363 réponses à ce sujet

[Fast Jimmy]

Anita is claiming that they are a contributor and a symptom to a larger scale systemic problem. She in fact states that playing games isn't going to turn someone into a raging sexists. If she's saying that, then I'm skeptical that she's saying that it turns gamers into misogynists en masse as well (feel free to point me to it, however). I think that this is a common way that people misrepresent/misunderstand Anita's views.

That's not to say that games are the cause of sexist or misogynistic remarks. I see it more as an aspect that is both influencing and influenced by our society and world as a whole.

Not to cherry pick quotes, but if the general consensus is that playing video games from a (semi) sexist video game industry won't trigger mysoginistic behavior, what evidence do we have that designing games to be less sexist/racist/what -have-you would reduce these tendencies amongst gamers? And what evidence do we have that being inclusive will result in those currently marginalized by the system to both feel more comfortable in the industry and/or to buy/play more games?

It makes logical sense that this would happen, but logic does not always equate real world results.

[Farangbaa]

Frankly, Anita has made many other problematic claims. I remember she once claimed that physical strength differences between women and men were purely a social construct. Apparently testosterone is a "social construct" now...

 

You gotta be joking me.

 

She said that?

[someguy1231]

You gotta be joking me.

 

She said that?

 

She said it in her damsel in distress video. Here's the quote:

 

"The belief that women are somehow a naturally weaker gender is a deeply ingrained socially constructed myth, which of course is completely false."

 

Here's a link to the video: https://www.youtube....eX6F-Q63I#t=952

 

She says it at 15:52-16:03.

 

All that Anita's proving is that conservatives aren't the only ones who ignore science if it conflicts with their political agenda.

[Ridwan]

You gotta be joking me.

 

She said that?

 

You'd be surprised how many believe that crap on this forum too. Particularly the Dragon Age section. Bring it up and you'll undoubtedly be assaulted by white knights and SJW who'll cite examples of female Olympic athletes (while conveniently ignore that such women are the extreme exception and anything but the rule).

[Fast Jimmy]

You'd be surprised how many believe that crap on this forum too. Particularly the Dragon Age section. Bring it up and you'll undoubtedly be assaulted by white knights and SJW who'll cite examples of female Olympic athletes (while conveniently ignore that such women are the extreme exception and anything but the rule).

Agreed.

You could find a ten year old who, with the right training and knowledge, could take down your average full grown man. That doesn't suddenly make the statement "children are as strong as adults" correct. It just means that there are exceptions.

[Divine Justinia V]

Wait.. people take Anita seriously?

[Cyonan]

She said it in her damsel in distress video. Here's the quote:

 

"The belief that women are somehow a naturally weaker gender is a deeply ingrained socially constructed myth, which of course is completely false."

 

Here's a link to the video: https://www.youtube....eX6F-Q63I#t=952

 

She says it at 15:52-16:03.

 

All that Anita's proving is that conservatives aren't the only ones who ignore science if it conflicts with their political agenda.

 

Let's open this up a bit and provide some context. The full quote is:

 

"It's a sad fact that a large percentage of the world's population still clings to the deeply sexist belief that women as a group need to be sheltered, protected, and taken care of by men. The belief that women are somehow a naturally weaker gender is a deeply ingrained socially constructed myth, which of course is completely false but the notion is reinforced and perpetuated when women are continually portrayed as frail, fragile, and vulnerable creatures."

 

The thing to note about this is that it's not actually specifically referring to physical strength. One could come to the conclusion that it's implied(and I wouldn't necessarily call you wrong), but the general quote itself seems to want to be about the idea that women need a man around to take care of them because they aren't capable of doing so themselves.

 

As far as physical strength goes yes, it's completely absurd to claim that women are naturally just as strong as men. There are women who become incredibly strong such as the Olympic atheletes but in general they have to work harder at it than men do. It's not sexist or a myth. It's just a biological fact of life that my body was built more for physical strength than women's bodies.

 

The issue is primarily that the term "strong" is a rather ambiguous term without greater context provided, and even Anita's original video doesn't do the best job of providing that much needed context.

 

Also, holy mother of dry content. If I had to criticize Anita's videos I would say that it's incredibly boring to watch her drone on in a largely monotone voice for half an hour(that, and reminding you every 30 seconds about how sexist everything is).

[General TSAR]

Wait.. people take Anita seriously?

Yep. I didn't originally, I thought she was just another SJW under the banner of Feminism, but when game journalists started white knighting to her rescue and the rumors of her meddling in Mirrors Edge 2 started reaching my ears, I began to take her seriously.

[someguy1231]

Let's open this up a bit and provide some context. The full quote is:

 

"It's a sad fact that a large percentage of the world's population still clings to the deeply sexist belief that women as a group need to be sheltered, protected, and taken care of by men. The belief that women are somehow a naturally weaker gender is a deeply ingrained socially constructed myth, which of course is completely false but the notion is reinforced and perpetuated when women are continually portrayed as frail, fragile, and vulnerable creatures."

 

The thing to note about this is that it's not actually specifically referring to physical strength. One could come to the conclusion that it's implied(and I wouldn't necessarily call you wrong), but the general quote itself seems to want to be about the idea that women need a man around to take care of them because they aren't capable of doing so themselves.

 

As far as physical strength goes yes, it's completely absurd to claim that women are naturally just as strong as men. There are women who become incredibly strong such as the Olympic atheletes but in general they have to work harder at it than men do. It's not sexist or a myth. It's just a biological fact of life that my body was built more for physical strength than women's bodies.

 

The issue is primarily that the term "strong" is a rather ambiguous term without greater context provided, and even Anita's original video doesn't do the best job of providing that much needed context.

 

Also, holy mother of dry content. If I had to criticize Anita's videos I would say that it's incredibly boring to watch her drone on in a largely monotone voice for half an hour(that, and reminding you every 30 seconds about how sexist everything is).

 

You're splitting hairs. If Anita was solely referring to mental strength rather than physical strength, she had a very poor way of wording that. And look at the adjectives she uses afterwords: "frail", "fragile", "vulnerable" - those are physical traits, not mental traits.

[Cyonan]

You're splitting hairs. If Anita was solely referring to mental strength rather than physical strength, she had a very poor way of wording that. And look at the adjectives she uses afterwords: "frail", "fragile", "vulnerable" - those are physical traits, not mental traits.

 

Vulnerable in particular can be a more emotional/mental trait. I have seen Frail and Fragile used in that way, but yes they're typically more used for physical rather than mental.

 

Also, I wasn't actually saying that she was solely referring to mental strength or any one kind of strength.

 

I was saying that it was kind of open to interpretation because it's all fairly ambiguously defined.

 

and yes, it's Anita's fault for not being more clear on what she meant. I am not attempting to absolve her of any blame here.

[vortex216]

     Look, as long as the characters are compelling and written well I don't see a problem. Uncharted for example! Nathan Drake, Elena, Sully, Chloe, most villains, they are all white! Do I care? Of course not! They're awesome because the way they are written and used in the story, not they're skin color or sexuality. Lee is black but I don't think they like him because of it. They love him because of his role in the story, how he is written, and his spectacular voice actor.

     Don't get me wrong, I'm all for diversity, but in the end it just simply does not matter as much... except maybe in RPGs. In RPGs, you have the reigns. If you can't make them ethnic, or gay, there might be some conflict. Despite of all of the flack Bioware gets (or so I'm told), I think they handle this very well.

     I think the real reason most people complain is not because they are offended or distressed, but because people just love to find problems and whine about them.

[someguy1231]

Vulnerable in particular can be a more emotional/mental trait. I have seen Frail and Fragile used in that way, but yes they're typically more used for physical rather than mental.

 

Also, I wasn't actually saying that she was solely referring to mental strength or any one kind of strength.

 

I was saying that it was kind of open to interpretation because it's all fairly ambiguously defined.

 

and yes, it's Anita's fault for not being more clear on what she meant. I am not attempting to absolve her of any blame here.

 

In any case, she made those remarks over a year ago, and I'm far from the only person to call her out on it. As far as I know, she's never clarified those remarks or admitted she was wrong, which certainly isn't helping her case.

[slimgrin]

Yep. I didn't originally, I thought she was just another SJW under the banner of Feminism, but when game journalists started white knighting to her rescue and the rumors of her meddling in Mirrors Edge 2 started reaching my ears, I began to take her seriously.

 

I thought this was a joke so I Googled... and wow. A new low for EA. It's likely just lip service, and now we have an idea of how they'll market the game.

[Nuclear]

Well... it kinda worked before, they had to try again.

 

 

Never forget.

 

 

 who leaked this secret document

[ruggly]

Vulnerable in particular can be a more emotional/mental trait. I have seen Frail and Fragile used in that way, but yes they're typically more used for physical rather than mental.

 

Also, I wasn't actually saying that she was solely referring to mental strength or any one kind of strength.

 

I was saying that it was kind of open to interpretation because it's all fairly ambiguously defined.

 

and yes, it's Anita's fault for not being more clear on what she meant. I am not attempting to absolve her of any blame here.

 

From the few minutes I have watched of her videos, she does seem to leave a lot of things without explanation, like just saying 'according to research' (unless she cites things later or puts links below, I don't know). 

 

I don't mind what she's doing, but my God she needs to work on her presentations (and perhaps actually play the games).

 

Edit: I know in her latest video she had something to criticize about Mass Effect 3: Omega DLC.  It's been a while since I've played it so I have no idea what there is to point out, did anyone see it?

[SlottsMachine]

What is going on with Mirrors Edge and Anita? EA hired her, is that all we know? All I'm finding is forum threads. 

[SlottsMachine]

From the few minutes I have watched of her videos, she does seem to leave a lot of things without explanation, like just saying 'according to research' (unless she cites things later or puts links below, I don't know). 

 

I don't mind what she's doing, but my God she needs to work on her presentations (and perhaps actually play the games).

 

Edit: I know in her latest video she had something to criticize about Mass Effect 3: Omega DLC.  It's been a while since I've played it so I have no idea what there is to point out, did anyone see it?

 

I find it odd that she (as far as I know) never seems to pose any possible solutions to the problem. 

[General TSAR]

I find it odd that she (as far as I know) never seems to pose any possible solutions to the problem. 

That's because she's not there to pose any realistic solutions. She's a capitalizing rabble rouser.

[spirosz]

Who is Anita? 

[Neoleviathan]

Mirrors Edge. I think that's good. If it's true. That will be a good experience for her, getting to see first hand how a game is made, & how characters come to life! Maybe afterward she'll be able to connect with gamers better.

[Jaison1986]

Mirrors Edge. I think that's good. If it's true. That will be a good experience for her, getting to see first hand how a game is made, & how characters come to life! Maybe afterward she'll be able to connect with gamers better.

 

I'm much more worried the devs will be crazy enough to hear her advice and add her obnoxious views to the game. We already have so few AAA games sporting female protagonists, we don't need to narrow it down even further by staining the series.

[SwobyJ]

That's essentially it. If you're not there to offer solutions, with reason behind it that others can take action on, then there isn't much point to highly negative opinions.

 

Just as there isn't much point to highly positive opinions if you're seemingly unable to still critique things for improvement. Go ahead and have the opinions, but WTF are you doing going on for hours about it? That's not content. It is fluff.

 

And that is Anita. Fluff. Give me money. This is bad and this is bad and this is bad. Only solution: Put exactly what I want in games.

 

That's not what game developers usually seem to want from gamers ("Put exactly what I want in your game."), but somehow this has been glossed over, at least publicly, by dev studios.

 

 

You know what's a solution? When a female with talent applies, take her in. Not for an arbituary quota. But because she can offer another perspective and actually be helpful about it.

 

And you know what? Forget about the gender part. This should *always* be the goal of creative business enterprises. And ultimately, all enterprises (though it is a long road, and organizations like militaries tend to be the most lagging behind, but that's fine, whatever, they really want uniformity for their functions).

[Allan Schumacher]

If media in general are sexist, and people who are sexist assholes would have been so with or without games, then the question is: is gaming any more sexist than media in general? Just because it's male-dominated doesn't automatically mean it is. Nor does the fact that a few assholes make such threats invalidate all criticism against her.

No it doesn't invalidate criticism. I don't know if anyone said it does. Nor do I know anyone that says that it being male dominated makes itself sexist in and of itself.

I do disagree that the question is the relative severity of sexism relative to other media (I have a hunch it's pretty much equivalent, but I'm just making an assumption). Unless you're supposing that some amount of sexism is okay (a precarious position), it could be argued that the existence of any sexism is worthy of being examined and addressed. I don't think it's irrelevant if there are other forms of sexism that are more damaging. I have virtually no practical way of dealing with sexism in say, other parts of the world. I do, however, have the practical means to deal with it in gaming. I do so as a consumer and a developer, and also as a critic.


 

Frankly, Anita has made many other problematic claims. I remember she once claimed that physical strength differences between women and men were purely a social construct. Apparently testosterone is a "social construct" now...

 

Have a link handy? I'd like to see it because that seems like a pretty silly claim to make.

 

But, I digress. The most serious problem for me is the idea that she's not playing the games that she's criticizing. I don't know what games she has and hasn't played, but many have suspected as such (you can google this for more, don't feel like posting links). Some games she's criticized before they've even been released (Bayonetta). For me personally, one of my biggest peeves is when anyone criticizes any media without having actually watched/played it. So if Anita is talking about a game that she hasn't actually played (preferably to completion), to me that invalidates anything she has to say about it. First impressions and word-of-mouth can only go so far. Nothing, absolutely nothing, can take the place of actually playing a game. There have been many games I thought I'd hate from what I saw of them, but loved once I actually played them (and vice versa, sadly). This is part of why I had so many intense debates with David7204, since he was practically the patron saint of complaining about games he hadn't actually played. I'm proud to say that I've never criticized a game I hadn't played, and played to completion at that. Unless Anita offers proof that she's played the games she's talking about from start to finish, I won't take anything she has to say about them seriously.

 

This seems like an insulating, bunkering down position. It reads as "Well you've said some stuff, but I disagree with it, so I'm going to require you to do more work before I even consider hearing your point of view." What exactly would constitute proof?


I'm also not sure I agree that nothing can take the place of playing a game. We're talking about a high level analysis and part of that is looking at themes that are common across gaming industry. If the pervasiveness of a trope is harmful (and this is the million dollar question), then I'm not sure why it's completely invalid to point out the existence of a trope in games.  I can understand though, as my understanding is that Anita is actually a surprisingly empowering game.  But I suppose by the same standard, I'm not really permitted to make an assessment since I haven't played the game.

But that does cause a bit of a problem.  Bayonetta struck me as a game not worth my time because of the impressions I got from it (well, there's a good chance it may not have hit my radar at all to be honest).  In a world with my finite time, it does seem a bit silly to create a character like that... unless the belief was that her looking like that would be good for game sales.  But that would lend validation to the idea that the actions of gamers warrants further examination.