Coricus
Woom-em-my?
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2015
- Messages
- 14,055
- Switch FC
- SW 4794 7152 2904
I've been spending the past several days watching videos criticizing Anita Sarkeesian.
Yes, I know this is pointless, but I've been in a vicious cycle of watching this stuff and I've been feeling the compulsion to rant bubbling up for a while now. Hopefully I have not been too horribly rude in what I have said, although some irritation or expression of political content did occur. I apologize in advance if I have triggered anyone with my words, my intention was merely to relieve the tension that comes with watching this content repeatedly even when (or partially because of, due to the concept of analysis being invited) it is secondhand with rational voices constantly critiquing it.
It's like a really awkward bag of potato chips. I think I've gotten to the point where I'm just feeling bloated now, despite most of the chips still being in the bag.
What is equality? What is life?
In my endless journey, I have encountered a few holes in her discussion that I noticed myself.
For one, and I've only seen it mentioned once in passing well after it occurred to me, but, well, . . .could you tell me your opinion on the fact that Palutena was kidnapped by another woman? Or heck, have we really addressed the concept of women putting other women in peril in general? I think another example showed a woman killed in a game as an example of violence against women, but one of the videos critiquing her showed by coincidence an earlier moment in that same game, and it seemed to be a woman in the process of a final gloat before presumably in the space between the clip and Anita's example killing the later dead example.
Then again, other videos have brought to my attention that Anita takes offense to the concept of any sort of violence in video games whatsoever, which both irritates me to no end and in and of itself perpetuates the stereotype that women only like puzzle games and other titles where no action whatsoever occurs, thus making Anita herself a bit of a sexist caricature in the flesh. Look, I want some fighting and combat in my games. Not super gory combat, but combat nonetheless. Your trying to take that away from me because you're some kind of intellectual vegan (sorry if I insulted any actual vegans present with this, the metaphor needs work) makes me feel quite uncomfortable.
But I think where the most questions can be asked is her own pitch for a game.
Why is the woman a princess in the first place? Why is she kidnapped in the first place? Why does she wait for a prince in the first place? Why does she wait so LONG for a prince? How did she manage to break out so easily? Why did she even bother waiting if she COULD break out so easily? Why does she need to steal some presumably ill-fitting armor instead of just sticking with the clothes that already fit? Why is it that when she returns, she "abolishes the monarchy" when that's her own position of power? And since it was a council that removed her from power, didn't they already do a fine enough job of that already? If she's not OK with monarchy and she's not OK with a council of some kind ruling presumably in a similar fashion to a republic, what kind of government does she exactly want?
. . .OH.
The end conclusion I can gather is that it's a plot that starts as one huge attempt to prove a point while simultaneously undermining it by proving the protagonist is utterly spineless and entirely reliant on men to take care of them right up until their mind completely snaps in half from being in captivity too long. They then proceed to gather the nearest set of male clothing and do a whole bunch of things Anita herself clearly saw as unimportant due to the lack of explanation before proceeding to destroy the republic that had deposed her and presumably establish some kind of vague Communist state in it's wake instead of just taking her throne back for literally no explained reason other than the fact that Socialism seems to be something some Feminists like and Anita is a Feminist. (I apologize to any Socialists present who were just associated with Anita Sarkeesian.)
Her game is trying and horribly failing to subvert princess stereotypes and ends in a poorly explained tract about how everyone should be a Socialist.
Ugh. . .just. . .
Can't we have a game where a woman can just be in whatever role a man would be in and do whatever a man would do in any given situation instead of THIS?
And if we need a plot non-twist on this level, have it turn out that she's Asexual instead of having it turn out she's got some political agenda to push?
Also, to wrap this politically charged rant up, I'd like to remind you all that Anita had admitted on video prior to Tropes Vs Women In Video Games' funding and creation that she is not a fan of video games and had to do research about the concept of video games.
. . .*sigh*
What is equality? What is life?
In my endless journey, I have encountered a few holes in her discussion that I noticed myself.
For one, and I've only seen it mentioned once in passing well after it occurred to me, but, well, . . .could you tell me your opinion on the fact that Palutena was kidnapped by another woman? Or heck, have we really addressed the concept of women putting other women in peril in general? I think another example showed a woman killed in a game as an example of violence against women, but one of the videos critiquing her showed by coincidence an earlier moment in that same game, and it seemed to be a woman in the process of a final gloat before presumably in the space between the clip and Anita's example killing the later dead example.
Then again, other videos have brought to my attention that Anita takes offense to the concept of any sort of violence in video games whatsoever, which both irritates me to no end and in and of itself perpetuates the stereotype that women only like puzzle games and other titles where no action whatsoever occurs, thus making Anita herself a bit of a sexist caricature in the flesh. Look, I want some fighting and combat in my games. Not super gory combat, but combat nonetheless. Your trying to take that away from me because you're some kind of intellectual vegan (sorry if I insulted any actual vegans present with this, the metaphor needs work) makes me feel quite uncomfortable.
But I think where the most questions can be asked is her own pitch for a game.
Why is the woman a princess in the first place? Why is she kidnapped in the first place? Why does she wait for a prince in the first place? Why does she wait so LONG for a prince? How did she manage to break out so easily? Why did she even bother waiting if she COULD break out so easily? Why does she need to steal some presumably ill-fitting armor instead of just sticking with the clothes that already fit? Why is it that when she returns, she "abolishes the monarchy" when that's her own position of power? And since it was a council that removed her from power, didn't they already do a fine enough job of that already? If she's not OK with monarchy and she's not OK with a council of some kind ruling presumably in a similar fashion to a republic, what kind of government does she exactly want?
. . .OH.
The end conclusion I can gather is that it's a plot that starts as one huge attempt to prove a point while simultaneously undermining it by proving the protagonist is utterly spineless and entirely reliant on men to take care of them right up until their mind completely snaps in half from being in captivity too long. They then proceed to gather the nearest set of male clothing and do a whole bunch of things Anita herself clearly saw as unimportant due to the lack of explanation before proceeding to destroy the republic that had deposed her and presumably establish some kind of vague Communist state in it's wake instead of just taking her throne back for literally no explained reason other than the fact that Socialism seems to be something some Feminists like and Anita is a Feminist. (I apologize to any Socialists present who were just associated with Anita Sarkeesian.)
Her game is trying and horribly failing to subvert princess stereotypes and ends in a poorly explained tract about how everyone should be a Socialist.
Ugh. . .just. . .
Can't we have a game where a woman can just be in whatever role a man would be in and do whatever a man would do in any given situation instead of THIS?
And if we need a plot non-twist on this level, have it turn out that she's Asexual instead of having it turn out she's got some political agenda to push?
Also, to wrap this politically charged rant up, I'd like to remind you all that Anita had admitted on video prior to Tropes Vs Women In Video Games' funding and creation that she is not a fan of video games and had to do research about the concept of video games.
. . .*sigh*
Last edited:
