Women, Slavs, Muslims, Christians and the Scottish. They use “Muslamic” with a straight face and are fond of Germans because the “ethnic English” migrated from there in ancient times. (Apparently there’s a cutoff date which they refuse to divulge, prior to which immigration wasn’t immigration you guys, we swear.)
          They also find the concept of “Britain” offensive and will only be referred to as English.

          Hope this helps in your amatuer anthropology.

        • Froibo says:

          I’m right there with you, we should start a club! How far out there do you plan on exploring? For the outer limits there’s http://www.nibiruancouncil.com/ and for something closer to home here’s a good story http://www.radiolab.org/blogs/radiolab-blog/2012/jun/04/grumpy-old-terrorists/

          • cheesepower5 says:

            I agree with you guys, reading crazy people’s opinions is fun. I like to check out http://www.bibliotecapleiades.com for that. Everything from Nibiru to White People in Meso-America to the Merovingian Kings = Ancient Aliens.

      • Everyone says:

        4/10. Must try harder; lacks subtly and finesse.

    • codename_bloodfist says:

      What I find depressing is that you’re donating to this and not MSF. I honestly think the only people who support modern (!) breeds of feminism are those who have never set foot into a Women Studies lecturing hall and the modern (!) feminists themselves who further propagate it. Compared to their rhetoric, the good old pseudo-Marxist joke about “the Little Red Riding Hood being about the proletariat fighting against their capitalist oppressors” actually sounds like a pretty decent literary approach. I wish we could just stop giving so much credit to every idiot hopelessly pretending to be de Beauvoir. And, yes, this would be at least just as fucking stupid if it was about men.

      • maninahat says:

        Seeing as how the vast majority of women have never stepped into a feminist studies lecture hall, I’d say you’ve managed to refute your own argument. Of course many women support modern feminism. Last time I checked, most women don’t want to be raped, demeaned, threatened, misrepresented and condescended to. Those are the issues that modern feminists deal with.

        • codename_bloodfist says:

          No, those are the issues the your local court deals with. Modern feminists deal with issues like “How is Katy Perry’s video California Girls a statement about feminism?”. Unfortunately, I’m not shitting you or–hohoho!–am trying to misrepresent their views. Have you even ever read a book on feminism? A classic like Deuxieme Sexe maybe? Thought so.

          • gwathdring says:

            That sounds nice on paper, because I have read some books and papers reminiscent of your view of feminist theory. But in practice, no matter how measured the approach or separate from academic theory and radical weirdness about missiles as phalluses and men sitting next to women as a form of rape … this is still the response we see. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt, but I hear the same “feminists are nuts and so is this idea” comments attached to almost every one of these discussions that has sprung up on RPS and in my day-to-day life.

            So yes, I’ve read some pretty weird stuff. But nothing worse than Foucault’s views on nationalism and sources of political power. Nothing more bizarre than other sheltered, disconnected branches of academia. And none of it really represents the views of most actual lawyers, scientists, psychologists, feminists, and ordinary citizens I’ve spoken with. I hear far more blathering about how crazy modern feminism is than I hear actual crazy modern feminism–and that’s despite going to a small liberal arts school in the United States with a pretty funky WGSS program and several friends who are deeply invested in it. They just don’t represent practical, popular, modern feminism; and as such I find your approach to this topic rather unfair.

          • Salvian says:

            Modern feminism is not monolithic. There are very, very fierce debates among feminists about these issues. Also, Sarkeesian doesn’t really strike me as one of the pomo ‘pole-dancing as womens’ empowerment’ types.

          • codename_bloodfist says:

            >I hear far more blathering about how crazy modern feminism is than I hear actual crazy modern feminism–and that’s despite going to a small liberal arts school in the United States with a pretty funky WGSS program and several friends who are deeply invested in it.

            The problem is that I hear far more blathering about how modern feminism isn’t crazy than I hear actual non-crazy modern feminists speaking. It’s quite simple really, I absolutely cannot take their “discipline” seriously and that’s coming for a person who thinks that studying the impact of LotR on the contemporary youth is a serious discipline. I didn’t come to this conclusion by visiting anti-feminist forums, watching programmes on conservative channels or anything along those lines. I probably spend more time around women, and this would exclude any romantic interests, than I spend around men. Please understand my position. I had to study it as a part of my undergrad English programme. I had professors and guest professors giving talks on it. I had to read works on it. I had to write essays on it (some of the most dishonest opinionated pieces of my academic career, essentially reducing the little science literary theory has behind it to a compete joke). I had to listen to my classmates (we had roughly one guy for every ten girls) how absolutely moronic the topic is. With all due respect, I think I have a pretty decent understanding of where modern feminism is today and where it is heading.

            In my humble opinion, the -modern- feminism as we see it today is little more than scaremongering, playing with statistics and talking just for the sake of talking. I just recently read an article that, in the UK, men earn more than women and how unfair this was. Then you wonder “Why? All the women I work with earn just as much as men do.” and pull up the statistics on gender distribution among different faculties of your choice. Natural sciences–largely male, engineering–predominantly male with a large female minority, soft sciences and linguistics–almost entirely female. I don’t have to tell you that unless you study translatology, you’ll almost certainly earn less as a linguist than an engineer or a physicist. It’s not about the gender, it’s just capitalism. Yet here we are, statistical proof that women are oppressed in our society.

            Then we can move on to the more popular aspects of feminism that, by now, have absolutely nothing to do with feminism and have long been accepted by the general public, at least among the inteligencia. These I will not dispute, but they have been of little interest to modern feminists, except as cover for the crazy shit, if you pardon the expression, like this project. These established ideas are our, First World’s, main points of criticism towards other cultures. Universal rights (with some exceptions), prohibition of rape, prohibition of slavery, prohibition of mutilation of female genitalia, etc. All excellent things to support. Do you have to be a feminist to do so? Absolutely not, unless you assume that the vastest majority of people in your country are feminists, in which case the term becomes obsolete. If you were referring to this kind of feminism, then we were simply talking about two different matters entirely.

          • gwathdring says:

            I think you’ve missed the bulk of my point. You’re describing the ivory-tower phenomenon in full swing with the same breath that suggests non-academic feminism is just as isolated from reality.

            You’ve also trundled out an argument about how women make less becasue they gravitate towards less valued fields. Doesn’t that sort of ignore the problem? Some of these fields might be undervalued for interconnected with their traditionally female associations. Pre-Secondary education and nursing come immediately to mind (despite nurses, in particular, doing increasingly more of the work traditionally left to doctors). Whether the undervaluing or the female associations came first or second depends on the job (usually the undervaluing comes first in the examples I can think of–but that’s not less of a problem). Many women interested in mathematics and engineering are turned off by the academic or industrial culture in those fields.

            Women are also less likely to get certain jobs if there is a personal interview. This is one of the reasons major orchestras started doing blind auditions, though such things are difficult to do when personal connection is an essential part of the work environment. There are so many factors that make it make it more difficult for women to get into high paying jobs. People hold onto certain jobs for long periods of time and there’s a substantial portion of the corporate world that was first hired in times of more blatant workplace sexism.

            You cannot simply pull the same trick you claim to despise, whip out some statistics about how women are in lower paying fields, and say the case ought to be closed. Sexism is alive and well, and feminists are not our enemies.

          • codename_bloodfist says:

            Okay, look, we can stretch out the hidden boogeyman only this far. As much as it pains me to say this, my general field, linguistics simply cannot compete with natural fields in a capitalistic society. We need more engineers, medical researches, business administrators. We -don’t- need the number of experts on 19th century American short story we currently have, just as we don’t need the number of historians we have, most of whom are men. It’s a simple question of supply and demand. If these individuals learn another language and go into translation studies, then they’re suddenly very much in demand. Most translators and interprets are women and, depending on what they focus on, are paid very, VERY well. Interpreters, in particular, can easily surpass the monthly salary of a senior engineer in only a third of the time.

            Nurses are poorly paid because it’s a low qualification labour, just as trash truck drivers (for the record: I’ve never seen a female trash truck driver) are also poorly paid because their work doesn’t exactly require an M.Sc.

            Claiming that these fields have low salaries because they’re traditionally female dominated is absolutely absurd and I think you know it.

            You’ve already stated twice that academic feminism is somehow distant from some illusive real world feminism. Throw me a link already. If you’re referring to organisations such as “Terre des Femmes”, you’re 100% right and I agree absolutely. The only remaining question would then be, why anyone would want to give any money to this twat instead of TdF. I think we can both agree that the later would put it to a significantly better use.

          • gwathdring says:

            I’d have to do a study to analyze popular opinions about sex and gender. Most people don’t fall in line with ANY form of extremism–positive, negative, religious, political … I can’t simply provide you a link to a particular moderate feminist organization and say “look, moderate organizations exist, therefore most people aren’t radicals.” To an extent, that makes my argument difficult and gives yours a bit of added validity … but at the same time, I’m fairly sure “most people are moderate” has been proven a large number of times in various statistical, sociological, and political contexts. That includes sub-categories of society–most feminists don’t gravitate towards the extremes of feminism. I guess if you want me to substantiate that point with evidence, I can try to do a very-rough review of the literature for you. But you see to acknowledge that in your last paragraph. Feminism isn’t the problem, you just see this feminist as part of the problem. Which is kind of different from where you started, and isn’t why I criticized your words. On personal analysis of the feminist in question, we can just agree to disagree and leave it there.

            You’re missing the other side of my point, with regard to low paying professions. Women were gernally speaking allowed into non-physical, low-pay, low-prestige positions before other positions. Some of those fields are still generally perceived as more “feminine.” The low pay usually comes first, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a connection.

            Furthermore, I’m not entirely sure but I think you might have just implied that certain fields that are predominantly female are inherently less valuable to society. Let’s break this down for a moment.

            1) Perhaps women are genuinely more likely to be interested in fields that are considered less important to society. Even if we assume this to be true for the sake of argument, we are left with a world in which we consider the jobs most validating and important to half our population worth less than the jobs most validating and important to the other half. That sounds like a society that favors the interests of one sex over the other, to me.

            2) Perhaps women are conditioned to enjoy pursuits of less practical use to society. That leaves us with a world in which we cultivate more valuable ideas in males than females. That sounds like a sexist developmental environment to me.

            3) Perhaps there isn’t actually a significant difference at work at all. But we’re still left with women, on average, earning significantly less even if it’s just because of the fields they tend to work in … so I’m not sure you can say how there isn’t some ingrained gender discrepancy at work whether it’s negative and sexist or not. So I guess we could just be satisfied with female interests being lest valued by society …. but that really sounds bad to me. I just don’t see a way you can look at something like “a broad category of people from all economic, educational, psychological and social backgrounds earn less than their counterparts from a related board category” and think nothing is wrong. Even if women genuinely are less likely to be interested in mathematics and engineering (not true, in my personal experience), shouldn’t our economy support such a varied, and HUGE portion of our society as “women” as much as a broad and varied category like “men”?

            I can think of plenty of well paying jobs that are relatively useless to the betterment of society. If most of these corresponded to female professions, there women wouldn’t be earning less than men and we’d be having a very different discussion here. In the same argument you’ve claimed that women gravitate to lower paying, lower value jobs and that your field (dominated by women) is overvalued and should actually merit less money. I’m getting rather confused as to where you’re even coming from with your arguments about gender and careers.

            Women are ridiculously more likely to be sexually victimized. Women are more likely to earn less, and less likely to be promoted. Women are more likely to be harassed. These are problems. They are real. They are well researched. However you rationalize and explain them, they need to stop.

      • Unstable_Fury says:

        I agree with you insofar as I dislike the feminist school of thought as much as I dislike any other narrow-minded worldview. Games, like other facets of popular culture, are generally non-inclusive, “homogenous” (as in, the opposite of “diverse”), and superficial (obsessed with beauty). I feel sometimes as if feminist criticism monopolizes any conversation of these larger issues. I’m a dude, but let’s say I’m also from an ethnic minority, ugly, and for the sake of this conversation transgendered. Where the hell is my representation?

        Dialectics like this are missing the bigger picture: change does indeed need to come, but on more than one front than this.The role of women in games and as gamers is something that should definitely be discussed, but I do feel that it is monopolizing what little discussion there is.

        Feminists want DIVERSITY, but they often forget about EVERYBODY ELSE.

        • Jay says:

          I don’t think that’s a very productive line of reasoning.

          We’ve got a very long way to go here. Dealing with sexism in games seems like as good a place as any to start, and focusing things in such a manner is a good thing, I feel. I agree, it’d be wonderful if games were more accepting to a wider diversity of people, but I do think we need to start at the basics. If we can’t treat half the planet in a mature fashion, what chance is there of dealing with more controversial subjects?

          I don’t see it as monopolising the argument, more like working on a solid foundation we can build on to further diversify in future.

          • codename_bloodfist says:

            I can tell you for a fact that the vastest majority of Russians don’t give a flying fuck about the way they are portrayed in Call of Duty, just as you most likely don’t give a flying fuck about the way men are portrayed in Space Marine. I have a wild suspicion that the vastest majority of female gamers don’t give a flying fuck about Lara Croft, Princess Peach and Bayonetta.

          • Jay says:

            You can talk about ‘facts’ all you like, but you’re providing nothing more than wild assumption and purely anecdotal evidence.

            Here’s a fact – the treatment of women in games bothers me. So I choose to take a stand on it.

          • codename_bloodfist says:

            Your keyboard heroism is truly awe inspiring. Let me know once you start your own worthless Kickstarter.

          • mckertis says:

            “I can tell you for a fact that the vastest majority of Russians don’t give a flying fuck about the way they are portrayed in Call of Duty”

            That is because we already think of USians and Brits as jumpy russophobes, Call of Duty doesnt bring anything new to the table. We already know about your irrational fear and hate of us.
            The Reds are coming !!! Boo !

          • funk_off says:

            @codename said ” I have a wild suspicion that the vastest majority of female gamers don’t give a flying fuck”
            We do. And it pisses us off every time we see another ass in latex being nice background pattern. It also spoils the fun, sometimes to the point where we leave the game entirely. But there’s so much of sexism in almost every game, that I would have to stop playing at all – I don’t funking want to, I like gaming, or go out and try to say something about it.
            On the subject: it’s getting worse IMO, the Heroes 3 had female characters all dressed up, while Heroes 5 presented those semi-pornographic dominatrixes (Dark Elves) and generally most of women were wearing bikini.

        • PFlute says:

          …Most feminists I know are actually totally pro-people of color and pro-transgendered.

          They also totally acknowledge the way the system short changes men, even though it doesn’t do as much damage to us as it does women.

          They just happen to, quite logically, spend the most time responding to things that affect them. If us dudes actually wanted to help our situation, we’d make our own efforts, we’d work alongside feminists, and we’d have high fives all around.

          So yes, they actually aknowledge the many fronts of the conflict in front of them, and they choose to fight the one right in front of their noses wherein they hold the most personal experience.

          And you think there’s something wrong with that?

          • ScorpionWasp says:

            Oh really? Do a little experiment. Go to a feminist forum of your choice (any will do) and ask them what they think of all the N ways men are discriminated against in the legal system. Ask their opinion on mandatory arrest policy, on men having lesser reproductive rights than women, on child support laws (whereas a woman can abort/give up the baby with no consequence whatsoever), on custody laws, on divorce laws, on women getting an average 40% less prison time for the very same crimes as men (and without getting raped by inmates too! Because rape is an horrendous thing, but as punishment (for men) it’s ok), on male victims of domestic violence (Yeah, they exist too! And it happens about as frequently as male on female violence) being rejected help at shelters (including, in some cases, teenage boys as young as 12), on women getting all sorts of discriminatory (against men) grants and bonuses from government, etc, etc, etc. They’re for equality, right? At the very fucking least, they’re going to hold an adult, argument based, devoid of ad-hominem discussion. They’ll never consider deleting your message and banning you outright, no sireee! Because you see, it’s all a matter of relevancy, really. They’re too busy pondering whether the “societal expectation” of women having to carry a purse is degrading to their gender or not to care about some dudes going to jail and losing everything they worked decades to get because their divorcing wife filed a false, unsubstantiated accusation of abuse that courts will take at face value. Go in there and tell us the results, we’ll wait.

            You see, this is my fear about these things. I do think that the issue of sexism in games is an interesting one that deserves to be researched. By a NEUTRAL party with a basic, cursory understanding of logic. Hand it to a feminist and it’ll be yet another weapon to turn the system further against males, all the while shouting the dogma that men are privileged, shut up they are, if you disagree it’s because you’re a white privileged male ball of anglo-saxon privilege, if you use logic or data, you’re oppressing women because logic is a phallic thing.

            To finalize, this video is relevant to the discussion: http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D4JA4EPRbWhQ%26feature%3Drelmfu&h=NAQE-YsLhAQH2dCcUrlb0h_PxAlbRRjrbnrGI9BPEQdxPmw

          • Ralphomon says:

            @ScorpionWasp: I think if you were to go somewhere with a blank slate, discussion-wise, and talk about any of these issues facing men with feminists, any reasonable one would have a reasoned debate with you about them. If, however, you go to a feminist forum and wade into a discussion in progress about any feminist issue with a what feminists call ‘but what about teh menz’ line of reasoning, you’re gonna get thrown out on your ass. There is a time and a place for discussing male issues, and in the comments on an article about female rape victims or slut-shaming or the wage gap or whatever are only going to make women think that you don’t think their problems are worth worrying about because holy shit men face problems that women don’t in their lives too.

            Basically:

            1. Relevancy is important when considering when and where to air your (potentially legitimate) grievances
            2. Playing Oppression Olympics is always going to be a dumb idea and you’re stupid if you think that comparing severity of various forms of discrimination is a good idea
            3. In my mind at least, a good feminist should necessarily be on the side of equality for all so will probably engage with you in a reasonable manner (and maybe even agree with you) if you want to discuss those things you mentioned up there, in an appropriate forum.

          • ScorpionWasp says:

            Yeah. That’s totally what I did. There was a thread titled “post your favorite feminist authors here” and I jumped right into that, discussing men issues. Look, stop being disingenuous cause nobody is (should be) stupid here. Feminists won’t allow that kind of discussion in their forums AT ALL, in my experience, and if they do, their responses never go beyond ad-hominem (“misogynous privileged bastard!”), insolence (“ugh, I’m not going to discuss anything with scum who don’t accept as unquestionable dogma that patriarchy exists and they’re privileged!”) and other logical fallacies. What, feminists’ positions about issues is not a relevant topic in forums about feminism? What is, then????

            Oh, and the day you bring me one of these “reasonable feminists” you talk about, I”ll review my positions. As far as my extensive experience with the species goes, that is a creature of myth and legend.

          • Gormongous says:

            People who respond to a discussion of women’s issues with a cry of “But what about the men?” always crack me up. Here’s a quick tip, in case you haven’t noticed: a discussion of favorite authors in general is going to be 99% about men. That’s why it’s necessary to specify female authors. That doesn’t mean it’s discrimination.

            But no, you see the infinitesimal lessening of your privilege and the increasing focus on individuals belonging to groups you don’t identify with as some sort of threat to you. Is this how feudal lords viewed the freeing of serfs and slave owners the Emancipation Proclamation?

            God forbid someone be permitted to do something you aren’t. What are you, black? A woman? Gay? Fuck that.

          • maninahat says:

            If you really are bothered about men in culture, here is the appropriate avenue to look into it. Feminists sites all to often have to deal with somebody’s “what about the menz?” argument which wasn’t part of the discussion or subject. Take your arguments to the right place.

          • keliomatic says:

            ScorpionWasp,

            First of all, you were asked to post your concerns about sexist issues for men in the right place in order to be taken seriously, and your reply was: “Yeah. That’s totally what I did. There was a thread titled “post your favorite feminist authors here” and I jumped right into that, discussing men issues.” Where exactly did you get the idea that a post about feminist authors was the best place for discussing men’s issues? I hope I wasn’t the only one scratching my head at that one.

            I am proud to announce that you can now begin to review your position on feminism because the ‘myth’ and ‘legend’ herself is in your presence. I am a “reasonable feminist” (as are so many). I love and support men and men’s right just as much as women’s. Feminism is vastly misunderstood as “women against men”, when in fact, feminism simply means ‘advocating social, political, legal, and economic rights for women equal to those of men.’ Equal rights. Not one-over-the-other and certainly not reverse sexism (a common answer to many feminist issues). And let me just say, that extends also to the right to be represented with respect and accuracy, unlike the often objectified and sexist portrayal of women in not only video games, but many and most forms of entertainment and advertising as well. If you start paying attention you’ll see the very limiting and subtly damaging ways that women are portrayed, and if you start thinking about it a little, you’ll see the issues it presents to us all.

            On that note, men most certainly do face sexist issues as well, as you illustrated, and even in some additional obscure and complex ways you didn’t mention. If you are serious about how men’s issues effect you and your gender then I encourage you to start your own project to bring awareness to them rather than suggesting that women stop fighting for their rights because “men suffer too”. That kind of mentality doesn’t do anyone any good and only keeps the issues that affect us all present and alive, because apparently, no one is allowed to fight for their rights for fear of offending the other gender, so we must all accept oppression and live in misery. Brilliant. Men and women bring different things to society and the idea is that we work together to support and better each other and the planet overall, rather than suppressing each other and fighting (I liked the term used earlier ‘Oppression Olympics’), which only serves to wedge us apart even further.

        • flib says:

          “I’m a dude, but let’s say I’m also from an ethnic minority, ugly, and for the sake of this conversation transgendered. Where the hell is my representation?”

          For everyone arguing things like this: feminism is not a monolithic entity.

          Around the early 1980s, a lot of feminist women began noticing that mainstream feminism overwhelmingly favoured women who were:

          1) white
          2) middle- or upper-class
          3) straight
          4) cis-gendered (e.g. meaning ‘not transgendered,’ ‘cis’ being the Latin opposite of ‘trans’) (this generally came later, but the roots were seen in the 1980s–and there’s a huge intra-feminist fight over whether a famous ‘womyn’s’ festival is being bigoted by refused entry to transgendered women, so this is easily the most… explosive part of the fight right now)

          Alice Walker famously came out with a book in 1983 that discussed “womanism,” or a non-white theory of feminism. (It is predominantly a North American black phenomena, but other non-whites may identify themselves as womanists as well, although often under their own feminist branches–chicana/mujerista feminism, for instance).

          That tended to come with an awareness of the relationship between poverty and feminism (e.g. that most of the world’s adult poor are women), the development of post-colonial feminism (which criticizes American and European feminists for assuming that their issues, and perspectives, are universal. and deals with how race, gender, and national identity are bound up), etc. etc. This is all part of the shift from Second-Wave Feminism (which is predominantly what people refer to when they bitch about ‘crazy feminists’) and Third-Wave Feminism. A lot of Third Wavers are aware of these issues, even if they don’t address them regularly (which, fie).

          “Well then,” you might be asking, “why aren’t we hearing a lot more about the portrayal of race in video games?”

          My answer: because seeing non-white characters in video games is so rare that it’s almost impossible to actually discuss. At least women exist (even though they predominantly exist to be seen, rather than to do). Prey has a non-white protagonist. Beyond Good and Evil. Mirror’s Edge (loved how this AAA game treated the female POC protagonist, seriously–I was so afraid when the press releases began). AssCreed 1 (with Altair). Most Valve properties have non-white protagonists (or at least allies, e.g. Alyx). Most fighting games are pretty good for this. I guess the GTA series, but I’ve never been a fan so I can’t comment much. Otherwise, you’re limited to games that allow you to engage in character creation (e.g. Bethesda’s properties).

          Recently, there was an overview of 2011′s video games to see which passed the Bechdel test (two women; who talk to each other; about something other than a man). The list was slim, to put it mildly, but at least there was a handful of games with two women. Trying to make a Bechdel test for RACE (two non-white characters; who talk; about something other than a white person)… goodness, the failure rate would be astronomical, and they’d often fail on the first part of the test (two people of colour).

          Is it wrong? Yup. But it’s really difficult to keep on talking about it if the news story is “Games continue to not have any characters of colour for us to discuss, period” versus “Games keep on doing X, Y, Z wrong with its portrayal of women (or when discussing women), and look at this new terrible example.” e.g. the Capcom reality TV show, this, the recent controversy over the new Tomb Raider’s rape scene, the most recent Soul Caliber’s advertising campaign, etc.

          I, for one, am super excited that the AssCreed Vita game will feature a woman of colour AS THE PROTAGONIST. It’s a huge step forward. Of course, I’m disappointed that this isn’t going to be the main character of AssCreed 3, but at least he’s half-native, so he can take up a position right next to Prey’s protagonist.

          (Also, for those who have claimed that feminism is over-obsessed with pop culture: pop culture feminist critics get airplay, because they comment on things you would hear about anyways. And they’re fun and I do like them–after all, I’m subscribed to “Bitch: a feminist response to pop culture,” a fun indie magazine. But that’s ignoring all the other types of feminism. Tori Amos is often identified as feminist [read the 'press' section of her website and the pull-quotes chosen, for instance], and she co-founded RAINN–the Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network, which does truly amazing work in the US. Organizations that try to stop the defunding on Planned Parenthoods, also in the US. Shelters for abused women. Trying to provide education to third-world women. Etc. etc. This feminism isn’t as sexy or explosive, so it doesn’t get airtime.)

    • Fearzone says:

      My first reaction to reading the article was “meh, what’s the point” kind of like protesting pornography or something. Then I watched her video and thought the points she was raising were rather interesting and I wish her the best. I’ll watch the videos. I’m glad the Kickstarter has been a success. Okay I donated.

      It is no secret among my friends and associates that I am a gamer more than most people, yet at the same time I’ve never been lumped in with all the homophobia on the forums and unrealistic portrayals of women that are common. While nobody would be particularly surprised if I installed a nude mod in a game, despite that, I’ve never been accused mysogyny.

      So, tropes go in all directions. She is keeping it pretty real, I appreciate that. But lot of discussion around this, including this article to some degree, seems to be going off the deep end.

    • ObiDamnKenobi says:

      You had faith in the human race?

    • vivlo says:

      “I hope that the luminaries that posted all those comments never ever reproduce or have any contact with women. They don’t deserve it.”

      Actually, my guess is that they are the kind of guys who never really have had contact with any woman, bare their mother (maybe ?). And i think that’s precisely the root of their problems with the aforementioned creatures.

  3. OfMiceAndMods says:

    This is appaling. I often discuss how wonderful the internet can be and mention kickstarters and HIB as places that show that. These stories make me rethink that however

  4. iPhap says:

    I’m certainly looking forward to this series, though I have to say that she’s probably more the victim of trolling rather than genuine misoginy.

    Quick edit for clarification: I am not at all claiming that the gaming community as a whole isn’t guilty of having extremely sexist and unpleasant members, but the attacks against her project and character are a little too “effort-y” for non-trolls.

    • TychoCelchuuu says:

      …and why is she a victim of trolling so virulent while others aren’t trolled nearly as much? And if a troll says misogynistic things, is this not genuine misogyny?

      • ahhpple says:

        This is correct. Threatening to rape someone is not trolling, and if someone thinks it is then guess what? They’re a misogynist!

        • MonkeyShines says:

          >threatening to rape someone isn’t trolling
          If you’re saying it simply to make the person mad and get a reaction, it is trolling. Ignorant scum.

          • RaveTurned says:

            I see your point and agree, *if* that is the case then yes it is trolling. It isn’t *just* trolling, it’s also threatening, menacing, vile and unacceptable behaviour.

            If they genuinely mean it, it’s not trolling. But it’s still threatening, menacing, vile and unacceptable.

          • Ancient Algae says:

            I think ahhpple knows what trolling means. I think their point was that even if that person was saying things they don’t mean, they are still hurting the other person in the same way as an actual misogynist would. As the person on the receiving end, you wouldn’t know the difference. All those insults, “trolling” and “genuine”, would affect you the same way.

          • Yosharian says:

            Ignorant scum? Really?

          • Smashbox says:

            “You stand accused of criminal threatening, terrorizing, and harassment. How do you plead?”

            “Your Honor, I was just … TROLLING.”

            “Case dismissed!”

            *gavelbang*

        • DrGonzo says:

          Threatening to rape someone isn’t really misogyny though, it’s just assault.

          • Gap Gen says:

            How many people have been convicted of things they said online, for non-national security reasons? Because the government has prosecuted people for similar things in a national security context before.

          • CrookedLittleVein says:

            Threatening to rape is assault?

            Really?

            Really is it?

            Is it really?

          • Devan says:

            @CrookedLittleVein
            Yes, actually. It is.
            http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/assault?s=t
            Threatening someone is assault even if you don’t touch them. Actually physically attacking someone would be battery.

          • CrookedLittleVein says:

            @Devan

            What a wee bunch of pansies we are.

          • gwathdring says:

            There are many victims of domestic abuse whose only legal recourse is that definition of assault.

            Consider being put in a psychological state such that you genuinely believed someone was about to beat, rape or kill you. Forcing someone into that mental state with your explicit language is simply not ok. Consider additionally being put in a state of constant fear and uncertainty for years–maybe you’re only ever actually beaten once or twice but those times were enough to make every threat that much more horrifying and destructive. This sort of psychological environment is as real and damaging as any physical torture. Believable threats can have very powerful physiological effects even in isolated incidents; over a longer period of time … it’s one of the worse things you can do to a person. And it doesn’t leave a mark.

            Pansies? I think not.

          • Sheng-ji says:

            @gwathdring – You are literally my new hero (though I think I have written this exact statement to you before on this site) for your comments through this thread!

        • codename_bloodfist says:

          Is threatening to rip someone’s balls off misandry then?

          • gwathdring says:

            Depends on the social context. If it comes from a personal and socially constructed idea that men are inferior or otherwise inherently worthy of such threats for being so bold as to step out of place or say something you don’t like listening to … yes.

            How often that actually happens is another question the answer to which, while not straightforward as such, should as least seem imposing to your line of argument.

          • Ergates_Antius says:

            “Is threatening to rip someone’s balls off misandry then?”

            The two are in no way the same. Don’t be fucking stupid.

          • gwathdring says:

            Don’t be so hasty; they are not without similarities. Broader context is an essential piece here. I agree that broader context doesn’t support his hyperbole, but you don’t need to be rude about it.

          • codename_bloodfist says:

            It’s not the same because you don’t like it. Point taken.

          • gwathdring says:

            “It’s not the same because you don’t like it”

            I’m not sure I follow what you mean.

          • codename_bloodfist says:

            Two points:

            1. No, broader social context doesn’t play a role here. If you make a threat geared towards a specific group, it either is degrading, with all following implications, or it isn’t. If an individual of Caucasian decent says “I’ll kill you and use your black skin for gloves” to an individual of African decent, while a different individual of African decent says “I’ll kill you and use your white skin for gloves” to an individual of Caucasian decent, either both are racists or neither. The fact that the Caucasians have dominated Africans in the past, that they earn more on average as a result of better education (resulting from their parents earning more, n) or that they have higher representation in the government is completely irrelevant.

            2. Even if we disregard (1), your entire disagreement is based on the feminist idea of a patriarchy and the fact that women are oppressed. I would give you some leeway and agree that, yes, sexes have to an extend some predetermined roles in our society. I would not agree that we have a societally constructed idea that women are inferior, which is the very core of your retort. The entire premise is built upon a faulty foundation.

          • Ergates_Antius says:

            Really?

            OK, simple test.

            Approximately how many women are raped or murdered by men each year in the country in which you live?

            Approximately how many men have their testicles ripped off (by men *or* women) each year in the country in which you live?

            Sexual violence, up to and including rape, is a real threat faced by women every day. The threat of rape and sexual violence is something used by men to control women, every, day.

            Having their balls ripped off isn’t something most men will ever have to worry about. It’s like threatening to rip someones arm off and beat them to death with the soggy it – it’s silly nonsense and not a credible possibility.

            So no, it’s not the same. And yes, I do have to be rude about it.

          • gwathdring says:

            I agree. Claiming social context has no bearing on how we define something as wobbly and socially-oriented “sexism” and “racism” seems odd to me. Social context is essential in analyzing social interactions and the social context of rape is much more real and threatening to most women that that of castration is to most men.

          • codename_bloodfist says:

            All right, Ergates, let’s go 150 years back. Blacks would have a much higher chance of being killed by whites than vice versa. Is the statement “I will peel of your pretty white skin and use it for gloves” by a black be considered racist? The fact that one group has more hard power than another doesn’t excuse the racist behaviour of the weaker group. You’re merely creating a double standard because it support your position.

            And you’re more than welcome to be angry. It’s not my nerves you’re ruining.

          • codename_bloodfist says:

            I think before we go further down that lane, for Ergates’s sake, I’ll just restate the original point in a more plain form. It’s not misogyny, it’s a tailored insult or threat (although in this context one that’s as likely to come to fruition as a death threat, a threat to kill her favourite cat or whatever). Clearly the one who wrote it is a man, she is a woman, thus he used the most obvious difference and tailored the insult from it. I guess if she had spots or bad teeth he could just as well have used that. You don’t have to belong to any specific group to tailor insults at another group. Matter of fact, you can just as well tailor an insult for your own group and pretend not to be a part of it. If we were both inmates, I could say, “Ergates, I hope you get raped in the shower by Big Joe”. Am I then a convict hater, a man hater, a shower hater? Let’s stop throwing terms that don’t apply left and right. It only devalues their real meaning.

          • Ergates_Antius says:

            If you’re honestly simply asking if it is possible for black people to be racist towards white people, or for women to be sexist towards men, then yes. Obviously.

            However, it in no way makes the two threats equivalent.

            To reiterate the point you keep missing:
            “I’m going to rape you” and/or “I’m going to kill you” are credible threats when made by a man towards a woman, as this type of thing happens on a regular basis.
            “I’m going to rip your balls off” is *not” a credible threat when made by a woman to a man, as this type of thing does not happen or a regular basis, or ever.

          • Ergates_Antius says:

            “It’s not misogyny, it’s a tailored insult or threat”

            It’s a tailored insult/threat directed by a group of misogynist men at a woman. Can you come up with a rational explanation as to why these people are using “tailored insults” towards her, in response to this kickstarter, other then misogyny.

            Or to put it another way: If twenty men, wearing white robes and hoods are standing in a semicircle around a burning cross they just erected in a black persons front lawn shouting “We’re going to hang you n****r”, are they racist, or is it just a tailored insult?

          • codename_bloodfist says:

            The problem is that the threats -aren’t- in fact realistic or plausible. Anyone running any sizeable YouTube channel with an even remotely politically inclines agenda has received death threats during their career. Atheists, feminists, communists, liberals, conservatives, animal rights activists, etc. etc. I don’t mean this as an insult, but if you take any physical threat you’ve received over the internet from someone you’ve never met seriously, I think you might want to look into a different line of work.

            As to why might want to insult her, I can very much understand, although I would disagree strongly with the approach. The problem isn’t fear, but anger. At least 110k USD will go to an individual claiming to somehow protect equality of women by making a bunch of videos she could have easily made for free if she wanted to. This is 110k USD that goodhearted people have donated that could have been spent to treat malaria, feed children and operate orphanages, but will instead be pocked by someone who lives in a First World country and owns every current gen console. We can agree to disagree here, but this very much leaves a particularly sour taste in my mouth.

          • Ergates_Antius says:

            Except, the 110k (or whatever) was donated *after* the outpouring of misogynist bile, quite possibly/likely in *response* to it. Therefore, the amount raised *cannot* be the cause of the hatred.

          • codename_bloodfist says:

            Then tell me exactly why nobody cared about her before she started collecting money.

          • Ergates_Antius says:

            Because the people in question didn’t know. Or because she wasn’t talking about sexism in videogames.

            Come on, do you *honestly* believe that the bile and hatred being spewed at her is down to peoples anger that the money could be used for a better cause? Seriously?

            Here’s a suggestion – people who say that someone should get raped and die of cancer probably don’t care that much about a cure for malaria. I could be wrong on that, but call it a hunch.

            Also – why do other kickstarter projects not attract this amount of hate? Not many kickstarter projects are about finding a cure or cancer or feeding the needy. Why do they also not get death threats? Is making a videogame about surviving a zombie appocalypse somehow equivalent to opening an orphanage?

          • codename_bloodfist says:

            Her channel is called the Feminist Frequency. What do you think it is about? I’ll give you a hint: it’s not about radiophysics.

            I’m really just getting tired of this conversation now. Believe what you like and join the DFL. I hear that all women are in cahoots with each other so men can’t have sex with them. Might be your thing.

          • gwathdring says:

            I believe when he says “credible threat” he’s speaking in a sort of semi-jargon. Credible threat doesn’t mean you’re certain the person making it will do it to you. It means the threat consists of something that could very likely happen to you, and is well within the realm of social possibility. As such, a threat of rape from a man to a woman has more social context to draw upon, more fears both rational and irrational that the woman being threatened has experienced in the past. The social context makes it a more hurtful and scary thing to say.

            Secondly, my primary issue with your initial statement and your comments thus far hasn’t been the assertion that the threats can be made without explicit misogynist intentions. They can. The trouble is, they come from and feed a genuine misogynist social pressure. Additionally, you defended the idea that your comparison threat is equally misandrist–this is my biggest point of disagreement. Sexism is intensely contextual. It depends entirely on the social context. Devoid of that context, these are all just scribbles on a page in the first place. Especially with something like gender politics, your social conditioning and past experiences really redefine how effective these threats are and how easy they are to shrug off.

            I do value your point about overusing charged words and using them as replacements for well structured, careful discussion. It’s a very well taken point. And yet, I see a lot of productive and careful discussion here so perhaps this is one of the times it is appropriate to use such language. Where you see careless dispensation of charged language, I see at least as much intentional and controlled use of charged language by people feeling strongly about an issue they’ve also thought carefully about. Just keep that in mind. Again, it’s a great point … but if we never used charged words and feelings in our discussions, we’ll just reattach those emotions to the words we do use and/or never really effectively discuss anything emotionally powerful. Balance is important; I think I see a lot of balance in this thread.

    • oceanclub says:

      Sorry, but I don’t agree with all. If it was merely a trolling instinct, why aren’t loads of Kickstarter projects getting this kind of abuse? Sometimes, the simplest explanation is the right one, and in this case, the horrible simple fact is that the world is full of misogynists.

      P.

      • iPhap says:

        Oh, come on. Why aren’t other projects being trolled? Because other projects don’t deal with this subject matter. She’s against sexism and misoginy, so she will be subject to both of those things by trolls. That is a very simple explanation.

        • Zephro says:

          Because the trolls are sexist.

        • Hmm-Hmm. says:

          Even if it were ‘merely trolling’, it would still be reprehensible. Trolling should not be used as an excuse in this case. Think about it for a second. It’s about what they did as much as why. If the why is trolling, well, then consider the types of people who would think that type of trolling is fun and acceptable.

          See? It doesn’t matter that much whether it’s intended as trolling or not.

          • iPhap says:

            I’ve seen a lot of replies stating that trolling isn’t this or that, but the fact of the matter is that trolling is simply stating an opposing point of view in order to rouse a reaction. Trolls will say whatever hits one’s button in order to get a reaction, so it’s only natural that they’ll be sexist and misogynistic towards a person who advocates equality through mocking the tropes which reinforce those sexist and misogynistic stereotypes. As for the statement suggesting that there is no or little difference between the trolls and real sexists; I contest that notion. While their intent is to hurt either way, the maliciousness of a troll is benign in comparison to that of a real misogynist. The difference also lies in the fact that a troll is more random in its acts, while a misogynist is a goal-oriented, women hating machine–the troll isn’t a perpetual danger to women, either online or offline. The annoying thing about trolls is that they also misrepresent the community as misoginistic, more so than it generally comes across as, feeding into the albeit deserved stereotype that gamers are sexist.

            TL;DR: trolls are either internet alphas or self-aware assholes, while misogynists represent a more clear and present danger (1994) to women. It’s important to distinguish between the two, in my honest opinion. One deserves a finger cut off and the other- well, you get the idea.

          • MadMatty says:

            iPhap is entirely correct.

          • Lamb Chop says:

            Trolling is a performative act, and the oft-cited defense of it, “I don’t actually hold those views, I’m just trolling,” that comes precisely from that fact misses the point. Even the most ironic performance is used for a social purpose, and while it might not be the semantic content of the trolling that is explicitly to ostracize (in some cases, like rape, racial epithets, etc., the semantic content is itself damaging and inappropriate, but that’s a separate issue), it defines in-group/out-group boundaries about what is acceptable in a community.

            A couple real world examples, positive and negative: A kid tells a funny joke and everyone laughs. Another kid gives a someone a swirly. In both of these examples, what’s important is the social relations around the people and less the content of the action. The swirly kid is exerting a power relationship, the funny kid is seeking social acceptance. If the action itself is exclusionary, then regardless of the semantic content, it ostracizes and, in that sense, harms the targeted individual. An argument over the veracity of the semantic content can be instructive as to just how awful the person is, but simply by performing an exclusionary act, they’ve already shown themselves to be socially destructive and immature.

            As an addendum, if you see a person’s gender as an acceptable target for trolling, then you are behaving as a misogynist.

          • wererogue says:

            Lamb Chop beats me to the reply. If you think that this behaviour is acceptable in the name of trolling, then you’re sexist.

          • iPhap says:

            “If you think that this behaviour is acceptable in the name of trolling, then you’re sexist.” I agree, though I have no idea who this statement is aimed at.

          • Cockles says:

            Personally, I really don’t see whether it matters whether someone is trolling or not and then trying to explain why the distinction matters – if you threaten to rape someone then why does it matter whether you were trolling or being a mysoginist? The primary emotion should be empathy with the victim of the threat and secondly, if someone is “trolling” via mysogeny then they *are* mysoginist, try making awful threats agsinst someone you don’t know and then reeling out some explanation as to why you did it. Any person I’ve ever met who has made derogatory racist or sexist comments always has an explanation or justification as to why their ignorance is relevant, “I was just fishing for a reaction” does not change what the victim felt in any way and doesn’t make the crime (at least it would be criminal if said in person) any less of a horrible thing to do.

          • Sheng-ji says:

            Not to dismiss exactly how disgusting and vile sexists who make these comments are, am I the only one here who thinks that being a troll is actually worse!!!

        • oceanclub says:

          “Because other projects don’t deal with this subject matter.”

          Er right. So they are doing this because of sexism/misogyny. Which was my original point.

          P.

        • Rodafowa says:

          Sorry, reply in the wrong place.

        • Ancient Algae says:

          “The annoying thing about trolls is that they also misrepresent the community as misoginistic”

          >>What reputation do trolls have to uphold that being seen as misogynistic is hurtful to their “community”?

          “The difference also lies in the fact that a troll is more random in its acts, while a misogynist is a goal-oriented”

          >>Ha! You could say that trolls are “random” (in that they consist of a wide range of individuals with different interests, and therefore different things to be mean about) and misogynists “goal-oriented” (in that they, uh, hate women) but that would be foolish. Trolls could be goal-oriented– as they kindly demonstrated through their attack on Sarkeesian. Misogynists can be random in their acts because, well, they’re people.

          “While their intent is to hurt either way, the maliciousness of a troll is benign in comparison to that of a real misogynist.. the troll isn’t a perpetual danger to women, either online or offline”

          >>What a relief! Trolls are nicer than misogynists, them being benignly malicious and all.

          Hmm. They say the same insults, but their intent is different, because one’s doing it for the lulz, and the other reaaaally hates women, so the former is less malicious? What kind of evil bastard would want to hurt another person even when he didn’t mean it?

          • iPhap says:

            I think you’re just being deliberately obtuse at this point. Either that or the word misogynist has lost all meaning and you can’t see past the fact that being a fucking dick and literally hating women isn’t the same thing. Misogynistic sentiments fosters negativite attitudes towards women, no matter who says it–be it a troll or a genuine misogynist. But the only person who’s actually going to act out on that, that would be in real life, is the genuine misogynist. You’re not gonna see or hear about a troll using or beating up women. While you can definitely label the troll as a contributing factor towards sexist attitudes, a troll is different in the way that he doesn’t mean it. “What kind of evil bastard would want to hurt another person even when he didn’t mean it?” A troll would, and you know what, it’s not acceptable, but not once have I made that argument. My argument is and always has been that there is a diference, and I really hope you can see that.

        • Reefpirate says:

          So wait… Since when was trolling considered some sort of higher order of sophistication? Since when was trolling a community? And since when was trolling ever set in some sort of high-brow definition? Trolls are hipsters now? Trolling is an art form that people are supposed to respect, even in the face of ridiculous demonstrations like this?

          It’s dumb-as-a-rock vulgarity in one of its worst forms. Don’t call this shit trolling, you make yourself sound like an idiot.

        • DK says:

          Yes the reason this Kickstarter is getting trolled in this manner and others are not is because this Kickstarter matters to the person starting it on a deeply PERSONAL level, which is far more inviting to people that want to get a rise out of trolling than Kickstarters started for mainly creative or financial reasons.

    • Risingson says:

      And what if this is trolling? Is this a justification? Trolling means that you can be homophobe or misogynistic? You know, there is a looong line between “politically correct” and “being phobic and disguising your attitude as an attack to the system”. Rape, for example, is something you have to know how to joke about it, if you need to. I mean: those attacks are shameful, full stop.

    • sincarne says:

      It is certainly trolling. But as soon as you make hateful comments about women, or make threats that revolve around the fact that the person being threatened is female, it becomes misogyny.

    • GreatGreyBeast says:

      I think being “mere” trolling mitigates the death/rape threats a bit. I mean, they’re absolutely horrible things to say, but they are not literal, plausible *threats*. Probably. Hopefully.

      However, it does not mitigate misogyny. As others have said, trolling this is a symptom of misogyny.

      • Ergates_Antius says:

        No. A threat is still a threat, even if you have neither the means nor the intention of carrying it out.

        Bullshit are these trolls.

      • Ancient Algae says:

        Mitigates.

      • Techmaven says:

        @flib:

        Thanks for a great thumbnail history of feminism. But just to delineate it a bit more, many of us who were around in the 70s were already questioning the racism and sexism already showing up in mainstream feminism. Groups such as ‘The Lavender Menace’ (so named after a comment Betty Friedan made about lesbians supposedly infiltrating straight white suburban lady-feminism with their urban girl-loving and gender-messy rhetoric) were around by the mid-70s. Andrea Dworkin actually didn’t start out as a total crazy; she was one of the first women who started the discussion about rape and its connections with women-hating as expressed in violent porn and mainstream media, although she did quickly go off the deep end. And I remember as a young black feminist questioning one of my professors in about 1982 (a period in which the Third Wave was just getting started) why it was assumed that all women wanted to be ‘freed’ to work outside the home, but no-one seemed to be asking about women like my grandma, who had cleaned other women’s houses for a living. Betty Friedan was already seen as an ass by many of my high school feminist friends, and irrelevant to our lives as young urban women, especially women of color.

        That’s why this constant harping on ‘how the evil feminists banded together to ruin everything for men’ trope gets on my last nerve. In the 80s I spent more time yelling at other women about how it was wrong for the Michigan Women’s Music Festival was to ban all male children over the age of one, butch women, and women who practiced BDSM, than I did thinking about making men kowtow (when i was thinking about men at all; mostly I was thinking about having sex with other women, because i’m bisexual and was going through a ‘no thanks, I’m queer’ moment). In fact, during that period there was a big break in feminism. Some of us became womanists, as you mentioned, and worked hard to heal the broken bonds between ourselves and men, especially men of color. Others became or stayed hard-core separatists, and essentially left the discussion of a world-changing feminism forever, to move to communes and become the feminist equivalent of white supremacists. Most of these were white women from the middle classes. A large number didn’t teach their daughters about wide-reaching real-life radical feminism (not the feminism of Germaine Greer, but the feminism that wanted all businesses to have creches for working parents, universal health care, and labor unions for all workers, as well as the end of legalized spousal abuse, trafficking in women, child slavery, and interrogating female genital mutilation) but instead concentrated on cozier, easier to sell concepts such as the ERA (which tanked), ‘Ms.’ magazine, Take Your Daughter to Work Day, and getting jobs in upper management and the professions.

        Feminists like me still laugh at the idea of mommy-blogging (not because being a wife or mother is a bad thing, but at the idea that such blogs are usually navel-gazing that never mentions issues like infant formula in Third World nations or the racism inherent in rushing to adopt foreign children while not working to improve conditions for all parents around the world). We think talking about video games and pop culture is interesting and somewhat important, but useless if some women insist on talking about ‘rape culture’ as if it’s only about men, without talking about how mutual respect between men and women won’t happen until we look at how our male-oriented culture is as much a strait-jacket for men as it is for women, and share with men what we learned about the restrictions of Western gender ideals while we were in Feminist School.

        But, as you said, none of this is as fun to discuss as ‘crazy feminists who hate men’ which was a concept invented by the media a long time ago and turns up in historical moments that never happened, such as bra burning. “Crazy feminists who hate men’ is just as much a made up story as ‘liberals who all have maids and drive SUVs and coddle Al-Qaeda’. While such people exist, there are more feminists working on issues like The Wounded Warrior Project right now than there are living on communes and refusing to speak to men, and there have been more ‘muscular liberals’ like John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Dwight Eisenhower (yes, there have been liberal Republicans, too), Teddy Roosevelt (a total liberal on issues like conservation and political corruption) and Hubert Humphrey than there have been weak-kneed liberals like Adlai Stevenson (who wasn’t really that weak).

        As a freethinking feminist liberal who has had no problem supporting the right to have a safe legal abortion while being a Roman Catholic opposed to destroying human life (abortion is legal and sometimes necessary, especially for poor women- there are a lot of nuns who feel the same way), supporting groups like Wounded Warrior that mostly directly help men (because men have families that include women, and men are human beings, and humans who suffer from PTSD don’t deserve to be ignored just because they don’t have vaginas), and favoring civil liberties and fair treatment for gay people, immigrants, and ex-cons (because, duh, I’ve actually read the entire Bible, and Jesus told us that we should care for those who need us, and not to judge what people are or where they come from, lest we be judged also, and to me it’s obvious that gayness is not a sin but a gift from God to all species of sentient animal as a form of birth control as well as affection), I probably don’t fit what most people think a feminist looks like. But lots of us exist. People need to stop stereotyping. It mean, and even worse, it’s stupid.

    • dsch says:

      Quite agree. Misogyny is a trope carried to extremes in certain parts of the internet. I imagine we are mostly seeing the confrontation of a trope or gesture with people who are unfamiliar with it, with the added element of a desire to shock those who are perceived to be easily offended (a self-fulfilling prophecy). The most direct and personal attacks can perhaps be seen as attempts to outdo others in trolling. Of course, there is no discounting the genuinely disturbed elements who see this mess as a perfect opportunity to vent their extreme views.

      Edit: The first comment to this article, since deleted, was a very relevant and self-aware performance of exactly this kind of freeform troping. Evidently TPTB either decided to bow to political correctness, or to ironically complete the cycle of mutual misunderstanding. In fact, it may be helpful to read the deletion of that comment as a Lacanian moment: whereas TPTB do understand the point of the comment, they deleted the comment for the benefit of the Other which is presumed to not understand.

    • Quarex says:

      Have you ever seen trolling before? You know, the things where you play the equivalent of a real-world practical joke on someone?

      Do you go up to your buddies in real life and then hilariously scream with a megaphone that you hope they are raped and murdered? Is that kind of thing really “trolling?” Is that a practical joke? Or is it, in the case being discussed in this thread, an electronic representation of deep-seated loathing toward women for “being uppity?”

    • gwathdring says:

      I don’t buy it. I don’t believe in calling this trolling. Not on this scale, not when it lines up with tangible societal attitudes. I’m sure it happens, but I’m sure there are people who use it as a cover either by convincing others or convincing themselves that they are “just trolling.”

      Misogyny is one thing, but sexism does not simply consist of actively despise, hating, or disdaining people on the basis of gender. Communication is subject to a social contract, and breaking that social contract with this sort of language perpetuates sexist attitudes and atmospheres regardless of the specific intents and motivations of the speaker.

      More seriously, a violent threat is a violent threat whatever the intention of the user. One would not fail to evacuate a school after a threat of violence simply because, statistically, most such threats are a prank or bluster.

  5. Mr. Mister says:

    WHERE’S SAMUS???
    I for once want to see her in the Dark Suit. Wheelie shoulderpads are way cooler.

    • Kdansky says:

      Samus is such a great female character, except she was all but vandalized when they A: decided she needed a sexy skin-suit outfit and B: make her Adam’s bitch in Other M.

    • ulix says:

      Samus isn’t in the video because she is one of the few female videogame characters (and a lead-character for that matter) that isn’t displayed sexistically (is that a word?). At least she wasn’t until the zero-suit (which however does make sense that you’d wear a suit like this under armor like this), and of course until the sexists at Team Ninja regrettably got their hands on her.

      • ThTa says:

        How come people keep forgetting that your “reward” for quickly and completely beating Metroid was seeing her in her underwear/a bikini?

        Aside from that (and the utterly horrid Other M, of course), she is a favourite of mine due to damn near everything else in the games she features in.

  6. Phoenix says:

    “We need to own this – to acknowledge that as gamers this is our community, no matter how far we may wish to distance from it, and no matter how much we may not take part in it.” No we don’t. I take no responsibility for what other people do. I take responsibility for what I do, nothing else. I don’t share the opinions or think the same things as book-readers, TV-watchers, music-listeners. I don’t associate myself with them or their opinions, I don’t consider myself responsible for or somehow part of what assholes in those communities do, so why should I do so in gaming?

    People are assholes. Horrible assholes. Vile creatures with disgusting opinions, and the dumbest “jokes” and insane comments and vandalism, and so on. Just because these people play games doesn’t mean I have any sort of connection to them at all.

    • TychoCelchuuu says:

      This sort of thing is what lets them get away with it. The problem is definitely not random assholes. Random assholes always have existed and always will exist. The problem is a culture that creates assholes, that tolerates assholes, and even that encourages assholes. Saying “if I don’t do it, it’s not something I have to care about” is ignoring what sort of problem it is. It’s a problem of the sort of discourse that we have going, and staying out of it by claiming not to be involved is just to let some people dominate the conversation.

      • Delusibeta says:

        Insert reference to the General Internet Fuckwad Theory here. The problem won’t be solved unless a Facebook (or similar) account is mandatory on every website, and I’ll be willing to be that will only encourage hardened trolls to make fake accounts and carry on being dicks.

      • Mr. Mister says:

        I think his/her point was that he/she is being accused of it because he/she is being treated just as a member of a group he/she may or may not have said traits in common with. A fair point I guess.

      • rockman29 says:

        Tolerance of assholes is the biggest problem.

        This shit happens, because other people fail to act and say it’s wrong. And that should put shame on everyone, not just the people who act out the behaviour.

        It’s bad, and people who have the mindfulness to know it’s wrong should stand up and say so. This is absolutely disgusting. All those youtube accounts with those clearly hateful remarks should be suspended or banned.

    • Vinraith says:

      I tend to agree that gaming is no more a “community” than “book readers” or “movie watchers” are a community, and I’m no more responsible for its actions. That said, there’s a significant stigma attached to our hobby, in part due to the repugnant actions and beliefs of many self-described gamers. I think it’s in the best interest of anyone that doesn’t want to be embarrassed to admit they play games to change that, even if we don’t properly bear any responsibility for it. Plus, there’s an inherent societal benefit to stamping out this kind of ugliness wherever it crops up, period.

      • TychoCelchuuu says:

        Well certainly being a gamer doesn’t make you more of a community than being a book reader or anything, but if almost all books were misogynistic and if anyone speaking out about it got constant rape threats, then it would be everyone’s job to fix it, not just the job of the idiots who are never going to shut up until we change society.

        (And to some extent that’s almost where we all with books, but obviously it’s not nearly as bad as it is with videogames. Not even close.)

        • Vinraith says:

          I’d take fundamental issue with the notion that “almost all” games are misogynistic. I primarily play strategy games, which don’t even have characters, for example.

          I would take even greater issue with your statement about books. Perhaps you don’t mean that the way it reads, but it lends credence to those who would accuse you of jumping at shadows, and ultimately undermines your (entirely valid) primary point.

          In short, focus on reactions like the one in this case, which could not show the problem more clearly, rather than tarring all media with the same brush, which starts a debate that doesn’t serve your purposes.

          • Delusibeta says:

            Yeah, saying that almost all X is Y, where X is a medium of entertainment and Y is a discrimination will inevitably lead to fans of X calling for your head on a platter. Add in the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory and you get this result.

          • DrGonzo says:

            Just because the games YOU play aren’t sexist doesn’t mean the vast majority of them are. That’s a strange way to look at it.

      • Hmm-Hmm. says:

        I think that’s a bit nit-picky. There simply is a problem regarding sexism in games and gaming communities. Not all games and communities by all means, certainly, but enough that it’s worth taking a stance against. You’re not being accused here.

      • Cooper says:

        This is part of the issue. The gaming community is huge.

        Huge enough that I can very easily avoid the kinds of sections of the community thate the vile hatred ferments in. I detest the attitude aso I use avoidance tactics. As do many women. But there’s space to speak out.

        I was playing RO2 the other day. Some guy used “faggot” as a term of abuse. Someone pulled them up on it; asking them how the fuck they thought that was acceptable or a mature manner of acting (the guy was clearly not a kid). I pitched in and soon enough the bulk of the 50 person server was in agreement that that kind of language was just unaccaeptable.

        • Thirith says:

          I agree with what most here have said. I expect Christians who disagree with homophobic idiots to speak up against them, not sit back and say to themselves, “Well, we’re not like that…” I expect Muslims to speak up against misogynist fundamentalists. I expect Brits to speak up against xenophobic cunts from the UK. I expect men to speak up against sexist idiots. I expect the same from gamers. If they don’t, they’re part of the problem.

          You’re responsible for your actions as much as for your inaction. Thinking any different is cowardly, disingenuous or stupid.

          • DrGonzo says:

            This I completely disagree with. After having been hit in the face several times by arseholes for similar situations.

            It is THEM not you. You don’t contribute to it, challenge it if it seems ok, if not you simply don’t even address it with a response. As more often than not challenging them will just reassure them that they are correct.

        • ix says:

          I also avoid those sections of the gaming community, if only because I find RPS a far more compelling place to read about games. I’m sure kotaku and the escapist have good content, but I only end up there when somebody else links me to it. Unfortunately that means that I’m not even part of the communities John wants me to help turn around.

          I do think that simply calling people out on their bullshit when you *do* encounter it, is the best way to go. Some people use the word “fag” without thinking about it. The immediate reaction to you or me calling them out on it might be defiance, but I’m sure if it happens enough it will set them to thinking.

          So yes, education, not giving up the debate. And consistently down modding racist, misogynistic or homophobic comments in places where I see it.

          I would add: not buying the worst offenders. I immediately lost all interest in Hitman after that trailer of them.

          One thing that strikes me though is that places such as Kotaku, The Escapist, GAF, the Team Liquid forums, etc. have a huge responsibility to take a stand against this kind of behaviour. And personally I don’t think they do nearly enough.

          • DrGonzo says:

            This kind of comment is what stops many of us getting involved. The Hitman trailer was just funny, it wasn’t misogynist or sexist. But complaints about that distract from things that actually are (like Nuns existing at all).

          • Risingson says:

            Just to reply to Gonzo: it wasn’t funny, it was sexualized, but above it all, it was pure exploitation. It seemed like a fantasy from the 70-80 grim movies starred by Linda Blair. To me, it looked not offensive, just old and conservative: I’m a bit tired of s/m and leather being associated to negative stereotypes.

          • Etheric42 says:

            Of course it was reference to classic exploitation. That’s part of what made it funny. In fact part of what made it so funny is that is both feminist AND misogynist. Too many games try to avoid the whole misogyny label by not having any female antagonists at all (or a token Bond girl). The trailer featured women being badasses, and being individuals worthy enough of recognition that they had to be killed (not just left in a kitchen somewhere, making sandwiches for some goon that will never come home again). Now maybe you can discuss how the defacto standard mode of conflict in video games (violence) means that the only interaction you have with other “human beings” is to kill them (not talking about multiplayer, but the idea that the NPCs are supposed to represent people), and as such, the trailer had to be about either violence to women or violence from women in order to be able to represent women at all.

          • ix says:

            DrGonzo, you can still take a stand against sexism without agreeing with me about that trailer. If you don’t believe that particular instance is a problem for whatever reason, I can understand that, but that doesn’t mean you should just go and say “not my problem” about everything else.

            What I’m suggesting is that we keep discussing issues like it, and that then everyone can draw their own conclusions.

            But of course, we should also condemn in the strongest words any harassment the likes of which started this article. I think that’s a given.

    • RaveTurned says:

      “I take no responsibility for what other people do. I take responsibility for what I do, nothing else.”

      It is your choice how you react to the actions of others. Your choices are your responsibility, whether it’s a choice to act one way or another or a choice to not act at all. Ergo if you see people acting in a way that you think is unacceptable and do nothing to dissuade them, you are allowing their actions to go unchecked. THAT is your responsibility – perhaps not yours alone, but you let those actions happen unchecked.

      • Runs With Foxes says:

        Oh shut it. The guy called them assholes, vile and disgusting, and you reckon he’s not doing enough? Just because he’s not writing blog posts and self-flagellating in his bedroom you think he’s letting it happen?

        How many blog posts have YOU written about this to try to right the wrongs of the world? How many Gamers Against Misogyny meetings have you chaired so you can all nod in agreement at how terrible people are?

        What are you doing to fix this? Posting a comment on RPS? Congratulations, you’ve done precisely fuck all to fix anything. Have a nice day.

        • DrGonzo says:

          Yes, I can’t imagine seeing them challenging an EDL march for some reason. Because that is what you guys are saying. If you don’t walk up to a load of violent thugs and challenge them over it (with severe injury, humiliation or even death being a possible outcome) then you are a coward and are contributing to it.

          Absolute bollocks.

          • RaveTurned says:

            That is indeed bollocks, and it’s not what I’m saying. Firstly, contributing to an act and enabling it are distinct concepts – one is not the other, but both are bad. Secondly, you seem to assume my own direct physical confontation is the only non-enabling action, which is not the case.

            I can act against violence by calling the police, and I can act against political views that I disagree with by attempting to persuade others of the flaws of those views, for instance by debating them in an open forum. Suicide-by-proxy is not the only option.

        • RaveTurned says:

          You seem to have missed a key word in my post there – “if”. I did not say Phoenix had done nothing – obviously he has denounced them and that is self-evidently a thing. However I disagree with the implication that members of a community should take no responsibility for the actions of other people in their community, especially if those actions are seen to be representative of that community. I posted to highlight that misconception.

          Perhaps if I’d used a more impersonal form of speech instead of “you” and “your” I would have made the details of my position clearer – but the underlying point would have been lost as a result.

          Edit: Thinly veiled personal jab retracted – non-constructive, and you probably only questioned my own efforts because you misconstrued my own post.

          • Runs With Foxes says:

            This is what I have a problem with: I am not part of the ‘gaming community’. I watch films but am not part of the ‘filming community’. I read novels but am not part of the ‘noveling community’. This bizarre tendency of ‘gamers’, as well as non-gamers, to put everyone who plays games in the same little box is one of the reasons why any discussion of the medium is so simplistic and unproductive.

    • Kaira- says:

      “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”

      • Runs With Foxes says:

        “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”

        Good men? Gendered and sexist, you’re part of the problem.

        • Continuity says:

          That is a famous quote from Edmund Burke and 18th century political philosopher. yes it’s wording is not politically correct but you can’t rewrite history, feminism should only be taken so far, I draw the line at tyrannical censorship and rewriting history.

          That said I support this kickstarter fully.

    • gwathdring says:

      I agree that we are not complicit in such crimes by failing to act. But we also need to be careful that we don’t trivialize the problem when we brush off our hands and say “we’re not like them.” Because it’s really easy for us to relax and not jump on opportunities when we maybe SHOULD do something small but meaningful or even translate into us mocking people who do stand up and act.

      I do think we have a responsibility to take care of our community just as we have a responsibility to report and prevent crimes within certain limits. We don’t need to tackle the knife-wielding bandit, but we certainly ought to do more than glance at his crime and keep walking. It isn’t our fault that horrible people say horrible things, but we should do our best to create a better environment; sometimes that means saying something and sometimes that just means being nice ourselves.

    • Cockles says:

      Your apathy enables this behaviour though, whether you like to admit it or not. If someone does something wrong right in front of you and you don’t challenge it then you enable this behaviour to continue. Apathy is a much larger (i.e. more common and more easily fixed) problem than the act that is wrong because if everyone stood up to things that are morally wrong then it would go a long way to eliminating it happening again (insert quote about good men doing nothing for bad men to blah blah blah).

      EDIT: Sorry, Kaira has already been more eloquent than I have with the above quote.

  7. Zyrocz says:

    Because we have so many different types of male characters in video game.

  8. gwyrdd says:

    This is so refreshing to read, having just come from the comments section of the Kotaku article “Hitman Director Says Controversial Trailer ‘Wasn’t Supposed To Be’ Sexist”.

    It made me die a little inside. Or a lot inside. Many, many times.

    • InternetBatman says:

      Just being on Kotaku makes me want to die a little. They have this absolutely amazing, perfect commenting technology. It’s attached to terrible tabloid articles and one of the seedier news organizations out there and some terrible, terrible writers (Bashcraft, Foiles, and Rogers).

    • Lucas Says says:

      Exactly this. I’m sure these people don’t “mean” to be sexist, either (I bet a lot of them consider themselves good people, paradoxically), but holy everything are they ever.

      In short, this controversy shows just how incredibly necessary this sort of project is.

      • byteCrunch says:

        More or less, the response to this just clearly demonstrates exactly why it needs to be done, whether it makes a difference or not its hopefully a step in the right direction.

  9. BenA says:

    On behalf of every man who posted some bullshit comment anywhere about her, I apologise. I hope she gets her funding and this project goes ahead.

    • Odweaver says:

      So she has made nearly $90,000.00 dollars to make six youtube videos saying the designs for female characters in video games are sexist, and she just got huge amounts of free promotion with time left on the kickstarter for saying people were mean to her on the internet?

      • Hmm-Hmm. says:

        Well, that’s certainly better than having that funding go to support the opposite view, I say.

        • codename_bloodfist says:

          What opposite view? That Lara Croft, a multimillionaire adventurer, who takes orders from absolutely no one, kicks ass of everything from tyrannosaurus to her butler, travels across the world and owns a bloody estate, is an icon of sexism and misogyny? Right…

          • gwathdring says:

            It’s fine to find the videos unnecessary or not worth the money; but a lot of people seem to think differently, and evidently that made many other feel threatened or whatever it is that made them respond so horribly.

            More on point, a character being a bad-ass has nothing to do with their portrayal being devoid of sexism.

          • codename_bloodfist says:

            Again, two points:

            1.) Please explain to me exactly what your understanding of sexism is and how it relies to Lara? The fact that she doesn’t wear a burkha while scaling walls? In this case Sam Fisher is an icon of female oppression because he repeatedly wears a wet suit in environments where it would be rather uncomfortable (Arctic, urban hospitals), solely for the aesthetic pleasure of the player.

            2.) I don’t know if it actually made anyone feel threatened, I am just very disappointed with the general lack of level-headedness. If she wanted to start a help centre for women who are/were, for instance, abused and needed money for it, sure, great idea. Or if she wanted to help girls in Mongolia countries so that they don’t have to be sold for cattle. Or if she went into a Muslim country advocating rights for women and needed a group of bodyguards, even that I could get behind. However, at the time of this writing she has a little over 100k USD in funds to make a bunch of videos that require absolutely no qualifications and have no costs associated with them. That’s enough money to feed ~1500 children under the age of eight for an entire year in Burkina Faso. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, if you want to donate to a worthy cause, send the money to MSF. This is just plain insulting.

          • Cockles says:

            Do you honestly have a problem because Anita is not using this money to help repressed women around the world? Is that really how you feel about this? Can people not donate their money to whatever they want to give it to? Does anyone who wants to promote an issue in their sphere of interest have to stop and invest all their time and energy to the most pressing concerns of the worlds problems? How do you know what she does for good causes with the rest of her time and money? Isn’t sexism against women in general a problem and will this not get a lot of publicity within a traditionally male-orientated sphere that quite obviously has problems with the way it portrays women? Will doing this perhaps get more people to question or challenge these beliefs or perhaps, more importantly, reduce people being apathetic towards sexism when they see it happening in all areas of life and not just gaming?

          • codename_bloodfist says:

            >Do you honestly have a problem because Anita is not using this money to help repressed women around the world?

            Yes, I do.

            >Is that really how you feel about this?

            Yes, it is.

            >Can people not donate their money to whatever they want to give it to?

            Yes, at risk of looking like complete twats. If you donate to a dog shelter when the orphanage next to you has no funds to feed the children, I see absolutely no reason to show even a grain of respect for your decision. In this case, it’s even worse because it’s not a dog shelter, but one individual who is doing pretty well already.

            >Does anyone who wants to promote an issue in their sphere of interest have to stop and invest all their time and energy to the most pressing concerns of the worlds problems?

            Depends on how pressing the concerns are.

            >How do you know what she does for good causes with the rest of her time and money?

            I don’t. That’s the problem.

            >Isn’t sexism against women in general a problem and will this not get a lot of publicity within a traditionally male-orientated sphere that quite obviously has problems with the way it portrays women?

            Nobody cared about what she said before, nobody will care about what she says now. This will blow over as quickly as it began and she’ll leave 100k USD richer. Come back to me on this in 6 months time.

            >Will doing this perhaps get more people to question or challenge these beliefs or perhaps, more importantly, reduce people being apathetic towards sexism when they see it happening in all areas of life and not just gaming?

            1: This is not what she’s doing. Her project is specifically about characters in gaming.
            2: No, probably not.

          • gwathdring says:

            You make some fair points. I’m not especially impressed by the project, and I have some concerns about the extravagant amounts of money the project has raised and this being a debatable approach for such a polarizing issue (crowd sourcing + controversial issues isn’t the most constructive and comforting combination when we want to educate and unite people). But we can only nit-pick legitimately so many times before it starts to be difficult to distinguish from nit-picking with ulterior motivations, personal or socially conditioned.

            This is not meant to be an accusation. I’m sure you mean what you say for the reasons you claim. But if you set your standards that high … you’re going to be disappointed. Effective change comes from all sorts of directions and there are too few of those “best” organizations and people to change the world without help from less perfect people, organizations, campaigns, and ideas. If we wait around for the perfect solution, we become part of what holds the world back from changing.

      • TychoCelchuuu says:

        I think he’s apologizing for, you know, the rape and death threats and stuff. If you think hundreds of those have no effect and that anyone with reasonably thick skin can just shrug it all off, then that’s great, but should you ever find yourself the target of a virulent anonymous Internet hate machine I’m not sure you’ll say “eh whatever.” At the very least I think you’d deserve an apology from the people who say you should be burned in an oven with the other Jews or something.

    • Viod says:

      Yeah, but i have to say her project is a bit naive.
      I saw some videos of her and…come on, X-Files is sexist now? Dana Scully was an amazing character.
      Videogames are sexist? There are plenty of faboulos female characters, not only for big boobs, but for skills, cleverness, attitude. I usually play female characters in games because i like them, they are usually cool.
      And we still have male characters with a lot of muscles, a huge crotch, badass attitude, and so on, but it’s not a problem for us. Who cares? I don’t think that my girlfriend is going to leave me because i’m not cool as Batman.
      Sexism even in Lego? OH COME ON!

      For sure she doesn’t deserve to be insulted by a bunch of kids, but i think she also doesn’t deserve money for spread feminism and hypocrisy all over the world.

      • frightlever says:

        I read about a *quarter of Chris Roberson’s “Further: Beyond the Threshold” recently and it imagines a world 12000 years in the future when everyone is considered human that has a sense of self-awareness and intellect to go with it. With ubiquitous individuality, through simple body-modifications or origin (androids, AIs and gene-engineered cows amongst the least bizarre) I imagine it would be pretty hard for negative stereotypes to take hold.

        But we don’t have that.

        (*I only read a quarter of it because it was dire.)

      • DrGonzo says:

        Having just rewatched X-Files, it does go a bit weird at the end.

      • glix says:

        fem·i·nism/ˈ
        The advocacy of women’s rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.

        Yeah, definitely don’t want to be spreading something like THAT around.

        People need to stop acting like feminism is a bad word.

      • Salvian says:

        Actually, the LEGO examples in the video were sexist, because the toys are training children in very restrictive gender roles. Now, obviously we can quibble about the extent to which one ought to take this kind of argument, but the basic point is good.

        Feminists have traditionally attacked the perpetuation of this sort of female gender role- that is, the idea that women should do X and not Y; for example, cook and raise children, but not work (except in the house) or have opinions.

        Saying that you are against ‘sexism’ but don’t support feminism is like a 19th Century gentleman saying that he believed the ‘fairer sex’ should be treated with courtesy, but on no account given the vote.

      • gwathdring says:

        Let’s not forget one of the key tenets of TVtrops: not all tropes are bad. Societal context creates sexism; when present in individual games or individual characters these things might not be a problem. At the very least they could be avoided. The trouble is quite simply that they are everywhere and its hard to get away.

        Even if this particular video series goes over the top in your estimation, we’re still stuck with a world in which the bell curve of gender-based attitudes is skewed way towards the “women belong in the kitchen or on my lap” side of things. And if we have to put up with a little bit of overzealousness to get the message out? Especially when these things are so subjective anyway? I’m fine with that. This whole incident shows me that no matter what else you believe about the video series, the message sorely needs to get out.

  10. Cameron says:

    This is a good illustration of one of the main reasons we are starting to see governments trying to introduce ‘anti-troll’ legislation. For those that haven’t been following, the UK government is currently looking to enable service providers to more easily give out personally identifiable details of ‘trolls’ under defamation and libel laws. With a much reduced chance of being the victim of lawsuits themselves.

    The main defense against this is ‘free speech’ but when disgusting things like the above occur we really can’t be surprised that the free speech argument is shadowed and gets pushed into a corner.

    • Snakejuice says:

      Free speech is still more important tho, sorry for being a cliché, but – I may not like you calling me a four-eyed shitface, but I would fight to death for your right to do so! That said, some of what is described in the article is already a crime – you are not allowed to threat people, so no need for any new laws.

      Sorry if this was worded strangely, not my native tounge.

      • Cameron says:

        At this time I’m not coming down in favor of either side, both have valid points and I haven’t quite made up my mind yet. The issue is that casual Internet users who just post the occasional thing on Facebook probably don’t care much of ‘free speech’ of the regular Internet users. There are many more of those than there are of us.

        When things happen on Facebook such as some of the horrible stories that have been heard in the press in recent months public outrage puts pressure on politicians to do something about it. This in turn leads to the kind of legislation we are currently seeing in the works.

        I’m not overly surprised to see it happening in Blighty. We have some very strong libel laws and people get sent down for things like “Outraging public decency”

        • Sarigs says:

          I think people tent to forget there’s a difference between free speech and protected speech.
          Sure your free to say what the heck you like but that doesn’t mean you should be able to just walk away afterwards. Same reason we have criminal laws against citing hatred or violence. Likewise death threats have always been frowned on by the law :-)

          • Bent Wooden Spoon says:

            Exactly. Free speech comes incumbent with responsibility. You’re free to say anything you like, but others are free to call you out on it too. Way too much of the online ‘community’ seems to feel that ‘free speech’ means being able to dump whatever shit-filled hatebombs you like on people with no realistic comeback. That’s not free speech, it’s simple cowardice.

          • Cameron says:

            Yep, I agree. (With both of you, can’t reply to Bent Wooden Spoon, too nested) The term “Free speech” is oft abused on the Internet.

      • Zephro says:

        Free speech has never been absolute though.

        Verbally threatening someone directly has always been a crime in the UK, I think. It’s minor obviously.
        Causing a nuisance by saying “Oh shit a fire!” in a crowded theatre. Also a crime etc.
        Inciting violence or hatred, also crimes.

        Free Speech has very rarely if ever not had rules and boundaries about it’s uses.

      • Cockles says:

        To have free speech then you must have responsilibty with it. If I started a public campaign saying that all women should be raped then you’d likely be pretty horrified and I’d get locked up (and probably worse). If I walk in to an airport and start shouting “I have a bomb” then I may be exercising what I believe to be my right to free speech but there would be consequences to what I say.

    • bill says:

      The problem with that legislation is that web site owners aren’t going to pay for / risk any legal issues, so as soon as anyone makes any kind of claim against them they’ll be handing over your details in a flash.

      Mention you once torrented something on the RPS comments… oh look, RPS just gave your name and details to the lawyers.

      • Cameron says:

        I think they are currently trying to find a balance. I’m not saying someone probably wont find a way to use it for their own nefarious ends but we can hope. As I understand it this particular legislation is directly aimed at trolls. So some defamation of character or libelous remarks about that person would have to be posted. Facebook has already said they are willing to turn over details if a court order is presented (To cover themselves). It’s this process that the UK government want to make easier.

        If someone posted about a criminal act on RPS forums then I suspect that a court order could be obtained anyway if anyone decided they wanted to go to the trouble. But I’m not a lawyer, nor have I ever attracted the attention of one ;).

  11. Kynrael says:

    This is indeed an important subject to address, and something that I find (correct me if my perception of it is wrong) has gotten worse.

    I remember older games, like Starcraft 1, having interesting and not stereotypic female protagonists, like Kerrigan. I had found SC1′s storyline mature and interesting.
    Another example is Arcanum which I’ve been playing through for the first time recently.

    If I’m right with how I perceive it, maybe that means that it stems, at least partly, from some cultural evolution since then ?

  12. fiddlesticks says:

    Very good article. The comments on her Youtube videos and the vandalism on her Wikipedia page are indeed disgusting. Ironically, by trying to silence her these people show exactly why such a series is necessary in the first place.

  13. Zephro says:

    I feel depressed now.

    While not disagreeing that we should try to do something about this I’m almost certain it’s pissing in the wind. It is appalling in games and part of the reason I despise MMOs as I do not want to have to play with these people. But still this shit is prevalent in big budget films, tabloid papers, leering at us from the utter tripe that is Maxim/Loaded/Nuts. It’s just another symptom of 21st century masculinity being utterly fucked in the broader media.

    I would also like to see the documentary about male image in games. Disorders relating to body image are higher in women but I believe in men the suicide rate is far higher, likely because people find they can’t achieve the aspirations of society. That’s both documentaries not either/or.

    • djbriandamage says:

      “part of the reason I despise MMOs as I do not want to have to play with these people”

      You’d be surprised. I raid with my wife, mothers, and a grandmother.

      • Zephro says:

        Last time I played WoW, I got thrown out of a clan because I spoke up in clan chat saying “jew bitch” is not an acceptable insult. It was with a mate at Uni who was co-founder with the guy who threw me out (who was from the US I believe) and he didn’t even bother standing up for me as he thought keeping the clan in top condition was way more important.

        I used to also play with my girlfriend at the time, and that was fine so long as we just literally ignored everyone else. Might as well just play a 2 player game then.

        • Cockles says:

          Well, it’s not really acceptable to say “Jew Bitch” in a public setting, is it? The connotations are that being a Jew is insulting so despite that fact you may not mean it, you’re being pretty offensive.

          • Zakski says:

            I think you read that wrong, he was the one complaining about it

  14. Mr. Mister says:

    “And perhaps most of all, there are furious people arguing that games are sexist against men too…”
    Even though men’s image portrayment (is that a word? meh it’s a concept at least) doesn’t lose to that of women’s in videogames (so yes they are sexist towards women), it is actually true that most videogames flood me in great pity of how immesurable the number of masculine lives that are cold-hearthly taken away during its course is.

  15. CaspianRoach says:

    >gamepad
    >calling herself a gamer

    ERROR: INVALID LOGIC

  16. Matt says:

    i’m not sure whats more depressing – the appalling abuse or the fact that its developing into a pattern around women in gaming that stick their heads up to talk about the hobby.

    Grrr.

    also this is actually a pretty interesting idea for a web series, why the hell wouldn’t you want to see it get made? so, glad its funded, looking forward to watching it.

  17. Sarigs says:

    Yeah I saw a article link through the Escapist last night (About the harassment not the forum post apparantly celebrating it) and was disgusted.
    It’s just mindboggling really,
    The problem is I’m not convinced there is a solution to it/ I very much doubt that everyone throwing out this comments believes them. People just disconnect too much when there protected by a computer screen and suddenly something you wouldn’t daring saying to a woman you met on the street is suddenly fair game to spew at another just because it’s via youtube/email what have you and suddenly doesn’t count.

    • TychoCelchuuu says:

      1) There is no way to fix it: this sounds silly. I mean certainly there have been problems in the past that were very difficult to fix that were then fixed. People of different races used to be forbidden from marrying, and interracial couples would be targeted with violence. Nowadays they just get some scorn, and even that has been cut way down. So, why not the same sort of thing with the portrayal of women in videogames and the discussion around them?

      2) The people don’t believe their comments: who cares? I’m not really comforted that they don’t really want her to get raped or that they don’t really think she belongs in the kitchen or that they don’t really think she’s Jewish.

      • Sarigs says:

        Oh hold up, I’m not saying it “Doesn’t matter what they say because they don’t mean it really”
        I’m saying trying to educate them about equality, respect etc is almost a waste of time BECAUSE THEY ALREADY KNOW BETTER and are choosing to act in such a disgusting manner.
        It’s the difference between someone acting out of ignorance and acting out of spite. A solution for one won’t work for the other and I very much believe this kind of thing comes from malice.
        Edit: Also I didn’t mean there’s no solution so much as I don’t see what it could possible be until trolls and haters like these are mades accountable for what they say and do

    • Surlywombat says:

      Much of this is to do with the norms of the surrounding communities. As in real life people on the internet build communities, often these communities reinforce the beliefs and views and amplify them. In ways that just wouldn’t be possible in a more diverse community. I sincerely doubt these people would behave in this manner if their mothers were made aware of it! This is in no way meant to excuse the behaviour but leads into the reasons I believe we must make noise.

      The only way to defeat this sort of thing is to stand up, write up and speak up pointing out that it is unacceptable within the community. Else they believe that it is correct, silence encourages it further. Progress will be gradual, but raising the bar on behaviour does improve matters. There will always be some who are ignorant, but we should do our best to teach them, not ignore them.

      This is why this sort of article is so important, as part of the any community we only ever get the community we deserve and create.

      As father Ted put it, “Down with this sort of thing”.

      • Sarigs says:

        +1 for the Father Ted reference! Aye, considering how quickly all these gaming communities have sprung up (over a relatively small number of years) it’s surprising how deep most of these issues go

  18. Delusibeta says:

    I’m going to be blunt: is anyone surprised by all this? Pointing out sexism in video games (hell, any nerdy topic dominated by men) will probably result in aforementioned men feeling threatened of being labelled misogynistic and then going out and being misogynistic anyway. It’s happened before and it’ll happen again, and all I can say is “Welcome to the internet, there are no women here”.

    • TychoCelchuuu says:

      Plenty of people are surprised by it, and to the extent that people don’t think this is normal/typical of the sort of stuff women have to put up with from the gaming community, then it’s worth bringing to light. And I have seen MANY gamers claim that this is not a universal problem or that this stuff is limited to XBOX Live or whatever and that men get just as much crap.

    • Edward F. says:

      Institutionalizing and normalizing misogyny doesn’t make it any less wrong.

    • Zephro says:

      (hell, any nerdy topic dominated by men) Yeah I remember how that was doing Computer Science at University…. oh no wait I don’t.

      Piss off.

    • ReV_VAdAUL says:

      There are, of course, lots of women on the internet. It is however anonymous so if one wants to project that only other men use the internet, that only people who converse on your level and other silly silly ideas are the case then one is sadly able to do so.

      Much more to the point though, hurting the feelings of anyone with an inherent and damaging advantage of another group is alas necessary. Indeed the advantages and benefits of being in the privileged group are likely to be highly prized, at the very least on a subconcious level so they’re going to get very upset when the playing feeling is levelled out and things are made fairer.

      This is no way diminishes the necessity of levelling that playing field, reducing the hardships the victims face and making life better for everyone in the long run.

    • Hmm-Hmm. says:

      One of the problems of such an entrenched view is that it’s easy to say it won’t change anyway. You sound as if fighting sexism is a lost cause. Yeah, it’s easy to give up.

      On the other hand, people can make change. People can educate other people, help gaming developers move away from sexist portrayals of women, people can help convince people who write on/own blogs and websites to change. Not everybody will be easily convinced, but we won’t know unless we try.

      I’m saying we should try our best.

      • Delusibeta says:

        The Penny Arcade strip that coined the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory was posted in 2004. I see no improvement on this problem since, indeed it seems to have gotten worse. I’m calling it as I see it: there is no solution to anonymous fuckwads being fuckwads. Hell, as Facebook has proved, removing the “anonymous” part won’t solve this problem.

    • iucounu says:

      A wise man once said:

      “I have an inchoate, perhaps indefensible, and yet powerful sense that conversation about [a] whole range of issues would be improved immeasurably if we could all just fucking stop one-upping one another over what is and isn’t legitimately surprising. … There are things that amaze me because I didn’t expect them; there are things I’ve known for a long time and which mostly inspire in me a tired sense of yes yes yes, that again, yes. This is almost certainly true for you as well, but you know something? They’re different things.”

      http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/012733.html#505529

  19. Zeushbien says:

    Shouldn’t there be room for both though? I mean, personally, I would like there to be. As long as there is no actual sexism going on, I don’t see why we can’t have the more silly and over the top characters such as the girl from Lollipop Chainsaw or Bayonetta, aswell as Jade and Alyx Vance, they both fill a role I think.

    • Risingson says:

      Alyx Vance IS sexualized, and a lot. It’s not surprising that she maybe doesn’t seem so in comparison., but do a google image search.

      • Delusibeta says:

        I’m pretty sure that’s more Rule 34 in action than anything else.

      • bit_crusherrr says:

        Just because people draw a character naked doesn’t mean she’s “sexualised”. Pretty much every video game character male or female has porn made of them.

        • Risingson says:

          I was not talking about that – I had safesearch on, I removed it and found interesting things about sexual fantasies of gamers that could make another research – ; I was talking about how her clothes are very fit and her attributes are exaggerated. For not being sexualized, Alyx Vance does have a great ass, perfect legs and so on. It reminds me of Kate Walker in Syberia and her very short and tigh clothes.

          • Soggy_Popcorn says:

            A PERFECT ASS and PERFECT LEGS you say?! Someone must amend this horrifying sexism immediately by modding in some flab and cellulite!!

          • Risingson says:

            Just to reply to this and in case you weren’t trolling: there’s a long, very long line that separates “cellulitic” and “great ass”, Which is where most of us humans stand. Having your opinion dragged to an extremist position is really tiresome, btw.

          • MrUnimport says:

            The subjective nature of opinions on Alyx Vance’s ass aside, why is it a big deal that a video game character intended to be likable is attractive? Should we complain about how intelligent and handsome Gordon Freeman is and how trendy his glasses are? Should we demand that the leading roles in Hollywood movies be played by ugly people? The fact that a female character in a video game is slightly above average attractiveness is not sexist.

    • Zephro says:

      I loved Bayonetta, as a game. She is overtly sexualised. However sexual doesn’t necessarily follow that it is exploitative or misogynistic. Well unless you talk to second wave feminists I guess.

      Still it’s a difficult game to play trying to tell yourself it’s ok because it’s ironic and she’s a strong character….

      Bleh having sex positive and not misogynistic at the same time is probably asking too much tbh.

      • Soup says:

        Are you kidding me? There is pretty much nothing about her that isn’t sexualised, even down to her attacks, how on earth do you figure that it’s anything but exploitative and misogynistic?

        • TychoCelchuuu says:

          Because misogyny is about hatred of women and sexualization is about attraction to women.

        • Zephro says:

          I don’t think I said that I did. I said it’s really difficult playing it trying to convince yourself it’s ironic or ok, because it isn’t ok.

          However, sexualised does not mean sexist. Women are perfectly capable of sexualising themselves and having a positive attitude about sex generally.

          Don’t think that’s the case with Bayonetta, even though she isn’t really an object to be leered at in the game she is meant to be leered at by the player. Though there may be something in the fact it’s so stupidly over the top as to make it ironic or something but I don’t really buy it.

    • sonson says:

      I don’t think the assertion is that all women should be frumpy or spinsters.

      The point is that there should be a diversity of females portrayed, rather than the vast majority which exist which reduce them to the lowest common denominator of things with tits that men find attractive.

      People are defined by a great many things, their sexuality being an important element. But it is just *one* aspect of their character, and it is no more prominent an element in women by default than it is in men.
      Whereas in computer games the majority of females are not just presented as overwhelmingly sexual beings, they are usually presented as nothing but.

  20. It's not me it's you says:

    This whole mess is vile. The reactions from ‘the community’ are disgusting and make me want to be as far away from it as possible. I am a gamer in any meaningful sense but the idea of being associated with the cesspit of humanity on display with this stuff makes my skin crawl.

    It’s also weird on several levels – if there’s anything that any form of expression (trying to skirt the word ‘art’ here) needs in order to improve it is critique, in the literary sense. This series would most certainly be a thorough critique of the medium of games and having it would, without a doubt, be a net positive for gaming as a creative output. Even if you disagree with the premise, even if you disagree with the conclusions and even if you cannot stand the author, informed critique always has value.

  21. Screwie says:

    I learned about this appalling affair yesterday and I’ve been waiting to hear (well, read) your take on it. Thanks John, you didn’t disappoint.

  22. StranaMente says:

    Even though I don’t always agree with her (having seen other videos made by her), I think it’s in the interest of everybody to start this discussion, and analyze this subject.
    Let’s have a different point of view on these matters.

  23. bit_crusherrr says:

    This would be a better series if it was more to promote what makes a good female character rather than point out why they are all bad, which 100′s of people have done before. Yes I know she will do a positive episode but that’s only being done because she went past her initial funding goal.

    • ReV_VAdAUL says:

      Surely the onus is on a multi-billion dollar industry brimming with creative talent to up their game more than a single woman on the outside when it comes to positive portrayal of women?

      Sarkeesian doesn’t have dozens of concept artists, writers and designers on staff to create such positive characters, big developers and publishers do.

    • TychoCelchuuu says:

      “This would be better if it were doing something it is already doing, instead of something else, but I’m not going to tell you why the original plan was a bad idea.” Why is pointing out what’s wrong worse than saying how to do it right? Isn’t the first thing even more useful to the extent that it doesn’t go around telling people what they MUST do if they want to get it right, it just gives them a list of things to avoid and then says “let your imagination run wild!” or something like that?

      • bit_crusherrr says:

        It’s a lot easier to complain about something thats why. You’d think with all this free publicity she’s got from idiots sending her abuse she’d use that popularity to try and push out what makes a good character rather than just point out all these ways that characters are bad. If you’re going to criticise something don’t just harp on about why its bad, give some ways in which you think it could be improved. That is a lot more constructive.

    • Zephro says:

      Because she’s a documentary maker not a video game designer!

      Isn’t that obvious?
      Just because I can point out a film is terribly made doesn’t mean I have the skills required to make a better one, but that doesn’t make my criticism or opinion invalid.

      • bit_crusherrr says:

        My point was rather than just point out the bad characters she should point out the good ones as well (And it should of been part of her original goal), so say she could go “I think Bayonetta is bad because blah blah, there should be more characters like Alyx Vance because blah blah”. You don’t need to be a game designer to do that.

    • rockman29 says:

      Right…. why don’t you go and suggest how to change everything then? Why don’t you start the cultural evolution that will lead to all the changes that people want from women in videogames? Oh, does that sound hard?

      I guess you don’t read the news or research in general very much. It’s not always about proposing the solution. Sometimes you have to, I dunno, identify the damn problem first?

      Obviously, people don’t even UNDERSTAND what the problem is yet, so I think making some videos on WHAT is happening is pretty damn important.

    • RaveTurned says:

      Given that the series hasn’t been released, we don’t actually know that this ground won’t be covered in it to some extent, do we?

  24. Hoaxfish says:

    Probably the best video putting the “point against” this kickstarter, and the bronycon one is this (the video is using these two as examples of a wider issue really): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igXz_hXKUcE

    As much as there’s a problem with the portrayal of women in videogames, the approach of the kickstarter seems to have more of a focus on a list of wrongs, rather trying to develop an idea of how to fix it.

    • TychoCelchuuu says:

      Why is a list of bad things not the right way to do it? Why not just tell people what’s wrong and let the creative types come up with their own positive portrayals of women, rather than shoving a list of “YOU MUST DO X” down their throats?

      • bit_crusherrr says:

        It’s not about going “YOU MUST DO X”. It’s just about voicing your opinion on what YOU think. Theres no point in yelling everything is bad and not offering any way in which you think it could be fixed.

        • rockman29 says:

          You haven’t even watched the documentary videos probably, so why are you judging what she has done without doing so?

          She already stated she will research characters, like Chell from Portal, who avoid these stereotypes?

          Why can’t you people read first, then make a conclusion after? Or in this case, wait for her to finish her project and then judge it?

          She clearly has an opinion on the subject, so why don’t you WAIT for her to present it instead of jumping down her throat?

          Seriously, all you are doing is claiming what is wrong with her project and it’s not even done yet. Your own criticism of her is that all she does is complain? What the hell are you doing, but complaining?

          • codename_bloodfist says:

            Chell from Portal has as much character as tomatoes on my FarmVille plot. Truly this person is a genius deserving every penny donated to her research and is not riding the hypetrain.

      • Hoaxfish says:

        It doesn’t generally feel like “constructive” criticism when you just build a list of “this is what you’re doing wrong”. Arguably, the combination of what can be summed up with a bunch of bullet points (if you were lazy about it), and then asking money for it (which is then overfunded by a long shot) makes it more heated.

        I assume there will be at least some trade between “I think this is bad”, and actual “possible ideas”… no need to shove any solutions down someone’s throat, because writers are allowed to be creative and are usually open to people fielding other possibilities.

    • Jesse L says:

      In the end you’re just one more person telling her to shut up. Rethink your stance.

      • Hoaxfish says:

        I’m not telling her to shut up, any more than I’m backing the project… I think if I were to do it myself, I probably wouldn’t have approached it in the same way she has, because I think it comes across as one-sided criticism for criticism’s sake.

        There are plenty of other people who have tackled this subject, and have somehow avoided this sort of “onslaught” from the community. Maybe they just weren’t noticed, or their chosen approach didn’t trigger knee-jerk reactions.

      • Delusibeta says:

        I’m going to call troll. There’s a difference between constructive criticism (“I think you should mention good female characters as well as listing off the bad stuff”) and being a dick (“You’re telling her to shut up, so shut up!”)

      • sonson says:

        I appreciate the nuances of the argument to an extent, but pick your battles.

        Irrespective of the flaws in the approach it is for a good and necessary cause.

        Ultimately you’re putting yourself first by taking the above approach, nothing more, which is at root what leads to this sort of culture in gaming in the first instance.

    • DaFishes says:

      So, you know what a “tone argument” is, right? http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Tone_argument

      • Hoaxfish says:

        But what is the tone she’s approaching her own audience? She’s doing these videos for her backers, as near as you can get to preaching to the converted… so her “tone”, is basically taking her audience’s dissatisfaction, and producing a feedback loop.

        Nobody who’s a “militant misogynist” is going to give two figs about this, because they simply won’t watch it or pay for it in the first place (probably watching porn instead).

        By pushing an angry tone at her own audience, anyone can simply respond to that anger… without actually being an audience member, without even watching it.

        • DaFishes says:

          Wow. Even after reading that, you’re still going to persist with the tone argument, even knowing now that it’s a silencing technique commonly used by assholes who want a woman to shut up and take what she’s getting. You’re persistent, I’ll give you that.

          • Hoaxfish says:

            I’m persisting in saying, if I just read that there was a documentary about story writing, that simply listed a bunch of “bad stories”… I wouldn’t want to watch it. Not if it was about women in games, if it was about “UI failures in this beta test”, “shit blockbuster films you don’t want to see”, etc. I don’t want to know about the “10 shittest summer blockbusters”.

            It is a causing factor of why she has got this response, whether you want to claim it is some “ill of society” or “fault of her own” is irrelevant. Your link clearly shows that it is understood as something which is down to interpretation, and you can excuse it, or pretend it is “beneath” this, or anything else, in just the same way as you can portray something as positive or deal in negatives (exclusive or otherwise).

            I don’t care for the tone of the project (going by the titles of each “episode”), so I didn’t back it. I probably wouldn’t back it anyway, because I generally only back actual game products. Her approach is against what I have been taught is “good form” in discussing an issue (that you try to see multiple sides of the issue)… so I do not back it.

  25. chiroho says:

    Thanks for highlighting this John. Regardless of anyone’s opinion on what Sarkeesian is doing, there is absolutely no room for the sort of response it has engendered.In this instance, all those responses do is generate negative press for gamers as a whole, rather than actually stop the videos from happening.

    This really isn’t that new though. Going back 30 years when I was first involved in miniature figures, if you looked at fantasy or dark age figures, the women were so well endowed they’d have back issues before they hit 25, and the males were similarly well proportioned – nearly knee length for example. Of course, it isn’t true everywhere, just like it’s not true in every game, but it’s definitely something worth looking at to see what Sarkeesian has to say as it’s an issue that does need to be addressed.

  26. brulleks says:

    In any games series where you are given a choice of gender for your character (notably Elder Scrolls, Mass Effect and Saints Row) I usually find myself playing as a female, despite being male, purely because it allows me to create a strong female lead character. I’ve never really analysed why this seems such a unique opportunity, but suspect it’s probably an unconscious kickback to the industry at large.

    I hope they track down everyone who took part in this campaign against Sarkeesian and neuter them.

    • TariqOne says:

      Same here, oddly. My girlfriend is a huge gamer and my daughter’s showing active signs. I think on those rare occasions where such is possible I do it in solidarity and some kind of silent support for the design choice.

    • Zephro says:

      Usually because you don’t identify with being a muscle with a head any more than being a woman.

    • MrUnimport says:

      I hope they conduct acts of violence against everyone who participated in hoping acts of violence were conducted against this woman.

  27. Cunzy1 1 says:

    It does make me think that perhaps I’m the weird one in the gaming community by not spending time when I’m unplugged killing small animals (although actually, that is my job but you know).

    Okay so some of the comments are people using anonymity to be harsh but there’s a lot of idiotic comments from people that suggest they’ve put some thought into it and have come to conclusion they are outraged.

    One comment type is the: “That’s just video games so get on with it”. My favourite “Yeah well the male characters suck too so gtfo” comments. They have the emotional intelligence (or perhaps they saw the meme) to know that character depth in games leaves a lot to be desired but then can’t make the bridge to go about changing it or at least allowing discussion about what is wrong. Then there’s the comments where people genuinely seem to be perturbed by the idea that female and/or people older or younger than them want to play video games. The same breed of Minimartians who will give you abuse over an Xbox 360 head set for being a nerd and not having a life because you play games.

  28. Edward F. says:

    The most disparaging thing I hear whenever these sorts of matters come up is not the hateful vitriol and death threats levied against those who might speak up (although I mention this in no way to trivialize the awfulness of such things), rather, it’s the majority of people who simply state that “oh, it’s the internet, this will always happen”. It just feels awful to know that the majority of gamers and internet-goers will just give up and allow these kinds of asshats to run amuck without anyone telling them to stop that.

    • ReV_VAdAUL says:

      The thing about privilege is that if you are privileged (in this case by being a man) you have to put a little bit of effort in to care about things. If you’re not directly affected or indeed a beneficiary of the prejudice you can merrily float along without caring.

      So then when confronted with people who are the victims (in this case women) who can’t just opt out or ignore the prejudice it seems baffling to the privileged person why they’re making such a fuss about something that for them is an optional issue.

      A lot of men do opt in and care of course and really do try to improve things, it is just that given there is an option of not doing so some men will not bother to opt in and will lack the empathy or understanding to see that for the victims who can’t opt out it truly is a big deal.

  29. zoombapup says:

    I think many of us are “tired” of this debate because its simply not one anyone can reasonably expect to win. If you disagree with the feminist point of view you are a misogynist, if you try and suggest that its a function of the anonymity found on the internet you get called lazy.

    Honestly I hate that people attack others for their views, but I just can’t see a rational way of handling a debate like this. Its like telling kids to “grow up” when we know that nothing can actually FORCE people to become more mature.

    I do feel tired of this sort of non-debate though. We aren’t really even seriously having a discussion about the issues because you really can’t. She can very well go on about her business of delivering the film to her audience and the fact that some anonymous idiots think its funny/worthwhile abusing her just proves her case.

    My bigger problem isn’t with this debate. Its about the quality and maturity of game developers themselves. Clearly so many of them have problems actually creating characters of any depth (there have been plenty of examples recently where we’ve all bemoaned the ultra-violence or sexism). Maybe the answer here is to educate game creators in the creation of more fleshed out characters?

    • TychoCelchuuu says:

      “Maybe the answer here is to educate game creators in the creation of more fleshed out characters?”

      Isn’t that exactly what she’s doing?

      • Delusibeta says:

        I’m pretty sure there’s an episode of Extra Credits that has covered this sort of thing. (By the way, Extra Credits really should be mentioned more. Every game developer should watch it). Not to say that this video project isn’t desirable or anything, but it won’t be the first time the ground has been covered.

        • gwathdring says:

          Proper education requires multiple iterations, accessibility, and multiple perspectives. The more public and available, the more likely it is to incidentally educate. It takes more than one class period to understand many concepts in science. So with educating people to treat each other properly.

    • larsiusprime says:

      “If you disagree with the feminist point of view you are a misogynist, if you try and suggest that its a function of the anonymity found on the internet you get called lazy.”

      It is always a bit challenging to have a nuanced disagreement with someone in a contentious political environment without being lumped together with their most extreme/imbecilic opposition.

      Examples from my own views:
      1) agreeing with Marxist critiques of Capitalism, but rejecting the fundamental Marxist worldview.
      2) agreeing with many modern feminist critiques of society at large, but disagreeing with certain aspects of modern feminist philosophy.

      That all said, I think an honest look at the situation reveals that certain groups just plain “take more shit” than the rest of us, regardless of whether we agree with them, and we should show them sympathy, patience, and understanding on those grounds alone. None of this demands that we agree with every aspect of their philosophy.

      • zoombapup says:

        I think your viewpoint is pretty much right here. I think we can support a worthwhile change (improving the quality of characterization of all forms of characters in games) whilst not wholeheartedly agreeing with a philosophy (i.e. extreme feminism).

        I guess I just feel like there are more fruitful avenues of exploration when looking at games. This whole thing feels a lot like a media studies viewpoint of games. I.e. about the players and the overall “culture” of gamers, like we are so easily identified. My main problem with this approach is that those who tend to critique culture are often not a part of that culture and often don’t even understand it. I’ve seen plenty of people who have opinions about “gamer culture” start a presentation with “I do not play games….” which seems quite strange to me.

  30. larsiusprime says:

    I was once the brief target of an organized internet hate-brigade, the intensity of which was probably about 0.1% of what Sarkeesian experienced, and even that was very nearly the worst week of my life.

    The immediate result of it was my silence. I was terrified to show my face on the internet and I’ve been scared to even talk about the project that provoked their anger ever since lest I wake them back up and go through it all over again.

    Maybe I’m just a wimp, but I think there’s a lesson here. If such a comparatively tiny hate-brigade can shut me up that quickly, just IMAGINE how many people out there from more vulnerable demographics are afraid to participate in our culture (games + the internet), because they’ll go through that EVERY SINGLE DAY.

  31. Drayk says:

    I just discovered this on the escapist too. The harrasment part doesn’t surprise me. The Internet is full of shit like that .

    I think she should make another video on male stereotypes.

    Maybe RPS could write to her. It would have more weight than an unarticulated quidam barely able to write in english.

    • Cunzy1 1 says:

      Urgh! The escapist? Have you showered before you commented here?

      • Drayk says:

        I still have more system than my PC… and I like the name of their site, Eurogamer sounds cheap in comparison…Ok it’s not a good excuse.

        I

        • Cunzy1 1 says:

          I was just jokes man. It’s okay to go multiformat, we all need a break from indie platformers and minecraft images.

          I don’t know, maybe there is good content on the Escapist but I find it hard to navigate their toon-townesque front page to find it…..

          Ummm, I mean WHITE KNIGHTING FROM THE SIDELINES. RHUBARB RHUBARB. WHITE KNIGHT.

  32. Freyja says:

    Thank you for not just reporting about this revolting campaign against Anita Sarkeesian, but for taking a clear stance against it. RPS’s thoughtful handling of issues that directly affect me as a woman who plays and makes games is one of the main reasons I come here for news rather than the usual boys clubs. Most other outlets mitigate their coverage of gender in gaming by normalizing the outrageous abuse, you know, boys will be boys, the Internet is for trolling, gaming is a male-dominated blah.

    This kind of bullshit should not be seen as normal and gamers should not be so willing to be associated with the utter dregs of their community. Sexism demeans women, obviously, but it’s also a debasement of manhood. If you can’t treat one full half of humanity with respect, what kind of man are you, really?

    • TariqOne says:

      This is about all that really needs to be said.

      It’s almost to the point that the most depressing thing about discussion of this issue isn’t the extremists. It’s the sort of quiet acceptance of it, the excusing of it, the shrugged shoulders. Explaining it away as inevitable or wishing the discussion away is the functional equivalent of actively condoning it, and far more prevalent. It’s OK and in fact important to talk about this, and it is important to take a side.

    • rockman29 says:

      I also say thank you to the RPS authors for this news post. Cheers, RPS.

  33. TE_owner says:

    Ironically those trolls that tried to defame and abuse this woman have caused a overwhelming wave of support both in the form of positive forum posts calling out against the trolls and in donations for her campaign.

    I really think their should be more accountability on the internet, you get banned from Youtube for things like this and maybe its a full IP block that prevents your computer from watching all YT videos forever. Then maybe people will think twice before vomiting their ignorant, vitriolic and downright disgusting opinions all over the internet. Try behaving like that to pretty much any women in the street she’s likely to either slap you in the face or call the police and rightly so too.

  34. InternetBatman says:

    I think it’s fairly impossible to ignore the sexism in AAA games without focusing on its links to the movie industry. The large scale gaming industry aspires to be the movie industry, or at least the action and comic book part of the movie industry. Games distort sexual dimorphism more because the video output is less realistic, and greater distortions act as a way to distract from gaps in fidelity.

  35. lordcooper says:

    “We need to own this – to acknowledge that as gamers this is our community, no matter how far we may wish to distance from it, and no matter how much we may not take part in it.”

    Not as gamers, as humans :)

  36. bill says:

    Good luck to her.

  37. Hanban says:

    I love you Mr. Walker!

    Kickstarter supported also! If for nothing else than Sarkeesian’s videos always being interesting to watch!

  38. ocelotwildly says:

    It’s all a horrible situation and, as John says, it’s not clear what the answer is. Hopefully, the gradual acceptance of gaming as a mainstream activity that is not so gender biased will lead to a greater proportion of women coming into the field in order to translate their experience into games, but I have no idea how long that could take, nor how many will be browbeaten and discouraged by the current levels of meatheadedness that exist. You only have to look at how Jennifer Hepler was treated for simply offering an opinion to see how unappealing it must be to jump into the sludge pit of game writing and design.

    I think the recent revelations about the new Tomb Raider games outline exactly what the problem is here. It seems to be a genuine attempt to create a female character in a game that escapes some of the usual troublesome tropes but the male (natch) writers can only do this by thrusting the character through a rape attempt. As has been pointed out in this comic, only being able to establish a strong female character by attacking her sexuality is a shameful as exploiting it for drooling pervs.

    • InternetBatman says:

      The Heppler thing was somewhat different. There was a lot of ugly harassment based on her gender, which she escalated, but she also promotes a type of gameplay many people, including me, find distasteful.

      I absolutely, 100% agree about Tomb Raider though.

      • ocelotwildly says:

        But it was still a high profile example of a woman in games who dared to suggest a type of game that wasn’t acceptable to everyone who got buried under a landslide of sexist vitriol. Lots of people make or discuss the sorts of games that I don’t like, and obviously I am free to register my displeasure. It would not be acceptable, however, for me to descend to personal attacks, regardless of the gender of the author.

        Surely you must concede that seeing that kind of treatment, other women who may be trying to make their way in the world of videogames would have to be disheartened to some extent. When they come to make design decisions about games in the future, it could be that a fear of unjustified internet vitriol stops them from making the choices they want in order to appease the knuckle dragging idiots who plague this medium.

        • InternetBatman says:

          Oh, I totally agree. The difference is that Heppler was also emblematic to many of the shift that Bioware took, and Bioware comments in general can get pretty nasty. It was a confluence of two ugly streams, the misogynist one that must be rooted out and stopped, but the other is just a thing. The misogynist tones certainly create an especially hostile environment, which is a huge problem, but it was already hostile.

  39. Lemming says:

    I couldn’t really give two shits about the cause, but if there is any justice in the world the people harassing her in this manner should be castrated and beaten naked through the streets.

    • Soggy_Popcorn says:

      Quite ironic that if (in some ridiculous, hypothetical, parallel universe) the gender-polarity of this situation was reversed, and someone expressed a desire that the female offenders be spayed and mob-beaten, it would be hoisted aloft as another example of sexism.

    • TychoCelchuuu says:

      This comic is so hilariously off point that it’s hard to know where to start. The punchline at the end is probably the best. The idea that being a Native American atheist gets you off the hook relies on the idea that being a white Christian dude doesn’t, which of course is the entire point.

      • Zephro says:

        It’s lego robot comics for fucks sake! It certainly doesn’t represent feminism or post modernism, if anything it’s just a pastiche of most annoying internet nerds views on feminism (ie WRONG).

        But seriously anyone who takes serious political points from lego robot comics is smoking some serious junk.

        • ribobura osserotto says:

          Not annoying internet nerds views on feminism, but rather politcally incorrect internet nerd views on ANNOYING feminists.

    • bladedsmoke says:

      Also, that’s really not what post-modernism is. I think the author is thinking of feminism. Although it’s so hyperbolically distorted by the author of the comic in order to create an acceptable straw-woman to attack, that it’s almost unrecognisable.

      • Hoaxfish says:

        I think it’s simply that the character is one of those “protest for protest’s sake”. The type that tried to turn “occupy wall-street” movement into a racism and gender issue (and caused in-fighting within the movement itself, rather than a unified front against a specific issue).

    • InternetBatman says:

      I hate, hate, hate the self-referential rabbit hole that is post-modernism and deconstruction, and I still think that comic is hamfisted, distorted, and completely unrelated to the issue at hand.

      A woman said she wanted to examine misogyny in games, and she was buried under a hail of misogynistic and violent comments.

    • sincarne says:

      I don’t normally say things like this, but … that comic is stupid, and you’re stupid if you believe it has merit. Are you one of those people who goes around complaining of “reverse racism?”

    • ribobura osserotto says:

      In a reply to you all, apparently most RPS commenters are unable to grasp the use of hyperbole and exxageration for comical relief.

      Although the attitube of this chick seems to be as absurd as the one in the comic.

    • Anabasis says:

      It would be helpful if people who “criticized” feminism and “postmodernism” would actually read something about these subjects instead of just regurgitating meaningless insults without any trace of comprehension at the buzzwords that have engendered a knee-jerk reaction in them. But I get your point: making videos about misogynistic and sexist depictions of women in video-games is the product of extreme feminism. When will those meddlesome radical feminists leave us in peace!

      • ribobura osserotto says:

        The thing is, the author is actually a pretty smart guy if you get to know him, and he does have a good notion of what these things are. The point here is that there are lot of bra-burning feminists that will often make a big fuss over a minimal issue just to sell their own views of how society should be to other people. But don’t take it for me. Take it from someone who actually dicussed this matter with some depth:

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igXz_hXKUcE

  40. The First Door says:

    Well… that is completely ridiculous. I do struggle to understand the level of hate which people on the internet sometimes spew. I remember watching a show by Richard Bacon about online trolling and was shocked then by just how incredibly horrible it can get and if anything this is even worse.

    On the plus side, it has made up my mind about whether or not I should donate to the project now. Thanks for flagging this up, John.

  41. jonfitt says:

    I’ll be interested to see if this is console centric or includes a history of PC games. Because that’s not just a format issue, it changes the makeup of the people producing the games.
    The UK and other European countries have had a bigger influence on PC games, and there can be a variation in style depending on if a game was made in the US, Japan, UK, or other European country, and who the intended audience was.

    • Cunzy1 1 says:

      C’mon to ignore PC games in this debate? To ignore MMORPGs and elves? They’re the worst offenders.

      • jonfitt says:

        MMORPGS would be a good place to investigate, but it’s fairly low hanging fruit in terms of analysis, the tropes are common to a lot of RPGs.
        What about say STALKER where there is simply not a single woman to be found.
        Or ARMA2 where there are female civilian models, but not a female soldier model.

        • Cunzy1 1 says:

          Taking another approach there’s a lot of PC* content that, ironically, doesn’t have to pass through a censor or getrubber stamped for release and this is where you see the absolute best and absolute worst kinds of female characters.

          EDIT: *Because some of it isn’t Politically Correct at all. No sir.

    • InternetBatman says:

      I don’t think there’s that much of a difference. Maybe computer games have grown up a little faster, but there are plenty of examples of oversexualized caricatures on both sides of the divide.

      • jonfitt says:

        There might not be much of a difference, but isn’t that the point of research?
        .
        I’m saying that there is sufficient reason to believe that PC games are not exactly the same as console games (better or worse is not the issue), and it would be a disservice to not explore PC games as best you can.

  42. Bluerps says:

    I have to confess, I did not contribute to her Kickstarter. I gave it a quick read, and it didn’t seemed to be that interesting. It’s not that I disagree with her, but it seemed like she would only find out things I already knew anyway.

    But now I will contribute. Just to defy the legion of assholes. That reaction to her project is disgusting.

    • InternetBatman says:

      I would argue against contributing if you weren’t originally interested. Ideas should stand or fall on their own merit, regardless of the issuer. If you want to support antimisogyny efforts, there are plenty of charities that do so.

      • Bluerps says:

        Normally I’d agree with you, but in this case I specifically want to oppose the people who are threatening this woman.

        • Hematite says:

          I worry that in future we might see ‘flamebait’ kickstarter projects which court controversy to get sympathy donations, or even worse entirely fabricated hate campaigns for the same reason. $100,000 is a lot of incentive for social engineering, and this project might set a lucrative precedent.

          No, I don’t have any solutions. I just wanted to mention this so that I can say “I told you so” later :(

  43. sonson says:

    Thank you for posting this John.

  44. Web Cole says:

    I read an article on this yesterday and left the whole subject feeling thoroughly depressed. Its good to see RPS shed some light on it as well.

  45. JackDandy says:

    I think this project’s pretty dumb and that whoever donated to it is an absolute sucker. But hey, it’s their money.

    Pretty indifferent about the whole threat biz. It’s the Internet.

    • TychoCelchuuu says:

      And you don’t care at all that women are vastly disproportionately targeted by this sort of thing on the Internet? Not a problem at all?

      • JackDandy says:

        Nope.

      • Cunzy1 1 says:

        Yes, they are disproportionately targeted by misogyny. That’s sort of how misogyny works.

        And let’s not get confused, she isn’t putting together a series about how playing games with others or interacting with the gaming community online is horrible for women. It’s about how character design and scripting in games is implicitly misogynistic. A lot of people seem to be blurring what the kickstarter is about with the way in which the gaming community online has responded.

  46. Likethiss says:

    This is one of the best pieces i’ve read on RPS. Go John Walker!!!! My hat’s off to you.

  47. db1331 says:

    It’s a great cause, but I have one question. If she estimated she would need around $6k to get this done, what on Earth is she going to do with all that extra money? With 65 hours left, it’s safe to assume she will break the 100k mark. I don’t care how much research or production goes into it. There’s no way you can reasonably spend that much on a small project like this.

    Anyhow, this issue will never be resolved. It’s not a problem with video games. It’s a problem with society. Look at how much we fawn over beautiful women. I mean really, is there any creature on this planet that has it easier than a gorgeous woman, or harder than an “unattractive” woman? Until a woman’s value is no longer determined by her looks, this won’t go away.

    I grow tired of every girl in my games having tits bigger than her head. After being called a bitch for the umpteenth time while playing Arkham City, I felt like pausing the game and giving my wife a hug. I just don’t think there’s any way to stop it.

  48. rockman29 says:

    What the hell is wrong with people…

    Well, I hope she gets whatever she wants to do here done. Seems like she has the guts to take on all the idiocy of the internet and do this. That’s impressive in itself.

  49. bladedsmoke says:

    This article affirms everything I love about this site. Don’t change, RPS.

  50. Miltrivd says:

    This was awful, but I like her strength and resolution, and all the attention this got.

    I love games as a medium to tell a story or to produce an involving experience, and this kind of conflict and discussion is already incredibly overdue and must happen if we expect games to improve and take a place as a strong place to make art and entertainment. Games can’t keep going in the direction they have now, just as an outlet and reflection of the worst of our culture (not all games, obviously, but gaming and behavior associated with it, bad behavior and such).

    I really can’t say anything outside games, it seems like as a specie, “we” are incapable of moral evolution beyond this point.

    • Hematite says:

      I don’t think it’s as bad as all that. I find this kind of thing particularly shocking because it jars with my usual experience of the world. To be fair, I associate mostly with adult first world liberals and whoever posts on RPS, but these hateful threats aren’t something I can comprehend of in ‘real life’.

      My feeling is that like racism, sexism is on the way out. Unfortunately it probably won’t stop being a problem until all the existing racists and sexists get old and die, and their children grow up in a progressively more egalitarian society.

  51. diamondmx says:

    It seems like we need those people in a position of power over these commenters, the posters in forums, and the owners of websites that feature this kind of crap – we need those people to stamp out this kind of hateful content if we want to make it clear it’s not acceptable.

    We need to see more instant banning on the places where it actually means something. Eg. EVE Online’s forum is home to a fair bit homophobic, anti-semetic, misogynistic content, and it’s pretty much ignored by the moderators until it gets to actual death-threat level, or it’s an entire thread of nothing but hate.

    • gwathdring says:

      Indeed. As John alluded to, communities don’t get as polite and respectful as RPS by magic and luck. It takes work from us and work from the moderators to make sure that people voice their opinions civilly and in ways that couldn’t be considered criminal.

  52. Jesse L says:

    Thanks John, and RPS. Game news, the internet, and the world need people like you.

  53. Network Crayon says:

    I like an awsome pin-up female game character as much as the next hetrosexual male,
    but the lack of decent female lead characters or at least balance in the games industry is glaringly obvious, repetitive and sometimes pretty uncomfortable.

    I think it’s sad that it takes someone like Miss Sarkeesian to even draw attention to these issues, best of luck to her! I think the idea of a cariculum for schools is excellent, it’s about time video game culture was more acknowledged within schools anyway, using it to detail sexual or cultural stereotyping is probably a great thing to do.

  54. povu says:

    It’s these kind of idiots that sometimes make me hesitant to tell people, especially girls, that I’m a gamer. I’d be embarrassed to be associated with those kind of people.

    I think it’s a genuinely interesting project. But no, people see the word ‘feminist’ and it’s instant hate.

  55. Exzodium says:

    I don’t hate feminist groups, I think that they do a great things, and raise awareness about subjects that, can and should be debated. But I think attacking any kind of media, boarders on hyperbole because you are talking about authors and core audience.

    There is sexism and all forms of media. This is a fact, I will not argue against that fact; movies, books , television, and games all have sexism.

    But there is sexism about men in popular media. You can not make the argument about one with out acknowledging the other ( or you can sound hypocritical, most people don’t have a problem with this.).

    But the reason men don’t protest authors who write sappy women’s love story’s ( You know, the ones that have the picture of the muscle bound stud on the front with long hair.) Is because most men understand that it feeds the core demographics fantasy for the reader ( This is true of everything.) and understand it’s not uncommon for the male characters ( and the female characters in the media we read) to be hyper exaggerated.

    I think most feminists choose to ignore things like this, but then maybe they don’t, because I will be honest, I am a guy, and I really don’t think about stuff like this. I don’t look at a muscle bound space marine and think it’s a poor representation of me, I just think about what kind of stupid crap this bloke is going to get into.

    • TychoCelchuuu says:

      Actually I think the reason men don’t complain is that they don’t get rape threats when they talk about this stuff.

    • InternetBatman says:

      You’re stereotyping guys a bit in your post. The huge and problematic distillation of an answer is this: Men have yet to complain on a widescale against gender norms because although they are also confined by them, they have traditionally had a greater hand in defining them.

      • RaveTurned says:

        Indeed, because of this men often benefit by them in ways that they don’t usually perceive without some objective scrutiny, because they take those benefits for granted.

      • Zephro says:

        While this is essentially true. Individual men have tended to have no control over creating them.

        I think the main things are that
        a) having benefited from 1/several benefits they don’t feel they can complain about the bad ones.
        b) One of the parts of masculinity is generally not talking about this sort of stuff.

    • Milky1985 says:

      Yeah, in my long winded post that i ended up deleting cause it was too long winded i kinda made the same point, guys are the in same situation in places as well, not AS much i will admit and it is probably a group of men in control of that as well which is half the problem.

      But its hard as a guy whos not the sterotypical muscle bound guy to NOT feel down when watching films and playign gaems sometimes to see the reaction of girls to the characters (both out of game/movie and in game/movie) and not feel a bit bad, but its part of hte situation, just have to deal with it.

  56. JarinArenos says:

    This is our version of Westboro Baptist Church. Sure, we’re not doing it ourselves, but we’re associated with this slime in the eyes of outsiders. I find it unforgivable that the religious community at large has not denounced them, and I find it unacceptable when we do not denounce reprehensible actions like those described in the article.

  57. Keirley says:

    John, I really have a huge amount of respect for you as a games critic and journalist. It’s genuinely wonderful to consistently see you responding to such issues in a thoughtful and appropriately strong manner. Just wanted to say how much I appreciate your work.

  58. ukpanik says:

    Whats a “nigger kitchen”?

  59. Raziel_Alex says:

    Yeah, I also tend to think that she may be exaggerating a bit, but only because she doesn’t mention how males have also become boring, stupid, idiotic clichés in video-games. I’m tired with both male and female mainstream representations in games, thank God some interesting stuff seems to be coming with FC3, TR and the next Bioshock. Other than that, I wish her good luck, we need good, educated analysis on stuff like this if we want to progress.

    • TychoCelchuuu says:

      So she doesn’t mention something. Who cares? Her job is not to create a comprehensive analysis of every character in videogames ever. Isn’t it okay to have a narrow focus? Maybe she could do the man video later, or maybe someone else can do a man video.

      • Raziel_Alex says:

        “So she doesn’t mention something. Who cares?”
        Uhm, we all should care and leave the elitist and superior attitude with which you’re commenting around this post. I didn’t say it’s wrong to have a narrow focus, but if feminism wants true validity it needs to acknowledge problems of all kinds with all genders, not just females. And I completely agree with what she’s doing and hope that after this she does a series on men representation in pop media. With this said, go start a fight somewhere else, maybe on Youtube.

        • TychoCelchuuu says:

          Feminism has never refused to acknowledge problems that people other than women have. Sarkeesian is not refusing to acknowledge any problems. She’s just making a video series about a limited subset of them that she wants to talk about.

          • Raziel_Alex says:

            Well then, that’s great. As I said, I wish her only good luck and look forward to the videos. I’ve already subscribed to her channel.

  60. Zagzagovich says:

    It’s always a weird topic for me. I am completely for equal rights and accurate depictions of people and places in media, but at the same time I really don’t like when people dedicate themselves wholly to a topic like that. It needlessly becomes an argument where instead of exchanging views on the matter people start going into extremes and oversimplifying things. Speaking of oversimplifying: using tv tropes to show an example is about the worst thing you can do. They do show in general what the archetype of the character can be but you never go into why the character was created, what the creators inspiration was or anything else related to actual humans working on the project. It just becomes “look at that filth, it shouldn’t be like that”, which is no better than generalizing of any other media. Especially while the site itself is a den of just terrible people check out “this troper” series on youtube that goes through the worst of the pages just reading through the responses.

    In no way I condone the harassment that she got. It must be terrible to be a target of such terrible people. Although there is no reason to focus on “threats” because they are about as credible as a child yelling “I’ll kill you” on the Internet after losing at a video game, because that is what it is. All the best to her, hopefully it will die down soon.

    • DaFishes says:

      “Although there is no reason to focus on “threats” because they are about as credible as a child yelling “I’ll kill you” on the Internet after losing at a video game, because that is what it is.”

      No, that’s not what it is. They’ve sent threats to her twitter, her website, her Kickstarter, and her HOME. Other women who have spoken out about this topic have received the same, and in some cases the harassment and threats go on for years, with people traveling to the victim’s home to harass them, trying to get them fired from their jobs, etc. It’s not just trolling, dude. This is way beyond that and you need to think hard before you try to dismiss or excuse it.

      • Zagzagovich says:

        Perhaps I am underestimating those threats. I haven’t been following these kinds of attacks for a few years now. Last time I payed any attention it was a racist podcaster for some neo-nazi website and he got it pretty bad, but the worst was tons of pizzas and office supplies sent to his house.
        Hopefully real life harassers will get punished by law as it is an actual crime I believe.

    • TychoCelchuuu says:

      Sounds like you aren’t a fan of Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., Human Rights Watch, or a bunch of other people/groups. Odd. Why can’t someone devote themselves to this sort of thing?

      edit: or were you just talking about depictions in media? I mean, I still have the same question. Why can’t someone focus on one thing?

      • Zagzagovich says:

        That’s the thing, They are not Gandhi, Martin Luther King. This is the kind of attitude I have no time for. I have zero issues with the cause, but don’t go into extremes. Don’t act like this is the only thing that defines you. No matter how good that thing is, it’s still a label you put on yourself stripping you of your individuality. That’s why people can’t discuss politics, ethics or any divisive issues these days. And please, I’m not stopping you or anyone else supporting any sort of good cause. I just want a reasonable viewpoint somewhere in the middle of the debate.

      • gwathdring says:

        Zagzagovich has a point. Godwin’s law works in the inverse, too.

  61. Outright Villainy says:

    I’m sorry to say I wasn’t really paying much attention to this whole debacle before this post. But I’m glad you did make me pay attention to it, because this is just utterly vile, and the more assholes like this are shamed the better. Whatever about her video series (I think it looks quite interesting actually, I’ll probably watch it after seeing her pitch), this kind of treatment isn’t acceptable towards anyone, and the fact that it’s more misogynistic filth against someone just making an earnest documentary is just plain depressing.

  62. Web Cole says:

    Dat logic. Priceless.

  63. Rodafowa says:

    The problem is insecurity and entitlement. Some people are so invested in the Stuff They Like that so much of a hint of criticism of that Stuff causes them to close ranks and react with vicious defensiveness. It’s not just computer games that causes this reaction although in my experience it’s often a Nerd Thing (although not exclusively – see how a sizable minority of Liverpool fans reacted in the wake of Luis Suarez’s suspension earlier this year).

    I fall into this trap myself. Not to the psychotic degree of screaming rape threats at a stranger over the internet, but certainly I’ve tried to defend the indefensible and excuse the inexcusable because my privilage allows me to enjoy forms of entertainment that have deeply troubling aspects. And once you identify yourself as, say, a Game Of Thrones fan it’s worryingly easy to dismiss anyone who brings up the show’s problems with race and gender as “oversensitive” or “just looking for trouble”.

    The only solution is growing the fuck up. It’s realising that it’s not all about you. It’s being aware that it’s possible to like or even love things that have problems and that people pointing out those problems aren’t implicitly criticising you or trying to take those things away. It’s understanding that having more games, books, films, TV shows that aren’t written by and for straight white guys is a good thing, even for straight white guys.

  64. deadly.by.design says:

    I think feminism *sometimes* goes too far, especially when it pushes female superiority, rather than equality. I’ll never understand why a woman would actually want to be treated *just like* a man, because men are pretty crappy toward each other. That’s another conversation, though.

    That being said, these tropes have been painfully obvious to anyone with a brain. Maybe something constructive will come out of talking about them. Also, kudos to Valve for avoiding nearly all of them.

    *edited to clarify, for the haters*

    • Drayk says:

      Double fine is pretty good at avoiding those too !

    • Rodafowa says:

      I can only assume that you’ve never spoken to an actual feminist. Tell you what, though – let’s get women actual equality first, then if they start demanding more you can feel free to tell me that you called it.

      • deadly.by.design says:

        My wife used to be one, but hey … I’ll take the internet stranger’s word for it. ;)

        As for the post below–yes. My generalization does not include all shapes and shades of the moniker. My point is that, from what I’ve seen of feminism, there seems to be plenty of time spent going on about the superiority of the fairer gender. I don’t think every feminist thinks that, but the ones who do that make themselves look a bit unrealistic at best, man-haters at worst.

        Let’s note that I reacted positively to the video, though. I’m not hating on the trope angle. They’re pretty obvious in blockbuster movies, too, though the reaction there tends to be over-empowering women in physical roles. So, we get 90-lb waifs kickboxing 250lb soldiers.

        My favorite female character is probably Alyx. Sure, she gets captured, but that’s *after* she rescues you. She’s also smart and knows how to handle herself.

    • rockman29 says:

      There are different degrees and varying opinions within the umbrella of ‘feminism,’ just like in any other sociopolitical thing. So I’m not sure what your point is.

    • Crimsoneer says:

      Arguing that “feminism has gone too far” is like arguing “books are too long”. It’s an utterly idiotic argument, which takes your limited, anecdotal evidence, and uses it to discredit an entire framework for thought. There are millions of feminists out there, from nutjob radical feminists who think people who’ve gone through gender reassignment don’t count because they’re “not proper women” to random blokes on the street who think wolf-whistling isn’t okay.

      • deadly.by.design says:

        Hi. Thanks for overreacting and insulting me.

        But, seriously–stop it. You do not do feminism a service by defending it in such a manner as that. I am reacting positively to the video, so let’s be friends, mkay?

  65. Narzhul says:

    Am I insane or has the internet been replaced by people who only started using it for 10 minutes?
    EVERY article and a lot of people are treating this as if it’s a completely personal reaction to feminism.

    Have people suddenly forgotten about the shitholes of the internet where mass-trolling can be organized for kicks? These people do things for shits and giggles, not because of some ideological or personal view.

    • sonson says:

      If the domineering, sexually abusive, sexually orientated terms they use in doing something for “shits and giggles” is not pre-meditated it only enforces how deep and insidious a problem this is. It makes it a bigger problem if it’s casual, not a lesser one.

      • Narzhul says:

        These people aren’t opposed to doing anything and everything they can to get the most out of their trolling. They will kick you in the way that it hurts the most.

        They don’t need to be against feminism to find the best way to insult it.

        I’m not defending them, nor saying what they’re doing is fine, because it’s not.
        But seriously, people are treating this whole thing like some unique occurrence or something. This kind of trolling happened to a lot of targets. Just because this time it’s someone with a feminist view, people are going “oh the internet is so misogynistic and are against feminism oh things are so hopeless.”

        • sonson says:

          If one thinks that it is acceptable to invoke the kind of language used as mentioned in the article, they are without questions against feminism, because they are enforcing what it stands against. It’s not satire, it’s not art, they’re not making a point, They are abusing a woman on the grounds that she is a woman, to be dominated, whose most notable aspect is her sexuality, which they infer is depraved . It’s not about the cause she is promoting-they are attacking her for her gender.

          Now it might well be that they are just randomly having a pop at her in a manner which is afforded to them through the convenience and anonymity of the internet-but the manner in which they have chosen to do so suggests they are misogynist, even if they not rallied under an ideological banner.

    • Network Crayon says:

      Actually i think thats a fair point, but that doesn’t excuse the brainless people who write crap all over the internet because they’re safe from reprisal. It’s deplorable and should be treated as such.

    • Web Cole says:

      If they had decided to mass troll a Ron Paul supporter or an environmentalist perhaps, perhaps that would be an argument. But the gaming world at large does not have a shitty record when it comes to environmentalists; when a Green Peace activist appears on the internet, or on a gaming forum they don’t get driven away with cries of “Tits or gtfo”.

      No, your acting like this somehow happened in isolation, like gaming culture doesn’t already have a huge problem with how it, and we, regard and react towards real women in games and on the internet.

  66. AlephAleph says:

    Krystian Majewski did a nice analysis of this phenomenon:

    http://gamedesignreviews.com/scrapbook/flaming-gamers/

  67. Lib3rtine says:

    Thanks for existing RPS. It’s nice to see some humanity on the internet.

  68. Hodge says:

    Brilliant piece, John. You write the best things about the worst things.

  69. Shy_Otter says:

    Thank you. Thank you, thank you for writing this.

    It is insane how prevalent the issue is, and the kind of abuse that gets hurled around from people is nauseating. I’ve seen some people defend the vileness that comes out of their mouths by saying “Oh, but she deserves it, being such an attention whore.” As a woman, I detest attention-seeking behavior in both genders because it’s annoying, but that doesn’t give anyone the right to say things about someone’s breasts, to ‘joke’ about rape, or make death threats. Sites like http://www.fatuglyorslutty.com gather comments that gamers have made to women, and it’s horrifying the kind of thing that gets said.

    Remember the debacle with Jade Raymond, the female game producer who worked on Assassin’s Creed? Remember the disgusting comic that went around that portrayed her wearing a bikini and offering to fellate gamers?

    A writer named Catherynne Valente wrote: “When I was a kid, I was told to soften my voice, make it higher, make it sweeter, smile more, keep my hand down in class, and over and over not to be so opinionated–a word that is not even used to describe men, because when a man has an opinion, it’s taking a stand or telling it like it is or whatever brand of keeping it real you’d like to slot in there. … I’m tired of still having the “when men say it it’s awesome and when women say it it’s bitchy” conversation that was supposed to be sorted in 1985.”

    I’m so tired of that too.

    Thank you once again for the article, John.

    • NathanH says:

      I don’t think the buff muscled guys is a bad thing anyway; unless there’s a good reason for a protagonist or a sidekick to be unattractive, they should be attractive. Since a lot of games are violence-focused, this type of physique follows naturally.

      • Shy_Otter says:

        Sorry about that — I’d edited my comment down to be shorter because it was so long and took out the part you were replying to.

        But of course I agree with you — I basically said what you did, that even in stereotypes, men are depicted in a way that doesn’t degrade them (i.e., the buff hero) whereas women tend to be put in the role of “sex object.”

        • NathanH says:

          Perhaps it is just the sorts of games I play (strategy and RPG) but I don’t actually see very much objectionable about the portrayal of women in most of the games I play. Maybe a few of them dress a bit skimpily but then a lot of my female friends enjoy dressing skimpily and nobody thinks less of them for it. Although I did have an argument with a colleague at work the other day (in a different country from my origin) when he was saying that a girl wearing a miniskirt was inviting to be called a slut behind her back, so maybe attitude to dress is quite different in the culture I’m used to from a lot of places.

  70. Wut The Melon says:

    Relevant? Definitely. Interesting? Well… let’s agree to disagree on that. I’m not saying I’m not interested in making video games less misogynistic, but I’m not sure this is really going to do anything (it seems a ridiculous amount of money is thrown to her just because of all the internet attention, not because these five videos, however well researched, are ‘worth it’).

    The portrayal of women in video games is sexist and sometimes offensive. However, I sometimes wonder how seriously that should be taken in video games. Take porn, for example: you could argue women are often depicted ‘in the wrong way’, it is something practically every young man grows up with, yet a feminist movement fighting against sexism in porn would be somewhat ridiculous. This is fantasy, it’s not representative of reality in any way! I think that as long as we don’t confuse video games and reality this shouldn’t be a problem (it seems a lot of people on the internet are trying to disprove me here, unfortunately). It may boost the quality of video games, though, throwing out the sexism that doesn’t add anything.

    EDIT: It is, unfortunately, all too common to underestimate discrimination or racism. I may have in this case, the impact of the depiction of women in video games may be more serious than I think, and if it is I’ll admit I was wrong. I don’t know, though.

    • Cooper says:

      Fantasies are not always innocent.

      Fantasies are not also somehow detached form the real world. They feed expectations, assumptions.

    • RedViv says:

      See, if we want games to be taken seriously as a medium and not just seen as some idiotic electronic toy, we can’t go pick and choose which games are examined. Bay-tastic films are a fantasy, Call of Duty is a fantasy, and both can be picked apart and examined to reasonably explain how they fail.

      • BAshment says:

        So what exactly is the benefit of being taken seriously and by who are you looking for this accolade. If someone doesn’t already take video games as a serious medium that’s their problem.

      • NathanH says:

        Personally I don’t care at all how “seriously” someone takes video games, or what taking something “seriously” means to them. I’m quite happy doing things other people don’t take seriously.

    • sonson says:

      There are a great many campaigns against pornography because of the way it enforces misogynist practices and stereotypes. There should be similar against sexism in games, and in any other situation, for precisely the same reason.

      This is not the same as saying that certain portrayals of women should be banned, and it is not a threat to free speech.
      Rather, it is about recognizing that women are disadvantaged in society all around the world, and have been for recorded history, and therefore that in this context certain (very common) female tropes, if not the majority of them, only serve to further disempower women and enforce the status qou. It is about recognizing that the majority of said fantasies and harmless fiction have been created in an environment which is frequently hostile and unfair to females by default, and therefore the legitimacy and existing form of such expression should be challenged.

    • Web Cole says:

      “the impact of the depiction of women in video games may be more serious than I think”

      In my opinion your looking at a very small part of the overall issue. Its not the affect that the depiction of women in games has, its the fact the depiction of women in games is a symptom of a much larger issue.

  71. TariqOne says:

    You’re not just a sexist kid, you’re also terrible. At least a fuckwit like Tyler the Creator has some talent.

    • John Walker says:

      I’m not sure whom you’re insulting. Is it me? I hope it’s me!

      • TariqOne says:

        Ack — no! This comment was affixed to the ravings of some lad named monkey something earlier in the day.

        Not sure what happened.

      • alundra says:

        @Mr. Walker.
        Nobody is insulting you Mr. Walker, but you really sent the ball out of the park with this one. You just advertised a deeply disturbed woman who is using everything and everyone to raise a few thousands.

        Do you think this helps serious kickstarter projects?? Do you think this helps feminism (as opposed to feminazism)?? Do you think this helps all women??

        Seriously?? You felt all knightly shinningly and armourly advertising a woman who states LEGO is sexist??

        For the love of your mother, stop encouraging *victimistic* speeches and have some actual respect towards women.

        PS
        The reply system just had an stroke it seems.

        • gwathdring says:

          @ allundra Can we please stop using the phrase “white knight”? It’s a bunch of crap. Men can care about gender politics and come to the same conclusions as vocal, self-described feminist of their own damn volition.

          Does it really shock you that people come to different conclusions, and empathize with different people, based on their personal opinions and experiences? Does it really confound you to imagine a John Walker that, right or wrong, forms his opinions without feeling like the savior of all women kind?

          You can’t just tell people you understand their motivations better than they do and thus their arguments are invalid. Well, you can. But now we’ll be here all day, becasue you’re just a part of the patriarchal machine and react to ideas that threaten your dominance by grasping at straws like “well you just want to make women like you” instead of a more genuine rebut–

          I could do this for paragraphs, but I don’t want to. It’s easy, it’s boring, and it’s bullshit. I’ve been polite about this elsewhere and I am somewhat sorry I chose you of all people to blow up about it at, but write a bloody argument if you want to write an argument and write a REAL insult if you want to write an insult. Make up your mind. Jesus.

          • FlowState says:

            @glathdring? (sry, the reply system is broken)
            You’re doing the same thing here, man. You’ve rightfully called him out as being presumptuous, and then you go and do it yourself.

            I take particular umbrage with the statement “part of the patriarchal system.”

            I can’t stand the waves of feminism which loudly echoed the sentiment “we’re better than men!” People who won’t let me hold a door open for them because it somehow implies that they’re too weak to open a door for themselves.

            The only effective “feminism” or “minority rights” movements are the ones who seek a complete end to collectivism as a whole. You can’t maintain collectivist thought and somehow achieve equality, because the whole paradigm creates prejudice, no matter the type of group.

            Does that make me part of the patriarchal system? The guy you’re responding to is a moron, yes. But don’t just assume that anyone who disagrees with you does it from the standpoint of aligning with the past.

            LIMINALITY.

        • datom says:

          People who say ‘feminazism’ have a poor understanding of the concept of ‘nazism’.

          • sinister agent says:

            And of feminism. And, I like to think, of chewing their own food.

          • jezcentral says:

            It is a source of sadness that, due to the comments blowing up, we will never know quite what Sinister meant when he bestowed these bon mots on us. :(

            EDIT: Or, due to this reply fail, what I was on about…. (It was about chewing food).

          • TariqOne says:

            Oddly enough, it seems like the Americans who froth and rage about their precious freedoms being taken away by feminazis and queers tend to be the Americans who eagerly cough those freedoms up with rabid support of things like the PATRIOT Act and Republican Party and opposition to virtually all Bill of Rights jurisprudence (excepting the Second Amendment, naturally).

          • Jason Moyer says:

            People who stereotype are bad, in fact they are so bad I will now stereotype them.

          • rocketman71 says:

            People that say ‘feminazi’ don’t understand what is feminism either.

            Edit: looks like the comments broke after 20 pages. This was a response to datom.

        • oceanclub says:

          “feminazism”

          Anyone who uses the word “feminazism” in a non-ironic sense is an idiot.

          I have to say this thread is useful as it will acts as a future moron filter for RPS. For example, blocking those who consider white men the Most Oppressed Group Ever, and who think men agreeing with feminist issues are “White Knights”.

          P.

        • Toberoth says:

          “Deeply disturbed”? “Feminazism”?

          Sorry, but what is wrong with you exactly?

        • Eddy9000 says:

          @ Alundra

          Did you even watch the videos about Lego? They were an excellent deconstruction of the marketing and advertising of Lego throughout the years using direct examples from adverts and Lego ranges. So big fail to you.

          Also: A woman actively campaigning against discrimination is a victim? Tell me, in your little world how might a woman not act as a victim? By accepting the discrimination quietly and stoically?

          You obviously disagree with Anita for reasons that you haven’t made clear, and instead of giving an opinion you’ve chosen to attack people that support her opinion, offering very little substance to your argument over name-calling.

      • sinister agent says:

        Oh! Oh! Me!

        John, you are a big silly arse, with a stupid… um… chin. Yeah!

      • MrEvilGuy says:

        Hi John,
        Brilliant and fabulous piece of writing. The enormous number of comments (never seen so many for a single article on RPS) reveals that you hit a nerve in a great number of readers who normally stay silent. Fascinating stuff.

  72. ain says:

    Who cares. Let people portray their characters however they want. Sexism has been around before video games and sexism in media isnt inherently a bad thing. I don’t really see what they’re trying to accomplish with this project except to feed the trolls.

    • sonson says:

      How is sexism in the media not *by definition* a bad thing?!

      • RedViv says:

        I do second this. Sexism is a form of discrimination, inherently based on prejudice and singling out a group of people. I can’t see why that should not be a bad thing.

      • ain says:

        Since it is merely to be seen as a device to evoke whatever desired feeling the author imagined.

        • sonson says:

          So ditto for racism, or any other form of discrimination in the media, that’s OK because it serves the purposes of the creator of the piece?

          • ain says:

            Yes. Any form of discrimination would only become problematic if it was the focal point of the piece as a whole (i.e. the sole intention to display a certain group in a bad light).

          • gwathdring says:

            You’re presupposing it is an intentional part of the work, and that works operated on their own. Often sexist and racist media gets that way becasue of conditioned attitudes rather than artistic direction. It’s rather like suggesting someone’s use of their local dialect is a part of their carefully constructed idea rather than a symptom of how they learned to talk. The difference is that dialects are not typically harmful.

            Second, let us imagine creative works like Birth of a Nation. It existed to perpetuate and ideology, was crafted to effect the world and celebrate a way of thought. Or Silent Spring. Or Uncle Tom’s Cabin or countless other works of fiction. Media is often used to spread a message, and sometimes has an unintended powerful impact. Just as I expect people to speak responsibly and restrain themselves from intentionally using hate speech in public, I expect artists and content creators to think very carefully about instances of hate speech, sexism, and similar that appear in their media. The greater its potential to harm in the real world, the more intentionally and carefully it ought to be applied in the fantasy realms of our media.

            Entertainment and media matter, however casually consumed. As such, we need to be careful about how much sexism ends up in our media and in what contexts.

  73. DaFishes says:

    The sheer volume of guys who refuse to acknowledge the serious threats and harassment and instead divert the topic to “Well, I don’t really like feminism, and this is just trolling, if she didn’t want ‘attention’ then she should be nicer and say things I like” is amazing. Great job.

  74. kaabii says:

    Her Bayonetta video made me very sad… I always thought Bayonetta came off as too good for men. She’s the perfect feminist character.

    • Jackablade says:

      I always interpreted Bayonetta as a kind of parody of the sorts of pandering character designs that this project is railing against. Her proportions and actions are deliberately pushed past sexualisation into some surreal point beyond. I can see how it could reasonably be interpreted differently though.

      • RedViv says:

        That was also the goal of the creators. The advertisement campaign went the usual Japanese way though. I’m more inclined to agree with the views Leigh Alexander expressed on the character. Far more empowering elements in there than just the “oh but she’s a single mom!!” thing Sarkeesian built on (and even her “one positive” wasn’t correct, and ill fit for that discussion).

    • Dominic White says:

      Leigh Alexander wrote a pretty great article on Bayonetta, and I recall she came to the conclusion that the character was far more empowering than exploitative. Honestly, I think that anyone writing the character off as sexist is missing the joke. She’s sexual, yes, but in the same way that the Rocky Horror Picture Show is. It’s so utterly, excessively camp and vampish that it goes far beyond anything that could be defined as earthly sexuality.

      And anyway, every single masculine figure was fodder for Bayonetta to walk all over in the game.

  75. Bigdeal says:

    Is it sexism if I think Chell from Portal 2 is attractive? I don’t think whether or not women are depicted as attractive is ever in question, it only takes on different types depending on the subject matter. Mass Effect has the science fiction, Spacer Opera and comic type of sexy, Mario takes on the most hackneyed and simplistically symbolic female-complement and so on. I simply don’t find it easy to draw the line.Someone might complain about Elizabeth from Bioshock Infinite being clearly designed to be sexy. But what else could she be, and does it really detract from her, or is it not a valid component of the story and also her character? You can easily draw the line of sexism to include anything which women would not like to be identified with or don’t feel drawn towards, if only by association of a theme. But I guess the big problem is the one-sidedness and routine of it, rather than an offending degree in average cases.

    • Dominic White says:

      Nothing wrong with characters being attractive. I know fangirls who swoon over Solid Snake and Dante from Devil May Cry (the original series, not the new reboot). The thing is that the characters aren’t defined entirely by their looks. You think of Chell first as ‘smart, puzzle-solving, capable, fearless’ and ‘cute’ falls fairly low on the list of key character traits.

      When ‘Girl’ or ‘Tits’ or ‘Eye-candy’ seems to be the #1 design hook for a character, that’s when you’ve got a problem.

      • RedViv says:

        Good female character. Meh. Well thought-out character, female. Hell yeah.

      • Bigdeal says:

        “You think of Chell first as ‘smart, puzzle-solving, capable, fearless’ and ‘cute’ falls fairly low on the list of key character traits.”

        I don’t make a priority list, and an amorphous “attractive” might actually be the first distinguishment, although it is certainly of a more complex type.

        • RedViv says:

          We’re a visually oriented species. Noting things like this first is quite natural. Not progressing beyond it is the problem.

      • gwathdring says:

        I think of Chell the same way I think of Gordon Freeman. She’s a refrigerator box more than a character.

    • TychoCelchuuu says:

      Is it sexism if I think Chell from Portal 2 is attractive?
      No, although if game designers make all female characters attractive because any other female character is perceived as worthless, that’s sort of bad. Portal’s pretty good about this sort of thing, although the changes Chell went through between Portal and Portal 2 are kind of worrying

      I don’t think whether or not women are depicted as attractive is ever in question, it only takes on different types depending on the subject matter. Mass Effect has the science fiction, Spacer Opera and comic type of sexy, Mario takes on the most hackneyed and simplistically symbolic female-complement and so on. I simply don’t find it easy to draw the line.
      Attractive female characters are not a problem any more than attractive male characters are a problem. It’s when the vast majority of depictions of female characters in videogames fall into a very limited subset of stereotypes that are all “attractive, want to have sex with you, need you to do all the work and save them” or “attractive, want to have sex with you, but they can KICK ASS LIKE MEN BECAUSE THEY ARE STRONG FEMALE CHARACTERS, and so on. Her whole video series is going to be about the problems with the depiction of women in videogames, not just “women are sexy so this is bad.”

      Someone might complain about Elizabeth from Bioshock Infinite being clearly designed to be sexy. But what else could she be, and does it really detract from her, or is it not a valid component of the story and also her character?
      What else could she be? You can’t imagine what a female character could be other than someone with massive boobs and a waist about as think around as a carrot? Interestingly Elizabeth went through a redesign to make her even MORE boobalicious and more helpless.

      You can easily draw the line of sexism to include anything which women would not like to be identified with or don’t feel drawn towards, if only by association of a theme. But I guess the big problem is the one-sidedness and routine of it, rather than an offending degree in average cases.
      I really don’t think that’s what this video series is about, but I guess we can wait until it comes out and then judge it.

      • Bigdeal says:

        “What else could she be? You can’t imagine what a female character could be other than someone with massive boobs and a waist about as think around as a carrot?”

        Firstly, she is obviously a cartoon like anyone else. Secondly, how is it disparaging to her if that is just one of her traits? Is it still objective if you have to talk of it in hyperbole?

        “Interestingly Elizabeth went through a redesign to make her even MORE boobalicious and more helpless.”

        But is this so or do you just pile her with a certain stereotype to suit to the argument? Sure she was redesigned, but is this not valid? As I remember she was kind of offputting, and what if it’s the point of the story to be attracted to her, to find her appealing? Even Jane Austen does it. That’s exactly my point. It’s always “sure there’s nothing wrong with attractive”. But then this is exactly what gets targeted all around. And then I think this is just an outlet for a certain character type who wants to think about sexuality in a certain way, rather than objective discussion about “sexism”.

        • Apples says:

          But there’s kind of a certain level you can go to to let both women and men feel attracted to her. Once it goes into “…and she’s wearing a tight corset that totes shows off her boobs and tiny waist and she puts her bum in front of the camera” you’ve gone too far! A woman can definitely feel attracted to, if not sexually then aesthetically, another woman – but if it’s blatant “THIS IS FOR MEN TO FIND SEXY” stuff, they won’t. And yes, you can tell it is, the same way you can tell lesbian porn for lesbians is different from lesbian porn for men, and gay porn for men is different from yaoi for women, and so on.

          I actually wrote a post ages ago saying that they could easily have gone for a “little sister” (lol bioshock) design for Elizabeth, and induced the same feelings of protectivity for both genders without inducing the creepy “she’s sexy but looks like a little girl” thing, just by dressing her differently.

          edit: oh yeah and “she is obviously a cartoon like everyone else”? Well, the designers choose to emphasise her boobs and tiny waist to make her cartoony, because those are the things they think “make a woman”. It wasn’t like Liz magically popped into existence, someone drew her with the same cartoon aesthetic as Jessica Rabbit but with the face of a young girl. Shte could easily have been caricatured with barely any boobs and a comically big nose, or short hair and muscled arms, or anything at all. But they choose tits!

          • Bigdeal says:

            “Once it goes into “…and she’s wearing a tight corset that totes shows off her boobs and tiny waist and she puts her bum in front of the camera” you’ve gone too far! ”

            Actually I don’t think sohard about it nor can’t I think of only this and nothing else. So I’d say they haven’t gone too far. Sure, if you make this the only point of discussion it might seem like they’ve gone too far, but if she still works as an actual character, there doesn’t seem to be a problem that needs immediate attention.

            “Well, the designers choose to emphasise her boobs and tiny waist to make her cartoony, because those are the things they think “make a woman”. It wasn’t like Liz magically popped into existence, someone drew her with the same cartoon aesthetic as Jessica Rabbit but with the face of a young girl. Shte could easily have been caricatured with barely any boobs and a comically big nose, or short hair and muscled arms, or anything at all. But they choose tits!”

            Well, then she’dhave a comically big nose. That’d be stupid, wouldn’t it? Now she’s an attractive female main character – big deal.

          • Apples says:

            So your argument boils down “I like her to be sexy and I think big tits on show are sexy therefore it’s fine.” The problem is not that you find things sexy, it’s that you think making them sexy improves them (because it makes you happy, after all, so it must be better!), and that there is only one vision of sexiness for women. Or indeed that there is any reason for them to be sexy at all, when there ARE possibilities for female characters outside of sexy, like I suggested a familial aspect.
            Again. To sum up. The problem is not that she’s sexy (well kinda in this case since she always looks really young). The problem is that the default for designing female characters, and your default perspective for judging their effectiveness, is sexiness.

    • Apples says:

      i like this comment cause it reads like you saw something about feminism and was immediately like “YIKES i’d better check whether it’s still ok to think some women are sexy!!” Yes, it’s fine to think women are sexy. The difference between finding your preferred gender sexy and sexism is this – you know how in DA2, Fenris looked like an anime and was kind of clearly intended to appeal to a certain kind of woman? Now imagine if every male character was that and no other kind of men were considered attractive. How fucking awful would that be.

      “…designed to be sexy. But what else could she be?” what do you mean by this?

      • Bigdeal says:

        Nope, I saw something about sexism and also all types of normal female game characters cited, with some random exceptions. I simply didn’t see a clear objective difference.

        ““…designed to be sexy. But what else could she be?” what do you mean by this?”

        She is just an attractive woman, and as far as I see it the protagonist’s lover. Also this setting plays with a certain type of look and she has to suit it like anyone else. Nothing wrong with this. Or is it?

  76. Asinies says:

    While I wouldn’t normally seek 4chan for wisdom on women, they made a response to this kickstarter, naming tons of so-called “normal” women in video games: http://archive.foolz.us/v/thread/143011164/

    I think they bring a point up. Perhaps the majority of gamer culture is sexist, but I always see the majority of media publications singling out the usuals like Tomb Raider, Peach, Bayonetta, etc, while at the same time ignoring positive female characters with positive tropes. I realize that the media is simply trying to push sexism out of gaming as fast as they can, but you don’t need to do apply the entirety of all developers to it. Yes, the negative portrayals of women should be listed, but why not praise those that do women justice?

    • Cooper says:

      The porject is not “all games are sexist”. The project is “most games pull on tropes (stereotyupes) of women which are lazy at best, often also sexist”

      That there are exceptions to this does not invalidate her project.

      • Asinies says:

        Ah, I should have clarified. I wasn’t speaking against her project. I was talking about the majority of media publications, shotgun included.

        I think that while there is a nasty feedback of actual sexist people, I think a good chunk of people that get mad at these types of articles are just sick of people never actually praising some female characters with positive tropes.

      • RandomEsa says:

        The main problem about this whole project was that if he only reached the 6k goal she wouldn’t do a positive female characters video ( http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/566429325/tropes-vs-women-in-video-games 11th video and i presume a 11th stretch goal).

        The whole problem also isn’t how female characters are badly writting but rather larger. The real problem is why character writing in video games is so bad.

        We’ll just have to wait for the first episode to pop out but I don’t have high hopes.

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eJtQOca8lU&t=2m35s also this whole project reminds me of this.

        • Caerphoto says:

          The main problem about this whole project was that if she only reached the 6k goal she wouldn’t do a positive female characters video ( http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/566429325/tropes-vs-women-in-video-games 11th video and i presume a 11th stretch goal).

          The main problem? That is not a problem, that is simply making what she estimated to be the best use of limited potential resources.

          The 11th video (positive female characters) was part of the first set of stretch goals.

          • RandomEsa says:

            It is a problem. What she originally intented was just to point out obvious flaws how women are portrayed in video games without any positive feedback or ways to fix the problem. What we will most likely see is that in every video she will be first explaining the trope, then point out video game characters that fit in that trope and lastly tell everyone not to do it because it’s sexist ( because when woman is stereotyped it’s a big issue). You know what everyone can point out with an access to wikipedia and tvtropes.org ( I don’t know how she even needed all that money when we know she has all this generation consoles and an amateur studio, but everyone else have already pointed this out so I won’t dwell on it. My guess is that she will buy a nice car).

            The only episode I’m looking forward to is the positive one. Because if she really has anything constructive to say it will be in there. Personally I’m looking for a mention of Kreia.

    • Spinks says:

      I wouldn’t look at anything made by 4chan if you paid me. Life is too short to be associated with griefers.

  77. Dominic White says:

    This is probably the best comment thread I’ve seen on the subject, and parts of it still make me feel physically ill. The New Statesman did a great article on the subject, which pulls fewer punches than John Walker’s piece:

    http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/internet/2012/06/dear-internet-why-you-cant-have-anything-nice

    And… well, don’t try reading the comment thread unless you like being really disappointed.

  78. Milky1985 says:

    [EDIT] FAR to long comment, will find a better way to discuss than a comment thread :P [/EDIT]

    tl;dr version Good idea, hoping that it shows how things should be done but also why the characters are there as they are as well (in terms of pushing plot etc)

  79. Fox89 says:

    Exactly right. The resistance to the idea of this kind of thing changing is pretty horrific. It’s depressing when you have to look at television and the movies for an example of ‘how to do it right’, as that’s a medium with loads of great examples of well portrayed characters.

    The fact that this kind of thing exists is not a problem in itself. There’s nothing wrong with the odd game featuring some scantily clad women with exaggerated breasts beating ten types of hell out of each other. But when stereotyping and sexist depictions are the majority? It has to stop. Full stop. I pin my hopes on more and more women getting positions of creative power in the industry itself. Because I don’t see the audience changing en masse.

  80. lizzardborn says:

    These kind of controversies are as predictable as republican gay scandals and democratic adultery ones. 3 days later everything will be forgotten, the issues will not be solved, there will be bump in the traffic and every pundit in the planet will have spun the story so that it proves his/her viewpoint. And the life will go on and the 4-6 month counter till the next event will be resetted.

    There will never be acceptance for the women in this crowd mostly because gaming for huge chunk of it is the shelter that protects them from actually having to communicate with them. Think of this class of gamers as a Smeagol and his precious (the precious in the case is the male exclusivity)

    • gwathdring says:

      Some of us here on RPS don’t let it blow over. We bring it up whenever we see it. Sometimes a few of us are overzealous, sometimes under … but I know that I always make note to comment, critique and fuss about this sort of issue whenever it seems applicable. I don’t let it die down into obscurity, if I can help it.

      Maybe it doesn’t make a difference, but for all the calls of “white knight” and similar bullshit, I really believe that if more of the people who have problems with this sort of thing in our media spoke out we’d have faster changes. Here on RPS? Lot’s of people do. We have a lively, healthy community that discusses all sorts of problems in games and we have die-hards of all sorts many of them constructive. I like to think we don’t let the issues die, here … if more of us spread that to other forums and comment sites despite our distaste for those environments maybe we’d be surprised by how much of a difference it made.

      As things stand, we get a lot of respect from the industry. Developers and publishers pay attention to RPS. Developers join us down here to chat, argue and discuss. We’ve gained power through our willingness to be civil. Let’s keep it going.

  81. SanguineAngel says:

    I am absolutely ashamed of everything I saw. It made me feel dirty just reading the comments people have been sending her. I don’t even comprehend how these “people” could possibly think the way they do.

  82. yutt says:

    This is not quite a direct response to this article, but more a general annoyance with this entire realm of discussion. This and related topics are getting so warn out and myopic. I wish game journalists could collectively start talking about games again instead of inundating us with with these defensive “Wait-no-I’m-not-sexist!” articles.

    If I wanted to be lectured with puritanical moralizing I’d attend church.

    I’m sexually attracted to women, even women I don’t know on a personal level and have no interest in knowing. I’m not ashamed of that. Brave, I know. I also don’t hate women or believe them inferior in any manner to men. In fact, men’s collective infatuation with the female form is a power they have over us, not vice-versa. This is why throughout human history and civilizations we have repressed the female form, and why now, advertising uses it as a power to subvert rational thought in men. This is a weakness, an inferiority, of men, not women.

    Can someone bloviate about how horrible the sexualization and objectification of men in Harrlequin romance novels is now?

    https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=harlequin+romance+novels&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch

    • Fox89 says:

      The difference is: Lots of novels exist that don’t objectify men or play to other tropes. How many games are there that do that for women? Very, very few. There isn’t just ‘a sexist genre of games’. It is ALL games. With scant few exceptions.

      You don’t think the 47% of gamers out there who are female deserve a bit of believable representation?

      • lizzardborn says:

        Well they can vote with their wallets. If they are indeed 47% of the market and the revenues and refuse to play and pay for sexist games it will be sorted out. Nobody wants to see half his/her paycheck vanish. If there is strong demand for something the market will provide. They just have to speak the only language the megacorporations know – $$$

        • Fox89 says:

          I sure hope there is a better solution to issues of sexism then saying “Well why don’t you just stop playing games for a few years, girls?”

          • lizzardborn says:

            Propose them. Something that has a real chance to work, in a shorter timeframe.

          • hello_mr.Trout says:

            what about some kind of video series that aimed to document & raise awareness of the limited gender representations/depictions which are available to women in video games, which was then posted on the internets for people to see, with no form of payment required? it might spark discussions in forums and broader sections of the internet, and perhaps would eventually filter upwards to the various companies, designers, and marketing agencies which are affiliated with gaming, offering the possibility for change.

            wait..

          • lizzardborn says:

            So we have people that fall into blind irrational nerdrage and documentaries will help. Any real world case where this worked? Protect the girl gamers will be the next anti Kony? We live in a world where in huge parts of it “All animals are equal” comes with “some more than other” attached. Economics is good way of influencing. Of course a few law suits that seek damages because the companies providing the online service could not provide comfortable and safe environment to use the service could go a long way. Except the current Supreme Court ensured that you cannot do that. Arbitrage is for you dear girls. It is in the eula.

        • Very Real Talker says:

          careful pal, you are making too much sense here, don’t you know that being reasonable means being an horrible sexist?

          Now repeat after me:

          -I’m a heterosexual male, hence I’m guilty, and all my favorite hobbies are sexist and I must strive to make them more accepting of women and gays

          The next time you may be tempted to make a reasonable point you best be repeating that mantra until becomes second nature. Now go being ashamed of being a man

        • kud13 says:

          This. 100 times this.

          Call me cynical if you must, but the industry isn’t the way it is “just” because society is mysogynistic. The Industry (and the media industries in general) portray things in a way that will sell. End of story.

          Unless she ends her videos by saying “and you should make a point not to buy any games that use these tropes”, and that message will resonate with the populace, you won’t get actual change.

          RE: the comments directed at her. Like many here, I’ll wholeheartedly agree that those people are twats. However, I don’t believe that Internet must require accountability via loss of anonymity, and realistically, short of re-education, this is the only way to change something.

          imho, there’s a world of difference between people sending death/rape threats to a person’s house, vs some keyboard jockey doing the same on the Internet. Quite frankly, I wouldn’t take the latter seriously, whilst the former would probably spark a police investigation.

          The issue certainly is important. But whether she’ll be able to do anything significant remains to be seem

      • yutt says:

        “How many games are there that do that for women? Very, very few. There isn’t just ‘a sexist genre of games’. It is ALL games. With scant few exceptions.”

        This is the sort of blindered myopia that makes any honest discussion on this topic near impossible. You’ve made a blatantly false statement as if you believe it is objectively true. It isn’t. Most games don’t involve women either at all, or in any manner that could be interpreted in a sexual manner for or against.

        Here is my Steam games list:

        http://steamcommunity.com/id/yutt/games?tab=all

        Out of close to 400 games I doubt I could find a dozen that would be able to be pointed at as negatively stereotyping women. I could find roughly just as many that positively portray women in an empowering and nonsexual manner. I could find a handful more in a grey area attempting to satirize the sexual depiction of women in gaming – but with empowering themes.

        “You don’t think the 47% of gamers out there who are female deserve a bit of believable representation?”

        Sure, and they do. My wife has no problem finding games she enjoys. One of her favorites is Dead or Alive Beach Volleyball. Which by all accounts apparently will result in the enslavement of all women-kind.

        It is silly really. This whole topic is little more than poisonous faux-feminists soapboxing their opinions as representative of their entire gender, deliberate troll responses, and male journalists trying to play damage control for all men. As if the actions of a handful of sexist male trolls are any more representative of all men than booth babes are of all women.

        • BAshment says:

          pretty much summed it up.

        • Eddy9000 says:

          The first game on your list, team fortress 2 has absolutely no representation of women, apart from the pyro which is rumoured to be a woman. ask yourself how many games there are in your list where women are portrayed as heroic, powerful and aspirational, and how many there are with men in this role.

          Also putting it down to ‘poisonous feminists’ is kind of ignoring the fact that the backlash is coming from all sectors of the community, just read the comments in this comments section, it hasn’t been taken over by feminists you know, just the same old RPS readers who disagree with the way women are largely portrayed in games.

          And really, your wife isn’t the be all and end all of female opinion.

          • yutt says:

            “The first game on your list, team fortress 2 has absolutely no representation of women, apart from the pyro which is rumoured to be a woman. ask yourself how many games there are in your list where women are portrayed as heroic, powerful and aspirational, and how many there are with men in this role.”

            Alice: The Madness Returns
            Aquaria
            Beyond Good & Evil
            Borderlands
            Chantelise
            Cthulhu Saves the World
            Dead Island
            DOTA 2
            Dragon Age
            Dungeon Defenders
            Dungeons of Dredmor
            Dustforce
            Guild Wars
            Left 4 Dead
            Left 4 Dead 2
            Lost Planet
            Monday Night Combat
            On the Rain-Slick Precipice of Darkness: Episode 1
            On the Rain-Slick Precipice of Darkness: Episode 2
            Portal
            Portal 2
            Recettear
            Saints Row
            Sanctum
            Skyrim
            Star Wars – Jedi Knight: Mysteries of the Sith
            Super Monday Night Combat
            Terraria
            The Longest Journey
            The Path
            Tomb Raider Anniversary
            Tomb Raider: Underworld
            Torchlight
            Trine
            Trine 2
            Vampire: The Masquerade – Bloodlines
            X-COM: Apocalypse
            X-COM: Enforcer
            X-COM: Interceptor
            X-Com: UFO Defense

            I’ve tried to only include those with a playable female heroes. This means leaving out notable important female characters like Alyx from Half-Life 2 and Deadra from Zeno Clash. I also don’t have the greatest memory so I probably missed some and may have included some incorrectly. Mostly I noticed that the vast majority of my remaining games either have no gendered hero or that gender was irrelevant to the character.

            “And really, your wife isn’t the be all and end all of female opinion.”

            Nor was I implying otherwise. It was simply presented as a counter-narrative to the idea that all women of humanity are collectively and uniformly of the same opinion. The sight of breasts in video games does not create such terror in the hearts and minds of all women. Some are made of more solid stuff than these whiny, entitled, dramatic feminists.

          • Eddy9000 says:

            Those really are (mostly) good examples of positive roles for women in games. Wouldn’t you like to see more of them? Wouldn’t you like to see less women portrayed as big-titty ‘rescue me and maybe you can fuck me’ clones? That’s what we’re doing here. Join in, you seem like a decent chap, or at least you would if you didn’t refer to people asking for fairer representation ‘whiny’ and ‘dramatic’. It’s nice that you think that they’re entitled to this though, unless you used the word in a totally wrong way.

          • SanguineAngel says:

            I know this is very late, no one may even read this. But your comment got me curious. I took a look at the first 100 games on your list, and of the one I have any familiarity with, I found these games:

            Dragon Age Origins
            Aquaria
            DOTA2
            Skyrim
            Global Agenda
            Deus Ex: HR
            Mass Effect
            Dead Island (?) (Not sure about that one)
            Fallout 3
            Dawn of War (Not sure if the version you have contains sisters of battle?)
            Heroes of Might & Magic V
            Saints Row the Third
            Duke Nukeme forever
            Monday Night Combat
            Recettear
            FEAR 2 Project Origin
            Civilization V
            Brink
            Trine
            The Witcher
            Zeno Clash
            Borderlands
            Bunch of Heroes
            Assassins Creed
            Unreal Tournament
            Return to Castle Wolfenstein
            The Darkness 2
            Call of Juarez
            Blood Bowl
            Civilization 4
            Tomb Raider
            Champions Online

            That’s about 30% Most of the other games i recognised from the first 100 contained no female characters as far as I could recollect. Although it is worth noting that perhaps half a dozen did.

            Which all depict women to some degree according to the negative stereotypes and tropes that are being brought into focus recently – such as overly sexualised, slutty, weak, naive etc.

            Now certainly some of those games and several others on your list also present positive aspects of women (as per your own list) but there is still a significant amount of negativity. Lara Croft, for example, has become over time a strong female character but there is always a high sexuality – an aspect of titillation. Even in the new game where they are certainly exploring some very brave ground – she is still portrayed in everything I have seen as somewhat sexually. These games are still always trying to use sex to sell because, damnit they have a female character and they will make best monetary use of her assets.

            On the topic of games that do not depict women at all – it depends on context of course but no representation at all is only mildly better than poor representation. We frequently hear about female protagonists getting ditched and replaced with stereotypical male muscle bound protagonist because that is what they believe the gamin audience will most respond to, ignoring a significant chunk of their audience.

        • Xocrates says:

          “Out of close to 400 games I doubt I could find a dozen that would be able to be pointed at as negatively stereotyping women.”

          Skimming the list, I doubt I could find a dozen with a significant female presence.

          Which is another part of the problem.

          • yutt says:

            “Skimming the list, I doubt I could find a dozen with a significant female presence.”

            Wow, you really were trying to remain ignorant, eh? I posted above with the games with playable female heroes. Not to mention, in your “skimming” you must have noticed that many of the games had no significant gendered presence at all.

          • Xocrates says:

            I did not have the time to read through 400 games.

            However, of those 400, assuming your above list is correct about 10% allow you to play as a female.

            Of those, the ones that only allow you to play as a female character are:

            Alice: The Madness Returns
            Aquaria
            Beyond Good & Evil
            Chantelise
            Portal
            Portal 2
            Recettear
            Sanctum
            The Longest Journey
            The Path
            Tomb Raider Anniversary
            Tomb Raider: Underworld

            That’s 12 games out of 400, and in several you play a female Avatar, not a female character (Portal, Sanctum). Meaning that’s under 10 games with a female character and of those not all are good characters (Tomb Raider, and I say this as a fan of the games).

            That’s under a dozen.

            Assuming your collection is a good representation of the industry, that’s about 5%-1% starring a female character.

    • Eddy9000 says:

      ” In fact, men’s collective infatuation with the female form is a power they have over us, not vice-versa.”

      So men are empowered by being higher earners, holding higher status positions and being more represented institutionally in society, and women are empowered by their ability to make men want to fuck them?

      Nice argument there. Kind of like telling a rape victim they should take it as a compliment. Oh I know that’s a cheap little strawman, but when in Rome…

      • yutt says:

        “So men are empowered by being higher earners, holding higher status positions and being more represented institutionally in society…”

        At no point did I advocate for this situation, or claim otherwise, that is a completely aside topic. I was talking only about the sexual depiction of women, which is not one of weakness, but of power. I know even broaching this topic I step into a mire of feminist language traps, but women as a sexual being revered by men speaks nothing of inferiority or weakness on their part. One readily admits the physical power inherent in a brutish ignorant man, but for some reason there is the desire to deny the psychological power of a sexualized ignorant woman.

        They aren’t victims. A booth babe isn’t a victim. They are informed, fully-aware, conscious adults making their own decisions and life choices, whether you agree with them or not. Some women enjoy being seen, thought of, and depicted sexually. That is their decision, and nothing in it precludes others from seeking another path.

        “Nice argument there. Kind of like telling a rape victim they should take it as a compliment.”

        No, it isn’t. Because being raped is losing power over oneself. Manipulating men through deliberate and willful sexuality is a use of personal power, not loss.

        • Eddy9000 says:

          “They aren’t victims. A booth babe isn’t a victim. They are informed, fully-aware, conscious adults making their own decisions and life choices, whether you agree with them or not. Some women enjoy being seen, thought of, and depicted sexually”

          Just because some women do it, doesn’t make it right. And I think you’re placing more faith in personal agency then I would. Women are able to become booth babes because the role is one that has been made acceptable by social attitudes that present women as valuable as far as they are able to arouse men. If women have so much freedom in the roles that they play then why don’t they just choose to be employed in high status occupations? Black people in apartheid south africa didn’t ‘choose’ to be housecleaners and manual labourers, they were the only positions allowed to them.

          • CrookedLittleVein says:

            Why not direct our attention to those women who are experiencing real sexual discrimination and abuse, as well as severe economic deprivation rather than women whose apparent burden can be summed up as “I chose a job that involves me standing around looking pretty for droves of nerds” rather than “I was cruelly forced to exploit my body by PATRIARCHY”? Many people (most of the people I know) have faced far tough trials and worked far harder jobs (social workers, personal carers, mental health nurses, prostitutes, cleaners, etc). Save me the whining of the entitled. I’ll gladly pledge my wallet to the plight of affluent females, the very moment we’ve solved the far harsher issues suffered by the poor. And before you mumble some utterly inane nonsense about “supporting one issue doesn’t preclude you from support another, even if only in spirit”, if human kind as a collective decided to drop our tiny pet crusades (sexism in video games, militant/evangelistic belief systems/practices, the idea that one ‘race’ is superior, the sorry predicament of the rare Tasmanian midget were-toad) we’d be able to actually effect some change beyond whining about every tiny thing that irritates or upsets us. It’s like Lovecraft’s prediction has come true.

            And yes, it was easy to write that because I don’t believe a word of it.

          • Eddy9000 says:

            We obviously have different views on what kind of employment degrades women. Whilst being a booth babe is physically easy work, I think this represents degradation just as much as physical hardship, and I would say that the attitudes that allow booth babes are exactly those that push women into lower paid and more menial work. I’ll say it again, the way women are represented in the media represents and promotes attitudes that cause real, physical hardship and is as good a place as any to push for change.

  83. Eddy9000 says:

    Excellent post, and I’m glad you second guessed all the arguments that would be made against it. Also what a lovely comments thread! Makes me proud to be part of this community.

  84. Very Real Talker says:

    video games and gamers are so not sexist it’s funny. I think they hatred towards this girl is a consequence of this- videogames and videogamers are so sexism free that she must be obviously in bad faith and just want to bother males because she has sexist problems.

    just my two cents

    also it’s funny that 100% of interesting female characters in video games were created by males, just saying

    • lizzardborn says:

      100% of interesting female characters in games are Jade from beyond good and evil. The others are femme fatales, damsels in distress and tough heroines.

      • RandomEsa says:

        100% of interesting male characters in games are James from silent hill 2. The others are Lady killers, nerdy sidekicks and tough space marines.

        • Very Real Talker says:

          exactly Esa…. I think it’s funny to lament femme fatale stereotypes in vidya while it’s full of roided out muscley grunting killing machines type of characters. It’s also full of damsel in distress type of male characters, from the half-life scientists to the cs hostages and most male npc characters, really

          I think we should all be wary of feminists. Lamenting (non existent) sexism in video games is just a way to get attention or to deride men or whatever. Or maybe just to get money from people with a guilty complex

          • gwathdring says:

            I really enjoy Dragon Age. I didn’t mind Morrigan’s outfit; she lives in the wilds and isn’t concerned with propriety and so it makes sort of sense. It worked for me.

            But on my second run I wanted to be a Mage and for whatever reason I like to alternate between Male and Female characters in games that let me pick one. It took me a ridiculous amount of time to find an upgraded armor that actually covered my character a problem I didn’t have as a male character. The males were given all the classic square-jaw, chiseled muscle stuff and there was plenty of in-fiction titillation for everyone with every character and their aunt being bisexual and ready to give it up to the Warden. Not my thing, but not too gender-unbalanced either. But the @#$(%! clothing options were ridiculous! Chain mail with a wide, evening gown style neck that goes out to the shoulders, mage armor open to the navel with breasts spilling out, frilly anachronistic underwear compared the male’s simple cloth affair.

            Even if we ignore societal context and sexism and all that … it’s still really frustrating to be treated so differently in ways so arbitrary in the context of the game fiction and gameplay experience (women are of lower status in DA:O, but still allowed significant power and generally accepted as warriors). And that’s just as someone who’s secondary characters are female. I imagine there are additional frustrations for female gamers and/or anyone who’s primary play experience is with female characters.

    • TychoCelchuuu says:

      My brain just went into “clearly must be joking” mode to prevent itself from shutting down.

      • Very Real Talker says:

        I don’t see the problems with femme fatales, damsels in distress and tough heroines. I’m not saying they are interesting characters and they are not included in the “interesting female characters” I was mentioning early, but I think a video game story can do with some stereotypes and these stereotypes are no different than male stereotypes like your average gears of war grunt type of characters.

        Anyway the most important things to remember is that videogamers are not sexist and all interesting video games stuff is made by men.

  85. Asyne says:

    Despite this reaction to the project being soundly over-the-top (likely trolling rather than legitimate hate), the project itself is shallow and one-sided.

    If a sexist representation of women in games as sensual icons is detestable, where’s the paired outcry over men in games having a sexist representation as machimso muscle-heads? Are all women in games presented in a sexist manner (or even a majority); if not, why create an entire game to make the point? Since such a represtentation of women exists in film, television, photo, print, and prose without a peep, why single out games as though they’ve done some wrong?

    My view is that the reaction is a vile and shallow bullying, but also that the project is a greedy and shallow guilt-trip cash-in. Discussing sexism while implicitly meaning “sexism for women only” is misandrist, or at least philogynist.

    • Bhazor says:

      You don’t get it.

      Male characters are aspirational.
      Women however are shown as fuck toys.

      • Asyne says:

        Women display themselves as “fuck toys” on a regular basis in television (by women for women), movies (by women for women), books (by women for women), and many other forms of media – not to mention in real life. This is not a “men making games” issue, but a deep-rooted cultural gender identity issue (why is “cougar” good but “pedophile” bad?).

        And what of men who don’t have the build or the interest in aspiring to the muscular image games (and television, movies, books, et’cetra) tell them to aspire to? What if a man wants to be a typographer, fashion designer, operatic singer, or journalist? How does it feel as a man to have women believe that all ‘proper’ men dead-lift tractors and are confident n’ dominant?

        Just as there are women who dislike the representation of their gender as carnal, there are men who dislike the representation of their gender as brutish.

        • yutt says:

          You are right on the point. Look at the majority of American sitcoms in the last two decades, maybe three. Men, especially married men and fathers, are almost universally portrayed as dimwitted, brutish, ignorant and inept – only holding onto even existence itself through the constant sacrifice and love of their wives.

        • Caerphoto says:

          “How does it feel as a man to have women believe that all ‘proper’ men dead-lift tractors and are confident n’ dominant?”

          I wouldn’t know, I don’t feel that way, because I don’t assume all women believe the same thing.

        • Salvian says:

          Congratulations, you’ve just discovered gender roles. For extra credit:

          (1) Which famous femininst claimed that the oppression of women was impossible without the active cooperation of women?

          (2) What is the difference between a man being portrayed as brutish and indifferent to others, and a women being portrayed as a sex object who exists to please men?

      • codename_bloodfist says:

        Let me see if I get this right:
        - Aspiring to be a killer of any variety. OK.
        - Aspiring to be a fucktoy of any variety. NOT OK.
        Very clever.

    • Drake Sigar says:

      The RPS article you commented on addresses this. Power fantasy is not the same thing.

    • RedViv says:

      As this very article states, the depiction of males is not an issue of sexism but rather one of empowerment, and there have been quite a lot of articles about this kind of attitude already. Just look for anything that tears Gears of War or Call of Duty apart thematically, and you’ll likely find some of that.

      • TsunamiWombat says:

        Empowerment at percieved by who? When you fail to match that power fantasy, it is demeaning to your self image. When EVERY power fantasy matches up as lantern jawed grim no nonsense business doing ass kicker (as it does with Women being portrayed in idealized form as sexual objects) it distorts perceptions based on what one should be.

        There is a ton of material on how women are unfairly depicted in the media, of how they’re sexualized and given unrealistic aspirational figures in the form of models and womens magazines. Portraying this isn’t a bad thing, portraying only this now and forever is.

        But wheres the material about how men are forced to be gruff, emotionally stunted lumberjacks to be considered a man? Are not all non-athletic non-confident male figures portrayed as comic relief, even when they’re the protagonist?

    • Fox89 says:

      We should only address issues equally when the problem is equal. To be honest all saying “There is sexism against men” does in a situation like this is make the issue worse, as it comes across as trying to make the fact of sexism against women seem less important.

      > There is sexism against men.
      > Let’s treat both problems equally.
      > Oh, the men don’t have it so bad after all.
      > Therefore the women don’t either.

      The great thing about being a man who plays video games is that if I find a game that I think plays to dumb male stereotypes, or reduces my character to a sex object (can’t even think of any of those) I can go pick up another game that doesn’t. But if I were a woman? What options would I have? What games could I play?

      The other great thing about being a man is that if I were to say “Marcus Fenix is a dumb male stereotype”, I wouldn’t get pages upon pages of abuse and death threats like this woman has.

      Once we’ve fixed all the sexism in this industry where it is at its worst, namely against females, THEN let’s worry about the nitty-gritty of equality. Until that point there are bigger fish to fry.

      • InternetBatman says:

        You can’t fix one while consciously ignoring the other. Both stem from the same problem, and better writing and art will fix both of them.

        • Salvian says:

          ‘Better’ in what way, though? What makes you think we won’t just get more nuanced (and thus persuasive) versions of the same stereotypes, if we don’t attack them now. Game writers usually just end up writing whatever crap the higher-ups ask them to, despite (frequent) personal reservations.

          This isn’t just an issue of professionalism versus dillettantism (sp? word?); it’s about ideology, and about what publishers and developers think people want.

          • InternetBatman says:

            The problem primary problem is that they lack nuance. Game writers rely on stereotypes instead because it’s easy and writing nuance is hard. The more nuance characters have, the less they conform to stereotypes, because the writer is not relying on cultural misconceptions to plaster over half-made characters. Also a nuanced character is harder to generalize, and their various identities become less important than their individual personhood.

            Yes, publishers think people who consume games want dumb stereotypes and power fantasies, and it’s not like they’ve been particularly penalized for bad writing or rewarded for good writing. But that underscores the need for better games criticism. Publishers will throw out one or two token games but the problem won’t be fixed if we don’t attack the root, especially if we don’t tell them how they can fix it.

      • rockman29 says:

        Good post, Fox89.

  86. Crimsoneer says:

    And this is why we need good legislation on the internet. If you pulled this shit in real life, you’d be arrested for sexually aggravated S4 public order offences, and be facing possible jail time.

  87. neonordnance says:

    Dear RPS,

    You’ve posted at length about how games are sexist, homophobic, racist, etc. You’ve posted about breaking negative stereotypes. But the thing is, RPS is run by white men. Your articles are written, with few exceptions, by white men. Your community, again with a few exceptions, is made up of white men.

    This is not a bad thing, per se. I am a white man. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being white and male.

    But as you seem so determined to change the industry, I have a challenge for you. It is not enough to ask others to change. You must also change yourself. You must be the change.

    If you really want to change the industry, you need to change RPS. You need to hire somebody who isn’t going to come at this from a white, male perspective. It doesn’t really matter who. It doesn’t even have to be paid staff; how about a weekly guest columnist?

    The details I will leave up to you. The industry watches what you do. It’s time to be the role model.

    Sincerely,
    Neon Ordnance

    • Joshua Northey says:

      I actually think that type of attempt at change is doomed to failure. You cannot engineer an improved handling of women, you have to encourage it one comment at a time, one game at a time. Hiring some feminists just ends up creating an echo-chamber that changes no-ones’ mind who matters like jezebel or the XX blog.

      • neonordnance says:

        Who said anything about feminism? I said someone who isn’t a white male. That could mean a Kenyan man living in Ukraine. As long as they are writing about games from a slightly different perspective, everyone wins.

        And guess what? Change needs to be engineered. You think racism just went away in 1963 when everyone in the USA realized it was all a bit silly? No, LBJ took the lead. He engineered the start of the changes that would come later. He was the catalyst.

        That’s what RPS needs to do. People read this. Millions of people follow your words. Be that catalyst.

      • Eddy9000 says:

        Instead of ‘engineer’ why not call it taking deliberate and positive steps towards better representation?

        I think representing people at the level of production is the best way to challenge stigma, and while RPS do a great job I would love to see a female writer brought on staff, both as a way of diversifying the output and as an example to other games blogs.

        • Joshua Northey says:

          And then when they aren’t as good as the male writers (because if they were they would have a job) the community will backlash against them and defeat the whole purpose. If you don’t think this happens you need to look around more. Even in a very liberal place like academia in the US there is huge resistance to preference hiring due to this very issue.

          There are 20X more men interested in engineering than women, so to get into a Phd. program as a woman you only need to be a middling student because they are so desperate to have a few women. This leads to the women engineers generally being, poor, and people generally not taking them seriously. I expect video games journalism would have similar problems.

          • Eddy9000 says:

            Why do you automatically assume that a female writer wouldn’t be as good as a male one? There are lots of good female games journalists and I would like to see one writing on RPS.

            Also the reason there are not as many female games journalists is precisely because the games industry is so toxic to women. With better representation more women might feel that games journalism is an option for them and go into it. Change has to start somewhere.

            Take your example about engineers (I hope this wasn’t in response to my use of the verb ‘engineer’), if engineering is made more accessible to women then they will be better re[presented and engineering will become something more women will go into, more female applicants will mean more good female applicants and lowering the bar will no longer be nessecary.

        • InternetBatman says:

          I think that sexuality, race, gender, or creed cannot be the primary criterion for hiring a person, especially in a small organization. I fully feel like that if it comes down to a choice between equals you can and sometimes should use that to make the decision. However, an unequal decision leads to tokenism, which has its own pitfalls. You get Lisa Foiles or Olivia Munn instead of Leigh Alexander.

          Given that RPS recently gave a few young writers a shot, and none of them were female, I feel like they might not have had a qualified applicant.

      • InternetBatman says:

        Jezebel is supposed to be a useless echo chamber that does nothing. The idealist goals of the commenters and the site very frequently run afoul of its shady business moves and rules that support that. It’s very corporate, and the owner is a douche who just cares about profits.

    • Maritz says:

      Hmmm. I think I see what you’re saying but I’m pretty confident that RPS hires writers on the quality of their copy rather than their race or sex. Perhaps no one other than “white men” have ever expressed an interest in writing for them. Are you saying that they should actively go out and seek someone who isn’t a white male to write for them? Isn’t that bordering on what is commonly called “positive discrimination”?

      Secondly, how different do you think this article would have been if, say, a black woman had written it? “Not very” is my view.

      • neonordnance says:

        Yes, they need to go find somebody. That’s not what “positive discrimination” is. Positive discrimination is when, all other factors being equal or close to equal, minority candidates are given preference over whites. It’s an abhorremt practice that takes achievement away from people that earn it.

        That’s not what I’m calling for. I want RPS to create a new position specifically for somebody who is not a white male, specifically to write about issues where they will have a unique perspective.

        • Maritz says:

          Is it even legal to create a position specifically designed to be filled by someone of a particular race or sex, or indeed someone not of a particular race or sex?

          • neonordnance says:

            Sure. You can hire whoever you want. I’ve never heard of a discrimination case for private-sector hiring. Firing, sure. But you are under no obligation to explain why you didn’t hire someone.

            Not to mention lots of places have “diversity coordinators” and the like.

          • Maritz says:

            I don’t seem to be able to reply directly to your comment – we must have gone too far down the chain.

            However, if you look up the Equality Act 2010 chapter 15, part 5, chapter 1, Employees, section 39, it states that:

            (1)An employer (A) must not discriminate against a person (B)—
            (a)in the arrangements A makes for deciding to whom to offer employment;
            (b)as to the terms on which A offers B employment;
            (c)by not offering B employment.

            Perhaps there hasn’t yet been a case if the act only came into force in 2010?

          • neonordnance says:

            Oh, snap. They passed that after I moved back to the US, i guess i missed it. Well played.

            The employer doesn’t have to hire anyone though. I’m sure they could come up with some other legal reason for not hiring, if for some reason it came to that.

          • Maritz says:

            My guess is they could probably swerve it if they were to have an unpaid guest writer, i.e. not technically an employee.

          • Eddy9000 says:

            I’m pretty sure that you can pro actively seek to employ someone from a specific social group if it makes your workforce more representative of the general population

          • Hematite says:

            @neonordnance
            You do realise you’re advocating that RPS do something which is specifically illegal, for purposes which are illegal, and then lie about it to avoid prosecution? There may be something wrong with this idea.

            Edit: sorry, that was unnecessarily harsh on my part. Positive discrimination in the workplace seems pretty dead in the water as a social movement – the last interesting thing I heard on the subject was whether racially determined scholarship places were ok, and I think the consensus was that it’s fairer to allocate them to underprivileged households, which also covers minorities without insitutionalising racism or implying that they got a free pass because of their ancestry.

            RPS are very good at providing different points of view from their different writers though, and I hope that as their inevitable rise towards world domination continues we will see more columnists and contributors who cover an increasing variety of perspectives on computer gaming.

    • mondomau says:

      That’s idiotic in the extreme. Artificially engineered ‘minority’ representation doesn’t solve any issues whatsoever, not to mention the fact that it is incredibly patronising.

      • neonordnance says:

        Why don’t you go read the article, then read my comments, then reflect on your choice of words.

        And while you’re busy reflecting on why you felt the need to call my idea “iditiotic in the extreme” without even reading everything I said, why don’t you come up with a better suggestion.

        And once you’ve done that, feel free to stop being an asshole, and actually join this conversation like an adult.

    • John Walker says:

      When we’ve advertised for jobs at RPS, we’ve always picked the best writer who has applied. That’s happened twice, and is how we have Nathan and Adam. We obviously have never rejected anyone because they’re a different colour, race or sex, and obviously will continue to give jobs to the best writer, no matter who they are. And it’s the case that the vast majority of applicants for jobs have been white males.

      It is a source of frustration that we don’t have nearly enough female voices writing for the site. Those we’ve wanted to write for the site because of their writing have quickly gone on to get jobs working full-time on other sites.

      And we welcome pitches from anyone who has a good feature idea.

      However, I’m not sure I agree with the implication that our current line-up undermines our right/ability to comment on these matters.

      • neonordnance says:

        Obviously, the best candidate is the best choice. I understand how small the applicant pool is, and I am not implying that somehow RPS is not allowed to talk about these issues. Of course, it is, and the fact that you guys delve into deep issues almost daily is one of the main reasons why I am a rabid follower of this blog.

        All I’m saying is that getting a non-white-male to write regularly would provide a different perspective, and would set a positive example for the community.

        There are a few solid female game bloggers out there… maybe one would be willing to write a semi-regular column in exchange for more exposure?

  88. vonkrieger says:

    When women start doing their share of development/design they can start dictating what should be in games. As it stands it’s a man’s world because there just isn’t much female interest in the less glamorous side of Game Creation and development in general.

    I know this is changing over time and I truly hope the trend continues because I’ve met (and worked alongside) some really excellent female developers and there’s no reason there can’t be more female code-slingers in the world.

    • Carter says:

      It’s certainly changing although very slowly I think it ties in with the whole playing it safe attitude of publishers, why make something that might offend your apparent core demographic of 16yr old males, look at the fuss over the Mass Effect same sex relationships. Men and Women are an even split in the market and have been for 12yrs plenty of time for everyone to wise up

  89. TE_owner says:

    Just spent the last 2 hours reporting people for those YT comments total waste of time but hey any chance to get back at those pathetic wastes of space, air and food

  90. Joshua Northey says:

    Well the comments are just an example of the worst type of behavior the internet facilitates. Not much more to say about that.

    The project is a cool idea advocating for a worthy cause. It is sad what cardboard tropes many characters are.

    That said the world is this way because many men think with their d^%s, and such is the way of the world. Yes women are objectified and typecast in the gaming media. As they are in every other form of media. Because it makes money, and love of money is what makes the world tick.

    • codename_bloodfist says:

      Yeah, fuck men! Now Jacob taking off his tshirt several dozen of times in Twilight, that’s totally ok, because women don’t have dicks. This thread feels like I’ve just ran in head first into a tool shed.

      • gwathdring says:

        See, this is where the argument gets really interesting.

        There’s an incredibly prevalent myth that women ARE less sexual. That the female orgasm is a challenge of mythical proportions. That women have less of a libido and men are obsessed with sex–this is sometimes portrayed as negative sometimes as positive. There’s a ridiculous idea I’ve heard spoken seriously from educated people that the average man thinks about sex once every 7 seconds. This idea of desexualizing womens’ experience goes back quite a ways in western culture. Think of colloquialisms related to promiscuity and how much more commonly they are negative or possessive towards women (or homosexual men) than either towards (straight) men? Yes there are exceptions, but think of the broad trends here.

        So on the one hand, it IS ridiculous to suggest that have really attractive men parading around flexing, kicking ass, and stripping down has no effect on the female audience. And yet, not only have some studies suggested men and women have different preferences for what they like their sexy eye-candy to be doing for it to most stimulate them sexually, there’s also evidence that male ideas of sexual attractiveness tend to be more similar and specific as we are conditioned more heavily to think of particular things as sexy through a self-perpetuating feedback loop … in other words, we’re more sexually pandered to so we’ve developed stronger more specific responses to sexual imagery and ideas commonly found in our media.

        It IS silly to suggest that women never find men in media sexy. But … the perception that women are less interested in media that panders to them sexually or less interested in sexual or erotic imagery in general is alive and well however ridiculous. And it’s part of the problem. For both men and women.

  91. Drake Sigar says:

    Well, at least she took it all extremely well, retaining her dignity against all the shit-spewing teenagers trapped in mid 20s bodies.

  92. cHeal says:

    This will be lost in a sea of tit for tat comments on the subject, but just regarding sexism on the internet, it is all about control. It is one group of people fearing that what they have, what they have always had, what they believe is the norm, will change.

    I find that men tend to be most blind to the reasons for sexism, because they see it coming from their quarter yet they can’t get behind it.

    These men hate women (especially on the internet) for the same reason that Neo-Nazi’s hate Muslims (more even than Jews now I would imagine), it is because Muslims in Europe threaten the established demographics of our nations. They fear change.

    These boys who abuse and insult women on the internet are in the exact same boat. They see the internet as their refuge and they see the encroachment of women and female centric content as a fundamental attack on what they want from the internet. They are at war.

    I believe men especially like to make a special case for sexism, because when men describe themselves as “feminist” they really take a hatred toward the other side and so they see this stuff as much bigger than it really is, but it isn’t. It’s the same old thing that has been around for thousands of years, called “fear of change” and it is part of the human condition. On the internet, in this guise it is incredibly prevalent because the internet 10 years ago was not just male centric but also a haven for the type of male that perhaps had trouble operating socialling in the real world. There is an ingrained dislike of women among a huge number on the internet, which makes it such an obvious feature of the internet.

    Personally I’m not a feminist and have no love for feminists or their views. I believe in proportional equality, a fair equality, not forced equality. Which brings me onto my wider point, this abuse is not special, it is not unique and it is not about women or men. It is about ignorance, a lack of respect for one another, for ourselves and our elders, for other view points and for others lifestyles.

    Some Capitalists hate Socialists. Some Christians hate Jews. Some Men hate Women and indeed some Women hate Men.

    Respect is the missing ingredient in all this, not a sympathy for the feminist/gay whatever cause just enough respect to tolerate the views of others. All views, not just the ones us uppity western liberals think are the correct ones.

    • gwathdring says:

      Very well spoken. Thank you. I’m still mulling over what you’ve said, but I think I generally agree with you from a broader philosophical stance. However, I’m not sure the “let’s give things to everyone equally” approach works with big controversial issues. I think the most effective methods tend to be those that combine rewarding positive behaviors with punishing negative ones … and when one group is treated more badly than another or when one group is specifically abusing another we’re going to have to to more work to correct the one and help the other. The unequal state of things prevents us from effectively applying the same methods to all problems and people.

      Additionally, many early American feminists wanted to do just what you describe. They fought for equal rights, and were very vocal as abolitionists. When it became clear that too much political change was being asked for in too short a time, many of them continued to uphold both causes and tried to keep people listening any way. Fast forward to the Reagan era when the Equal Rights Amendment was proposed in the United States. The ERA had broad language that would have provided a spectacular platform for fighting discrimination (in laws and in the workplace) on the basis of religion, race, gender or sexual orientation. It was aimed at helping all minorities and its philosophical stance would have made the authors of the Federalist Papers proud (though they might have had quibbles with certain social policies it implied ;) ). Despite this balanced-equality approach, the amendment was torn to shreds primarily by anti-feminists. Never mind that it would protect men from unfair discrimination should they ever encounter it. The issue, to opponents of the bill, was that radical feminists were trying to hurt men and tear families apart with their Equal Rights.

      The bill failed, balanced approach shunted aside as easily as any proposed law that focused on women alone.

      The balanced approach only works when balance is inherent in the system. Asymmetric methods befit asymmetric societies.

      • cHeal says:

        Yes well I would support a modest gender quota for political candidacy, but not for the parliament itself. It would be a small leg up but it could not be any sort of guarantee of success.

        The problem with this balance you speak of is that we will never have it. Just when we’ve managed to get women represented in our house of parliament, Muslims will want stronger representation and they will be looking for a leg up to achieve a balance between their numbers and their representation.

        The bigger problem with women in politics is simply that most women don’t want to do it. Whether by natural order or by established practice, Politics is a men’s game. It involves so many activities which are fundamentally more male orientated, certainly here in Ireland where supporting the local GAA club and having some connections to it are vitally important. Attending funerals, socializing in the the local pub and then their is the work itself which doesn’t lend itself to family life with late nights and long hours. Women here wanted to have a 6 o’clock cut off for parliamentary work but that simply is not possible in an environment where sometimes you have to sit and debate legislation late into the night, or indeed attend midnight cabinet meetings. What needs to happen for women to really have the same opportunities for careers, is for the state, society and women themselves to treat men and women equally within the family unit. If the man OR women can be the primary parent then the other is free to pursue their career as they please.

        It doesn’t help that nearly every high profile female politician there has ever been in Ireland is hated.

  93. TsunamiWombat says:

    1. The threats and sexist comments she has receive are inexcusable.

    2. It is reported to me by female friends that Sarkeesian and Feminist Frequency in general however, is batshit insane. The attacks are clouding the fact that this is not some noble champion of feminism and female equality being victimized by a sexist and mysoginistic internet populace. This is a Sexist Self Masturbatory Pity Project being victimized by sexist and Mysoginistic internet populace.

    • RedViv says:

      Have to say, I don’t like her ways either. As bad as it is, I do understand why people jump at her normal comments on issues. She’s rather toff about topics. I can imagine how people might look at one video and then fall in with the rest of the hate cluster without looking at what they are doing.

      • TsunamiWombat says:

        Sarkeesian once reported that a woman being portrayed as being pregnant under any circumstances was an attack on women…Soo, yeah.

        • Vorphalack says:

          I had to go and research this because your claim sounded like bullshit, and found this:

          http://www.feministfrequency.com/2011/07/tropes-vs-women-5-the-mystical-pregnancy/

          Seems like a perfectly reasoned argument to me. Also no matter what you think of her previous work, you cannot deny that sexism in computer games is a real fucking problem, and the abuse she has received is completely unjustifiable. Her video on the front page also seemed well reasoned and grounded. I don’t buy this batshit crazy line at all.

        • gwathdring says:

          I took a look at the pregnancy thing and a few other bits of her stuff … she’s not for me. I wouldn’t be interested in her show. But you grossly mis-characterized her opinion as saying all pregnancy in media is an attack on women. She was talking about disliking the particular type of plot arc involving supernatural or alien pregnancy.

          Now, she quoted someone who calls it reproductive terrorism, and conflates situations in which the child is a positive and hopeful thing and those in which the child is a negative or cataclysmic thing without really explaining why they are equally bad or annoying as tropes. She also never satisfactorily explained why her specific examples were BAD. Just that they were examples of a TROPE. Well, everything is a trope. Not all tropes are bad.

          So sure, I don’t like her productions. But she’s not “batshit” that I’ve seen.

          • 2helix4u says:

            Of course she’s not batshit. Tsunami is just filling out the obligatory internet sexism bingo card.
            This entry is “she’s hysterical” with a bonus of “other women think-”

  94. smoke.tetsu says:

    Just a thought here. People talk about characters in games being representations of X or Y but in all honesty… many of us don’t play games to see representations of ourselves!

    Also some people overanalyze things and interpret them more negatively than they are meant and it disheartens me at times (X-Files sexist?). Not that I would ever want to get in the way of anyone like this person speaking her mind… and she probably has some good points.

    It’s deplorable how she was treated and I don’t condone it one bit…. it’s unfortunate that the internet tends to be a big echo chamber for crappy people like the ones who trolled and threatened her.

  95. SRTie4k says:

    If we want this problem to go away, one very particular thing must happen first and foremost – more women need to become involved in the gaming industry. I’ve heard this same thing countless times before, especially in the film industry. My film professor was complaining in class that the industry is dominated by men, and she also pointed out that 85% of film majors are men. Well no shit, how can you expect equal representation in an industry if 85% of the people that are actually interested in working in are of one sex?

    I can’t speak from factual information, but if I had to guess, I would say that the gaming industry is probably hugely tipped in favor of men, just like the film industry (it is in my CS classes for sure, probably a 95/5 split in favor of men).

    Oh and FWIW, I think the threatening someone with rape or murder is abhorrent.

    • Ancient Algae says:

      The change needs to be IN the community as well– you can’t expect this change to come solely from the industry itself. The community needs to by receptive to the things women are bringing and will bring to the table.

      Once more women are involved in the industry, now what? If a large number of the community (an endless influx of morally under-developed teenage boys) reject and are hostile to this change, all this progress will be lost. The existing community needs to create an environment that allows these new gamers to develop in a way that respects and encourages that change you propose.

    • lionheart says:

      I hate the way that people (when they’re a member of an oppressor group) are pathologised for working from their own perspective.

      Men make up the overwhelming majority of people working on games. The fact is that that will likely never entirely change. Women will become more common in creative roles, writing etc, but the majority of coders (the people who come through the ranks and end up as studio heads) will always be men. Much the same as women have gained more representation in the armed forces, they will always be in a small minority in proper combat units (at least in the armies that actually fight e.g. US/UK/OZ.) People need to stop thinking they can change fundamental aspects of human nature.

      If the majority of people making games are men, then they will naturally create aspirational roles for their gender, and objectifying roles for the other gender.

      In literature women writers tend to do the same to men, who tend to be portrayed as 2-dimensional love interests, uncaring husbands or gay best friends. Reading chick-lit makes me want to tear my eyes out, but I don’t begrudge women, writing for a female audience, for writing from their own perspective.

      It’s much like older European historians are criticised for being ethnocentric by post-colonialists, “oh you write from your own worldview, HOW AWFUL OF YOU, STOP OPPRESSING ME WITH YOUR MIND”.
      Never mind that every other culture in the world only ever saw things from their own perspective either, that is if they ever even took the slightest interest in studying other peoples anyway, which overwhelmingly they didn’t.

      The point is, if you don’t like the way other people represent you, REPRESENT YOURSELF

      Which is why I’d have more respect for this woman if instead of engaging in traditional “men are evil” bull, she were to just make her own game with a strong female character, or try to encourage more women to get into game production

      ps I’m a *GASP* libertarian of a conservative bent, and I don’t appreciate the attempts made by some people to link not being a “progressive” with the vile way the lady in question was treated. It’s progressives who paved the way for this sort of behaviour when they decided men and woman are identical and proceeded to demolish traditional masculinity and special respect for women as “sexist”. I guess they thought men could be turned into emasculated genderless equi-beings. The trouble is, while they managed it with some (eg the sort of men who vote lib dem), the rest just turned into angry and confused manchildren who consciously or unconsciously hate women.

      • Anabasis says:

        A libertarian on the internet, what a surprise! Seriously though, I’m not sure why you think it’s a natural and unchangeable part of the human condition for people to objectify, sexually or otherwise, members of other groups, but it’s super disingenuous to pretend that it’s an indisputable fact and that consequently NOTHING CAN BE DONE about sexism and misogyny in games. Ah yes, and I see you’ve dusted off the old “progressives and feminists are the ones who caused misogyny by demolishing gender roles because the time before these movements was a golden age when no one perpetrated violence against women because of gender roles” argument. Bonus points for claiming that the real goal of feminism is to emasculate and disenfranchise men. On a side not you don’t seem to know anything about post-colonialism as a movement within the field of history other than the fact that it criticizes eurocentrism and is therefore trying to convict white historians of OH NOES THOUGHT CRIME!

    • Apples says:

      Yeah, I can’t imagine why women are not interested in working in the gaming industry. It’s not like every time they try to do something related to games they get threatened with rape, told to get back in the kitchen and make a sandwich, called a bitch or slut, or get told they’re ugly. Wait…

      • SRTie4k says:

        Give me a break. The ones that get threatened are the ones that try to stir the pot. There are a handful of excellent women game creators/designers who DON’T make headlines simply because they never consciously tried to stir up controversy. Jane Jensen and Roberta Williams are the two most well known that come to mind. Both have created games that star strong women, one even has a Kickstarter and guess what – nobody has defamed her Wikipedia site!

        This in no way excuses the behavior of those handful of individuals out there who feel it is their crusade to smear a woman for speaking up about an issue she sees in the gaming industry, but the fact of the matter is that if women want to make a change in the industry, they need to step up themselves and make changes from within.

        • Apples says:

          LOL in what way is this “stirring the pot”? Jesus Christ, what is wrong with you? What, only those “uppity” women get punished? I am a programmer and trying to get into the games industry, so I guess according to you I am one of those people you describe, and guess what bro, it sucks. I have had my arguments dismissed on this very site because I’m a woman. Have you ever seen that youtube video of the game dev contest TV show where one of the teams comes up with a boss that is “a feminist”? Have you seen the “feminist whore” comment in Dead Island? Have you ever picked up a new game and not found a single character that resembled or appealed to you and it was just obivous that you were not the target audience? This is the industry I want to work in. It is not appealing. It is not inviting, welcoming, or open to me. I still want to work there, but I want to work there despite the full knowledge that I will probably never be fully included there. That is what puts women off.

          We are not ‘stirring the pot’ and making trouble by talking about things we find problematic, and even if we were it’s still not an excuse for rape and murder threats. In fact I’d wager that the vast majority of women on the internet or in tech industries spend a huge amount of time trying not to do things that people like you think are stirring the pot so they don’t get kicked out, and good on anyone who says what they think regardless. You say that they need to make changes from within, but apparently actually standing up and trying to make those changes is stirring the pot and should not be done – surely a catch 22?

          • SRTie4k says:

            You’re doing an awfully good job at putting words in my mouth, despite the fact that I specifically said that making threats is not alright. And also you asking me “what is wrong with you?” only serves to undermine any credibility you have by questioning my psychology…it’s a logical fallacy and not necessary in this conversation.

            That said, not once did I blame the victim. I never said this person deserved what she got for the comments she said. What I did say is that she knowingly tried to stir up controversy, which if you have ever read your history, you will be well aware that doing so will ALWAYS leave you with some type of backlash. No, that is not an excuse for the threats, but if I walk into a feminist meeting and tell them I feel, as a male, as if my sex is not being given proper representation, do you think I’m not going to get angry replies?

            This is my point – if you want to make change, make it from within. If you don’t like the industry you are trying to join, don’t join it and make your own games! Minecraft has proven there are so many avenues with which to approach game design, that you don’t need to join the corporate industry to represent your ideas. If you have a solid game idea that resonates with people, and also changes the idea of women in gaming, then by all means show us the light. I’d welcome the change (and I’m still waiting). And with enough recognition, you can make change. But to simply sit back and say there are all these things wrong with gaming and expect the people who are the ones creating the problems to fix them all, especially when those people are selling to a target market (and doing so VERY successfully) is like pushing a boulder up a hill. If you want that boulder to balance on top of the hill, pitch in!

          • Apples says:

            Telling me off for using a “logical fallacy” and then going on to use a false equivalence is a bad idea. The equivalent of walking into a feminist meeting and disagreeing with feminism is actually the equivalent of making a series of videos about why you hate games and expecting that to be well-received by gamers. The thing you are implicitly saying here is that games are and should be for men, and she has walked in and demanded undeserved, irrelevant respect for being a woman. Games are for anyone, and she is not demanding anything from anyone.

            Also you are pretty much victim blaming there by telling me I’m, so to speak, ‘doing it wrong’. Your suggestion that women should passively resist by trying to ignore/avoid attacks instead of actively resist by taking a vocal stance is also problematic and insulting. As to your actual suggestions: those aren’t the kind of games I want to make. I want to be involved in big, hopefully AAA games (obviously I don’t expect that off the bat, but I want to work up to it) that need a large team to make them. So, nah. There would also still be the issue of how my games would be perceived if it were known they were by a female creator, so the issue would exist for me even if I were working independently.

        • Skabooga says:

          The ones that get threatened are the ones that stir the pot.

          And that’s horrible, an entirely unconscionable state of affairs. It creates an oppressive atmosphere when you know there is a gang of rabid dogs ready to maul you the moment you step out of line for anything, up to and including not conforming to societal expectation that women should be meek and quiet. No disrespect to Williams or Jensen, but they both fall into this ‘quiet’ category (which is why they haven’t received such vitriol), and that’s fine for them, but women should be free to be as controversial as Molyneux without fear of reprisal composed of gendered insults.

          • gwathdring says:

            Thank you, Skabooga and Apples. Well said. Victim blaming gets us no where. Someone spoke up, and however reasonable their specific arguments, that someone wasn’t shut down for their specific beliefs. She was shut down becasue of her gender. Ignore that, and it’s really hard to make this a productive opportunity for discussion.

  96. Kate says:

    Thanks for writing this.

    It is incredibly important for men to speak up about gender inequalities, as the kind of people who need to be told are also the kind of people who value men’s voices more than women’s.

    It’s fantastic to see RPS stepping up in this way. Keep being the good guys.

  97. Greggh says:

    Now THAT’S a buttload of comments!!
    … And Diablo wasn’t even mentioned XD

    *raises anti-sarcasm shield*