What is Adam Baldwin thinking?

[AlexanderDitto]

Memo: Have you watched her latest video? (I ask sincerely, not sarcastically).

Honestly? No. I watched the first 3 episodes in this "Tropes vs. Women" series and learned several things:

• I already agree with most of her points.
• She doesn't seem to be bringing anything new to the table that I didn't know before.
• She bores me.
• Her voice really grates on my ears.

I'll take some time to look into the rest of this series, if it's important to the discussion, though.

If you really dislike her voice, there are transcripts of each videos that you could read. Anyway, it would likely take you less time to read the videos than watch them, though you wouldn't get to see the clips from games that she's citing.

[AlexanderDitto]

Okay, I think you misunderstood. I am not saying she doesn't have data. On the contrary she has enough data, that I am willing to disregard the contamination through her faulty methodology and accept her point that the kind of trope she described exists.
But I cannot concede the other point and that is where I would put her failure: she doesn't do anything with the data she collected. You say yourself, modern media studies asks why something exists and what impact it has. But there is nothing there. The answers are not nearly as clear cut as you present them and can't just be accepted.
The argument in the video I watched was "This exists and that is bad.". It failed my expectations and frankly it failed your stated intentions as well.

Perhaps I did misunderstand, I apologize if I did. But... I mean, the last 1/3 of the most recent video, for example, on why this stuff exists:

On a shallow surface level, these vignettes seem to contextualize violence against women in a negative light; however, these narratives are never really about the abused women in question. Instead depictions of female pain and victimhood are flippantly summoned to serve as sideshow attractions in storylines about other things altogether.

...

Meaning that these female characters exist to be assaulted in order to give the player something to do, a reason to chase down the bad guy, exact vigilante justice on him and gain the allotted experience points. After which the women are casually discarded, forgotten by the game and its characters.

...

This dominant narrative surrounding the inevitability of female objectification and victimhood is so powerful that it not only defines our concepts of reality but it even sets the parameters for how we think about entirely fictional worlds, even those taking place in the realms of fantasy and science fiction.

...

These women and their bodies are sacrificed in the name of infusing “mature themes” into gaming stories. [see next quote for continuation]

and the impact it has:

[continued]But there is nothing “mature” about flippantly evoking shades of female trauma. It ends up sensationalizing an issue which is painfully familiar to a large percentage of women on this planet while also normalizing and trivializing their experiences.

So when games casually use sexualized violence as a ham-fisted form of character development for the “bad guys” it reinforces a popular misconception about gendered violence by framing it as something abnormal, as a cruelty only committed by the most transparently evil strangers.

In regards to these in particular, I'd be interested in hearing what you thought was inconsistent or unconvincing about them, or why they were insufficient.

Also, none of this explains why sexist douchebros are so riled up about her, or what Adam Baldwin is thinking.

Also this is so off topic for this thread, maybe we should move it to PMs.

[Lord Hosk]

Can anyone post what this is about, Adam baldwins account is a really confusing mess of Retweets and quotes so its hard to determine what people are upset about.

[Valkyrie-Lemons]

1. That's not what misandry is. Misandry is not "a bunch of guys got killed in this game." Misandry is systemic hatred/oppression of men, in particular, for their gender. I have never encountered a game that features misandry. Lots of men being casually murdered, yes, but it's never because they're men. Usually, men are the ones getting casually murdered because there are no women NPCs, or if there are they're reserved for being damseled before they're raped/murdered in sexually graphic ways.

Actually Misandary (and Misogyny) both include the meaning of prejudice. And assuming all men are in some way 'manly' is a form of prejudice (Any preconceived opinion or feeling, whether positive or negative).

I am in absolutely in no way saying that this is worse than how women are portrayed, but if the game (or other media) creates this image of what a man is, which I can't live up to (or don't want to) then it's basically implying that "I'm not much of a man," which in itself is absurd.

The fact that women, rightfully, complain about how women are portrayed in games means that men should also have the right to complain about how they're portrayed in games. Because, y'know, I don't like my gender being labelled as rapists and women beaters.

but it is hardly comparable to portraying all women as prostitutes to be raped.

Women's only place in games is to be raped or die, basically.

I hope you're not applying that to all games, since that's definitely not the case. There are plenty of games where women are not there just to 'be raped', are 'all prostitutes' or 'just to die' (that's exclusive to women).

[Elomin Sha]

1. The "research" involves collecting these tropes, organizing them, discussing them, critiquing them. That's research. Nobody just handed Anita 50+ clips of these parts of games and said "go to town." She has to gather them, collect them, curate them, cite them (all the videos come with links to related resources and transcripts), and relate them to modern research in media impact. This is what media studies research is about.

What about the video clips she used to begin with that didn't include any citation because she took them from other let's players?

If she's playing the games now, you'll need to look at 21:30 of Women as Background Decoration: Part 1, Anita talks about game developers set up a series of rules and players are invited to test these mechanics. At 22:20 she shows Hitman Absolution, Vixen Club level.
If she is the one NOW playing the game then the following is a little strange.

“Players are then invited to explore and exploit these situations during their playthrough. The player cannot help but treat these female bodies as things, to be acted upon.” Agent 47 is then shown dragging one body around the room and across the body of the other stripper. “Because they were designed, constructed and placed in the environment for that singular purpose.”

The point of that 30 sec scenario is to sneak past the two strippers who are talking about their work conditions. If these characters had a singular purpose you would only be allowed to get passed by killing them. If you do that it negatively affects your rating which you notice in the top left, showing that's not what you're supposed to do.

“Players are meant to derive a perverse pleasure from desecrating the bodies of unsuspecting female characters. It's a rush streaming from a carefully concocted mix of sexual arousal connected to the act controlling and punishing representations of female sexuality.”

This is what I meant about psychology, with graphic images she's declaring that these are what players are supposed to be feeling. She's making a case for the one-dimensional Behaviorist Psychology, not taking to account that learning can come from outside factors like new information.
The following sentence sounds like Anita is explaining the emotions she was experiencing while beating and desecrating the bodies, putting them into close proximity of the tribbing/scissor sisters sex act.
What she was saying comes across as confirmed fact, if so where is that citation?

Have you ever watched an episode of PBS Idea Channel?

I never heard of it before. I will check it out.

Anita's one person, working alone (though she now has a producer who helps her).

Granted at the time she was and it would take time. I have that issue with what I want to do. With all the extra money she raised she could hire a couple other people to help out.

2. The "vibe" you're getting from the videos that is not there.

Thank you for telling me what I'm thinking.
At 18:30 Anita talks about how sexual assault is at an epidemic level in the real world. If it was an epidemic it would be on an increase but I think the rates have been dropping since the 70s. What's changed is communication and how we hear about it more and people are bolder to talk about it.
My vibe comment was aimed when she attached rape and sexual assault statistics (which maybe erroneous) to the section you mentioned here. She's done that in previous videos.

Most people still think of rape as something that happens in dark alleyways, by men who jump out of bushes and ambush unsuspecting women, or who slip mickeys into womens' drinks at clubs. They do not think of it as something that happens to women by people they considered friends, or their boyfriends, or husbands, their relatives or colleagues, even though these things make up the vast majority of cases.

My mother survived an attempted rape when she was a teenager by a stranger who basically leaped out at her.
My sister had a friend who tried to rape another friend.
From my frame of experience it's 50/50.

3. The idea that only children are impacted by the media they consume, and that adults are somehow impervious to the effects of media, is not bourne out by studies of the subject.

I never said that children are only impacted.

There's been this knee-jerk reaction among gamers to the ghost of Jack Thompson insinuating that violent video games could never make someone violent, but it's been demonstrated pretty effectively that the media you consume can have an impact on your world-view.

People reacted because Jack Thompson lied on numerous accounts and made drew very thin ties to tragic events.
Anita has said on tape during a lecture that she doesn't like video games because they were violent and gross. She's critiquing genres she doesn't like, that would have a problem of skewing her findings.
There hasn't been, to my limited knowledge, a study that has backed up any long term effects games or other media have on people. There has been on short-term experiences (which are usually touted by people against certain forms of media) but those feelings go away after an hour either positive or negative.

Obviously, the vast majority of people don't become murderers because they play FPSes, or become rapists because they witness a heck of a lot of rape in AAA games.

Obviously because there hasn't been, to my knowledge, any correlation of that happening.

But these things can desensitize you to violence; they can normalize it, or trivialize it.

If you're using 'you' to address me personally then nope. If I was desensitized to violence why do I despise, get upset, shy away from these things in the real world? If you're generalising 'you' to mean everyone then people wouldn't get offended by war.

It is worth thinking about the sort of things we are putting in our eyes and ears, and how that will impact the way we view the world.
To say that video games are somehow exempt from affecting our thinking is ridiculous; like books and movies, they always end up impacting us in some way; at the very least, the experience of the book or movie or video game is now carried with you in your head.

Should I bring up religious verses that have had real affects on the world we live in?

4. Regarding your statement, "By that matter a major portion of the population will know that rape is wrong because they understand what it entails." I have bad news for you:
In a survey of college students, "84% of men who committed rape did not label it as rape," and "35% anonymously admitted that, under certain circumstances, they would commit rape if they believed they could get away with it."
Things get even worse internationally (in southeast asia).

When I said major portion how is 6000 people enough of a counter to cover the population of a country or the world? 6000 people said it so it must be the norm. Would that not match what I said about improper upbringing?

I will also point out that many men experience rape in their lifetimes, but don't call it rape because they have been socalized to think that rape is something that it is not. (Something that only happens to women, or something that only occurs by strangers, or something that only occurs if accompanied by violent assault.)

Education is missing there, in my opinion.
While not rape, I was sexually assaulted by a girl a few years ago, same act happened via multiple people. I mentioned it on this forum and someone here said that because of what it was it wasn't assault even though it was unwarranted. I have no idea if they said that because I was male.

5. The question Sarkeesian is really raising, then, why are these the games we choose to create, to purchase in large numbers?

The industry is designed to make money.
Not to sound flippant but Anita could see about getting a game built that could help change things around in the industry. Talking about it is good but sometimes going an extra step pushes change. The suffragette who stepped in front of the horse race.

Why do people _want_ to see women being raped, murdered, flayed, etc? Why is this the background we choose to insert into so many games? How does it impact how women feel about games, and how we think about rape, abuse, etc.? Could it impact how people think about rape, who people blame for being raped, how often people report rape?

I don't think people are actively thinking I want to buy a game that has a woman being raped (except those who bought RapeLay).
To know buying habits and how people feel to each acts we'd have to interview every single person who plays games.

6. If you can't see the difference between the way the men and the women in the L.A. Noire ads are being portrayed... you're being intentionally obtuse. The women are posed spread-eagle, their chests and legs exposed, in lingere. The men are not naked, exposed, or posed provocatively. This is a Hawkeye-effect-level difference. Even if you're asexual, you should be able to spot it.

Wrong. Those were the Hitman adverts. L.A. Noire was the top third of a lady who was covered up to the neckline by a shower curtain (hence my Psycho reference). The only exposed flesh was the right arm, face and neck. As I said if you find that sexual it's because of possible necrophiliac or sadistic desires. If you have eyes you should be able to spot it[\sarcastic rebuttal] There was no need for you to be insulting.

That sort of thing would need be taken up with the publishers and the marketers who probably thought that it was clever word-play. I can' remember if each of the deaths depict specific levels in the game? If there was a museum level I would have done up a male victim as Michelangelo's David.

7. Re: NPCs. The point is that violence against women is being used as set-dressing; it's not treated with any gravitas. Obviously NPCs can't always have backstories; the question Sarkeesian is raising is 1. why female NPCs are so commonly treated in a way that is so different to male NPCs (you virtually never see men being raped or assaulted; games never encourage you to watch men stripping; prostitutes are never men) when WE CHOOSE WHAT WE INCLUDE IN OUR FANTASY WORLDS. This is a choice people are making; someone is creating and animating and including this content in a game. Why?

We'd have to ask developers that, it could be cheap way to make one death particularly noticeable otherwise it would be hidden amongst the hundreds or thousands of male characters killed in games.
If developers want to create a realistic world they should include male prostitutes and male rape and assaults because they do happen.

and 2. why is sexual violence virtually never treated with any sort of gravitas; as she points out, in many cases, your job in games is to punish the purpetrator of sexual violence, but the victim just vanishes or fades away. What does that say about how we think about sexual violence?

[/quote][/quote]
Dead bodies vanish and fade away in games such as Wolfenstein and Jericho for the simple fact it saves on processing power.
Simple answer: That's not what Watch Dogs is about. It is a game about vigilante justice. If the developers wanted to be meaningful they could have added phone police/ambulance, add CPR (not sure how that would help the stabbing victims), go to the hospital with the victim. But with the bugs that game has already it could be a bigger mess. It was the rules they set up.
If you wanted a game about aiding a victim there should be a Special Victims Unit sort of game where you aid and counsel a victim. For that to be realistic you're have those that 'survive' to go on and have a new life and those that 'fail' and commit suicide, go to drink, etc. I'm not sure how many would want to play that type of game.

With what we know now we should do a hard reset on the industry but with how big it is it'll be hard to do but worth it. More of these type of things would probably need to go through Independent developers until they get more and more pervasive in the media.

[Avistew]

First, what Adam Baldwin did is link to a video that shared personal identifying information about Zoe Quinn, who was already getting harassed. Not cool.

Secondly, about Tropes vs Women in video games: the way I see the series is that it aims to point out recurring themes in video games. We can't fix a problem if we aren't aware of it. I don't think she's saying players are bad for playing those games. I think she's saying "Look, they're not giving you what you deserve. Be aware of that and ask for more".
The games also point out systemic issues. The fact that so many games have women as a plot device rather than a significant character (in many cases, the woman could have been, say, a car, or a jewel, and is only human to add some more emotions to the mix) reflects something about society, and while I don't believe it causes it, I do believe that being aware of it and making games that don't feed into those tropes is important, because society as a whole can evolve from it.

It's not about people going "oh, women aren't objects anymore in games. I guess I should treat them better in real life then!". It's about people going "Oh, good, there is a market for realistic female characters! This game has one! I can pitch my own story now without knowing it will be rejected before I even try" or "Oh, good, I won't have to pretend I don't play videogames because, although I love them, they're way too problematic for me to admit to it" or "Ah, being in favour of women's right no longer gets you harassed, I can speak up now".

Yes, there will be people who already speak up and act and make games that don't have these problems, but historically, the majority of people don't want to speak up until the climate is a bit better. We've seen that with many societal changes throughout history. Anita Sarkeesian is trying to be one of the voices that makes a change, and that's good. And maybe you think she's not doing enough. But she still received death threats, rape threats, had pictures of her photoshoped into beaten-up, mutilated version, had a game made out of beating her up, had to move houses because of how she was being harassed, etc. The dangers to her health and safety may not be as immediate and dire as "the government will execute you" but she still put herself at risk, and the fact the reaction is so violent proves that her voice is needed, in my opinion.

So yes, I would encourage people to make games that don't fall into these tropes. I would also encourage people to buy and play games that don't fall into these tropes. But not everyone can make games, and one person buying a game won't change much. So talking about it is pretty important, too.

[Duckay]

At 18:30 Anita talks about how sexual assault is at an epidemic level in the real world. If it was an epidemic it would be on an increase but I think the rates have been dropping since the 70s. What's changed is communication and how we hear about it more and people are bolder to talk about it.
My vibe comment was aimed when she attached rape and sexual assault statistics (which maybe erroneous) to the section you mentioned here. She's done that in previous videos.

You "think" the rates have been dropping, but do you have a source for this? I have a source from the Australian Institute of Criminology that says that reported sexual assault has risen by 51% since 1995. One In Four USA says that the rate has remained the same since the 1980's. While you may argue that the reason reports have risen so high is because we are more willing to talk about it, but where is your source that the rates have been dropping?

My mother survived an attempted rape when she was a teenager by a stranger who basically leaped out at her.
My sister had a friend who tried to rape another friend.
From my frame of experience it's 50/50.

I'm really sorry that this has happened to your family members, but two people is not indicative of the wider statistics. Many people have posted statistics before, so I'll limit it to just this one:

In a nationally representative survey:1
• Among female rape victims, perpetrators were
reported to be intimate partners (51.1%), family
members (12.5%), acquaintances (40.8%) and
strangers (13.8%).
• Among male rape victims, perpetrators were
reported to be acquaintances (52.4%) and
strangers (15.1%).
• Among male victims who were made to penetrate
someone else, perpetrators were reported to be
intimate partners (44.8%), acquaintances (44.7%)
and strangers (8.2%).

Here is the source for that.

There is a difference between working from your personal frame of reference to begin with, and sticking to it in the face of statistics that indicate that your personal experience is not indicative.

There hasn't been, to my limited knowledge, a study that has backed up any long term effects games or other media have on people. There has been on short-term experiences (which are usually touted by people against certain forms of media) but those feelings go away after an hour either positive or negative.

That may be true. I am not aware of any that indicate long-term effects. However, I notice you are being very dismissive of the numerous studies that indicate short-term effects by claiming that they are usually touted by people with a bias. Would this be a correct read on your point?

The idea that witnessing aggression leads to a short-term increase in aggressive behaviour dates back at least as far as the extremely influential Bandura, Ross and Ross "Bobo Doll Experiment" in 1961. Now, over time there have been some critiques of the original study (indicating that it was more about mimicry than aggression), but other studies on the same principle have been conducted many, many times on the subject of video games and film. This is not something limited to just people who hate video games. It is a fairly well-studied area.

When I said major portion how is 6000 people enough of a counter to cover the population of a country or the world? 6000 people said it so it must be the norm. Would that not match what I said about improper upbringing?

It is utterly impractical for a study like this to ask literally every person in the world. That's why they use what they would consider a representative sample. Unless you're trying to tell me that somehow every one of those 6,000 people was an anomaly, these results are indicative of a wider social view.

While not rape, I was sexually assaulted by a girl a few years ago, same act happened via multiple people. I mentioned it on this forum and someone here said that because of what it was it wasn't assault even though it was unwarranted. I have no idea if they said that because I was male.

Without going into details, I've seen some pretty disgusting viewpoints shared about what does and doesn't "count" as rape or sexual assault, so I understand where you're coming from.

If you wanted a game about aiding a victim there should be a Special Victims Unit sort of game where you aid and counsel a victim. For that to be realistic you're have those that 'survive' to go on and have a new life and those that 'fail' and commit suicide, go to drink, etc. I'm not sure how many would want to play that type of game.

I realise that you're being glib, but you don't really think that's representative of people who have been victims of sexual assault, do you? I would be utterly disgusted by a game that showed me that if I failed to save a woman from rape, the only "realistic" result is that she commits suicide or drinks to excess.

[Matt]

(only tangentially related now, but remember: Anita Sarkeesian is analyzing games-as-text. she is not, strictly speaking, attempting to prove a hypothesis.)

-m

[Elomin Sha]

You "think" the rates have been dropping, but do you have a source for this?

I will apologise for not having it to hand, I was going off memory hence the use of think and not believe or know instead.

I'm really sorry that this has happened to your family members, but two people is not indicative of the wider statistics.

That's true. I was just cutting Ditto off just in case he as thinking if I was on the side that rapists were more of a hidden group. I can count myself lucky that I only know two people personally such a thing happened to them.
I'm fully aware that most atrocities are caused be people the victim knew. You see it on the News constantly.

That may be true. I am not aware of any that indicate long-term effects. However, I notice you are being very dismissive of the numerous studies that indicate short-term effects by claiming that they are usually touted by people with a bias. Would this be a correct read on your point?

I wasn't being dismissive. I acknowledged that such studies exist but stating there are those who used these studies erroneously, usually they had an agenda against video games. I haven't heard of that Bobo Doll Experiment before. I'll look it up soon.

It is utterly impractical for a study like this to ask literally every person in the world. That's why they use what they would consider a representative sample. Unless you're trying to tell me that somehow every one of those 6,000 people was an anomaly, these results are indicative of a wider social view.

I wasn't sayinf the number as an anomaly. What I read from Ditto was that he was saying that majority didn't matter and his numbers were true and set in stone. If I got that wrong Ditto, I'm sorry.

I realise that you're being glib, but you don't really think that's representative of people who have been victims of sexual assault, do you? I would be utterly disgusted by a game that showed me that if I failed to save a woman from rape, the only "realistic" result is that she commits suicide or drinks to excess.

I wasn't being glib it was sincere with the idea. If it sounded glib I'm sorry.
I also didn't put 'only' suicide as the outcome. I put that the person could survive and get on with their life which would be a positive outcome. If a training tool to confront the event or to help a person talk to their friend/loved one about the event be it: assault, rape, attempted murder, depression, divorce, etc. What I said some people can't cope and a downward spiral can happen and I also mentioned drink. It could end with a fade to black and nothing further. There are many outcomes and I just mention a few to save time. I won't pretend to know what people are going through. It was an idea that I spawned when responding.

I have a standpoint that games can be used as a form of documentary. Some subject matters can't be translated of course. I was really interested in Six Days in Fallujah before it was shut down. There was also a similar game based up the Spanish Civil war and Franco but because some people didn't want to be reminded of that time in the country's history they stopped that too.

[Duckay]

Ditto was not, to my mind, saying that the majority doesn't matter. I'll try to break it down as best I can, but Ditto can feel free to correct me if I am off-base.

In studies like this one, it goes beyond impractical to ask literally every single person. It is impossible. There is no way to collect and collate that data. Instead, what researchers do is select a sample that they consider to be representative of the wider population and do the study on those people. While imperfect, and many studies over the years have been criticized for inaccurately assessing a sample group, this allows researchers to reach tentative conclusions about the wider population.

In this particular case, the 6,000 respondents were as close as the researchers felt that they could get to a representative sample. If you have legitimate concerns with the way their study was conducted, that's fine. That is a valid response to a study such as this one. However, in the absence of such concerns, the study does not invalidate the millions of people who were not in the study, but uses the 6,000 respondents as a representative sample of the rest of the society to draw reasonable conclusions. Or, put another way, this study is not trying to say that these 6000 people are more important or relevant than the majority of the population, but that in the absence of being able to ask everyone, asking these 6000 people yields approximately representative results across the population.

[Elomin Sha]

Thanks for the explanation.

[korvys]

On a purely statistical note, 6000 people is definitely enough to get a representative sample. http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm

A 6000 person sample, of a population of 21 million (as best I could find) college students, with a result of 84%, gives us a 99% confidence level that the true figure is +/- 1.22%.

Basically, there is only a 1% chance that if you interview everyone, rather than 6000 people, the true result would be less than ~83%.

This does, as Duckay points out, assume the sample was truly representative, but I'm just trying to show how the math of samples/populations works.

[AlexanderDitto]

Oy. To be quite frank, Elomin most of these are arguments I've heard before that have been thoroughly rebutted. Heck, I think I've even discussed many of them, though not to you, to someone else. It's tiring. So you'll forgive me if I'm terse.

There's discussion about this but I think the predomenant view is that Let's Players don't have a trademark on what they're broadcasting because they don't own it. Use for criticism falls under fair use. And if the argument is "Anita Didn't Play Every Game," if you're talking about broad trends in media, you don't have to play every game any more than you have to fully read every book with racism in it to talk about racism in, say, 19th century British literature. You read enough to understand the trend, and then use secondary sources to include examples of relevant passages with enough context to show that the trope exists in the game.

The fact that scenes of violence are optional in games or the game deducts some points doesn't address the underlying question of why murdering two strippers is even an acceptable thing to do in the game, or why so many games seem to take place in strip clubs in the first place. I doubt anyone would say that Deus Ex: HR isn't really a violent game because you can get through the whole game without killing anyone, because you have the option of basically stabbing them directly through the heart with blood spurting out, and somehow I don't need to play all of Deus Ex to know that.

Sarkeesian's conjecture as to what players are supposed to be feeling when they witness the tropes she's discussing are probably the weakest part of her videos; obviously, I feel a lot of revulsion watching the clips in her videos, and as I'm super gay, dead lady bodies give me no sexual arousal. My response, though, isn't "BUT NOT ME #NotAllMen," because what she's making the case for is game designer's intent. When she says "Players are meant to derive," she's not saying "Players derive." She's analyzing the game's design, and making statements about what the game is using the women for. Games are designed with an audience in mind, and while it's impossible to know exactly what game designers are thinking when they made some of these choices, given the recognizable patterns in both the media itself and the advertisement that accompanies it, we can infer a heck of a lot.

Just because she raised more money doesn't mean she's under any obligation to bring on more people to help her. She can (and should) make the thing she wants to make the way she wants to make it.

I'm sorry for telling you what you're thinking; I phrased that poorly. I intended to communicate that I do not think Sarkeesian intended to have her videos give off the "vibe" you're describing, since she's stressed that these videos are not personal attacks, that you can like problematic video games if you acknowledge the problematic parts and think about them. She's not accusing you of being one step away from rape.

Duckay's done a good job of discussing your statistical questions. Also, I find it incongruous that you'd cite hypothetical decreases in worldwide rates of sexual assault to debunk that it's an epidemic (seriously, if you have stats on that, I really do want to see them, because that would be important [and good] information to me!), but then use "your frame of reference" to discuss who rapes. (I'm sorry about your mom and your sister's friend.)

"I never said that children are only impacted." The third paragraph of your first post in this thread logically implicates it. Adults-> "level of psychological understanding towards the game's contents when we grow up", Children-> "if she's explaining the wrongs to them that's great"

The "tape during a lecture" that you're citing... I'm just gonna copy-paste part of a article on New Statesman that discusses this and a lot of other tired attacks that stem from Youtube-nonsense-spewer thunderf00t.

That clip is taken from a longer lecture Sarkeesian gave on the subject of remixing pop culture videos to change their meaning, at Santa Monica College in 2010. It's used far too much as "proof" that, in thunderf00t's words, she "lied to everyone's face [sic] for her Kickstarter". (And, of course, it helps reinforce the narrative of her lying about being abused as a promotional tactic.)

The idea that tastes change over time doesn't appear relevant here. Nor the idea that ripping a five-second clip out of context might not be a watertight proof of duplicity and deception.

Pauline Kael was an ad copywriter before she became a film critic; Roger Ebert wrote science fiction. It's never been necessary to have experience creating something before being allowed to critique it.

Long-term experience studies are difficult to perform, and yes we don't know for certain either way. I still find it very hard to believe that the media you consume has zero impact on you days/weeks/months/years after you consume it. Otherwise, really, why the hell do we read books? And yeah, religious verses have real affects on the world we live in! I think those things are worthy of a lot of criticism too! Put the right religious trash in people's heads and they'll do terrible things in the name of god, many hours after they've read the Bible or gone to church.

Regardless, even if I conceed the point that we shouldn't criticise media based on how it might affect people long-term, you don't explain why we want these things in our games in the first place, and you don't address how these scenes are supposed to make women who've experienced violence or rape (or close friends or family members of those women) feel. Sarkeesian addresses both of these things.

When I use "you" and make a broad statement, I'm usually using the term generally. Regardless of your perceived invulnerability, unless you're susceptable to being desensitized to these things. Doctors widely report that after working in an ICU for a month or two, blood and guts and vomit don't phase them. Similarly, a lot of people don't get "offended" by war. A lot of people have no problem seeing people shot in the streets in the United States. A lot of people are excited about the idea that MORE people might be shot in the streets in the United States, specifically by police people, specifically if the people being shot are black. Racism.

Sorry, I swapped the Hitman adverts and the LA Noire adverts; I thought you were talking about Hitman, since those were the ones discussed in the video (also one of the Hitman adverts is a naked woman in a bathtub; naked or mostly naked, like all the other dead ladies in the adverts). "take it up with the publishers and marketers" yes that is what we are doing. That is what we are talking about. Publishers and marketers who are trying to pander to straight dudes by showing them sexy ladies sprawled out on the ground. Otherwise, why aren't any of the men in the advertisements naked in a bathtub or on a velvet bed with rose petals scattered over it? Why aren't any of the women actually clothed? It is possible that your being asexual you really just don't understand the difference between a lady in lingere on a bed and a dude in a tuxedo on a stage with a cello. :/

Also, "the industry is designed to make money" argument coupled with "we'd have to ask developers why they did that" you answered your own question.

Also also, "why doesn't she go make her OWN video games!" *Sighhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh* Elomin that is a foolish argument. I'm done.

[Elomin Sha]

As I did ask was to correct me if I was wrong. I'm not great on arguments or debates (as shown here) that's why I asked questions. Thank you for the information.

She can do whatever she wants with the money. Speaking personally if I was doing a research project that had a big scope as she said in her backers video, more hands would ease the burden.

I will admit I have watched Thunder00t videos over the years. In the past two it's been to his knowledge on science, his critiques on real life matters are whiny.

I don't see how saying building a game is foolish, if you'd like to explain why it is I'd appreciate it. When there was the E.T. dig I wanted a game that married the dig and E.T. together. I went and built it myself.

[Duckay]

It's a foolish argument for essentially two reasons.

One, not everyone has the necessary skills and access to the required resources to build a video game (or write a book, or make a television series, or whatever piece of media is being discussed).

Two, whether they are capable of doing it or not, the ability to make a piece of media is not correlated with the ability to critique a piece of media. It does not make any critique more or less valid.

[AdmiralMemo]

Two, whether they are capable of doing it or not, the ability to make a piece of media is not correlated with the ability to critique a piece of media. It does not make any critique more or less valid.

While I totally agree with this, I will point out that using the media itself to critique it shows the critique more effectively. Compare reading articles and watching videos about the state of first-person shooter games with actually playing Spec Ops: The Line. You get more of a gut-punch and a better understanding if you do so.

And while, no, Anita herself doesn't have to make said games, I would like to see her do less of "this is bad, this is bad, and this is bad," and more of "Here's a game that did it right."

I will grant that maybe the sorry state of video games may give her very few choices to do so, but she should spotlight them and expand on them, rather than glossing over them at the end.

[AlexanderDitto]

I will grant that maybe the sorry state of video games may give her very few choices to do so, but she should spotlight them and expand on them, rather than glossing over them at the end.

I am glad she did that for Papo y Yo in this most recent video, as well as for Secret of Monkey Island and Braid for Damsel in Distress (maybe you didn't watch that one, it was in the third damsel video). As more indie games confront these problems, hopefully she'll have more to draw on. Right now, I feel like it's slim pickings.

[Avistew]

I would like to address the "video games make people violent" issue.

I don't think you can take anyone who is a complete pacific, make them play video games, and turn them into a bloodthirsty killer with 100% success.

However what I do know from various studies is the side-effects of catharsis. Put simply, if you get angry and you use catharsis, you become more aggressive and more violent over time.
This is not specific to video games. But it does mean that if someone gets angry, and then beats a pillow, shouts at people, or play a game in which they kill people, they will later be more likely to get and stay angry.
If someone gets angry and then meditates, takes a walk, sings a quite song, hugs someone or does any other activity incompatible with violence, they are less likely to become and stay angry in the future.

This has been tested in various ways and is about our brain learning from rewards. If you hit something repeatedly (say, a pillow) and then you feel better, your brain will sort "hitting things" into "things that make me feel good" and will seek that sort of stimulation more often.

So I do believe that if someone who gets angry decides to "channel their anger" and go play violent video games, they might become more and more violent and aggressive over time. However, the same person who decides, when they get angry, to go play non-violent video games, would actually become less and less aggressive overtime (just like the person who listened to rock music when angry became more aggressive than the one who listened to classical music).

It's not specific to video games, since it happens with all form of media, and hell, some video games have the opposite effect. But it's good to know these things.

That was for violence. Now sexualisation. Sexualisation is different because it has a more direct effect. To put it bluntly, if you're in a neutral state and witness someone punching someone else, it usually doesn't make you want to punch people randomly (might make you want to punch the puncher depending on context, but that's it). If you're in a neutral state and witness someone having sex with someone else, it is quite likely to make you want to have sex.
That's how porn works. That's how erotica, sexual imagery, all of that works. You get horny. You don't want to have sex with the person you witnessed having sex, like in the punching example. Well, you might, but you would generally either want to have sex with someone you already know that you're attracted to, or have a general "want to have sex with someone" feeling.

So sexualisation is much more powerful than violence in that way. Watching something meant to arouse you will arouse you if you're the proper target audience. The problem here becomes the sexualisation of violence.

This is another psychological effect that varies in strength, but people can develop fetishes and attraction based on training their brain to do so. What that means is that if they're consistently shown arousing images paired with violence (murdered women who are also naked or dressed very little, in suggestive poses, etc) they can develop an arousal in those specific situations, and in extreme examples, lose arousal without that specific stimulation.

That has also been witnessed and documented in various ways. The easiest way to control it is by comparing it with the porn people have been subjected to. People who saw porn in which women had shaved genitals developed more arousal for shaved genitals. In extreme cases, it included involuntary arousal when seeing children's genitals (which are naturally bald) and lack of arousal when seeing genitals that were hairy. This phenomenon was only observed when bald genitals in porn became common.

Another example is condoms. People who watched porn in which the actors wear condoms were more likely to find wearing a condom arousing and/or pleasurable. People who watched porn that didn't feature condoms had the opposite reaction.

Now, I'm sure you can see how this effect can become a problem when people are subjected with multiple images of sexualised violence. "Sexualised violence", by the way, doesn't mean rape or violent crimes involving sex. It means violence paired with sexual stimuli. Ditto explained it well when comparing the female in lingerie on a bed to the male wearing a tuxedo on stage.

Now, people don't become murderers. What may happen is, for instance, getting urges to be violent when aroused, or getting aroused by violence. Both can lead to problems.

However, because the brain is malleable, it can always be retrained. Anyone who notices unwanted connections can try and destroy them. This was documented with the men who started getting aroused by little girls' genitals, who managed to retrain it by limiting their consumption of porn and carefully selecting it to create different connections (either by creating arousal to hairier genitals, or by limiting arousal to bare genitals in people who presented adult characteristics no present in children).

There are also limit to this effect. It can't completely change orientation, it can't make you get rid of a fetish, but you can turn a dangerous fetish into a less dangerous one or, sadly, an inoffensive one into a dangerous one.

You're also affected more the younger you are. That means that teenagers are more affected by older adult proportionally to how much they consume media (porn, video games, etc). However a lot of people manage to curb it when they become adults. There are a lot of stories of people who, as teenagers, were into more and more hardcore stuff because they needed stronger and stronger stimuli, but once adults retreated into vanilla territory and were quite content to stay there. I know people like that personally and heard about more of them when studying all these phenomena.

In short, having violence, even sexualised, present in video games isn't in itself a problem. However its prevalence can turn into a problem. Give only one form of stimulus to your brain and that's what it will require. Give it a variety and you'll be more in control. It's true of many things and it's a very good way to retrain your brain if you want to, but it's used against us as well and this is a very good example of that.

I think it's important to make the distinction between "people will turn into violent rapists if they play those games" and "people who are violent will become more violent, and people in general may get confusing emotions revolving around sex and violence, and if they don't know better, may think it's normal and actually act on it".

[King Kool]

Not to go off on a different tear for a bit, but we already have more than one topic on this subject, and we're not talking about Adam Baldwin anymore, so...

https://twitter.com/devincf/status/505495442994380800

This was tweeted by Devin Faraci, who writes for Badass Digest, the editor of which made that article about assholes that got shot around. It was retweeted by Moviebob, who is always fighting the good fight with effortless wit, clarity and a calm hand.

I don't get why this was tweeted or retweeted by either of them.

It doesn't provide a link to the video. If you don't know who this is, this is boogie2988. He's got almost 2 million subscribers on Youtube (more than the previously-maligned Jontron, who got a thoughtful and measured response from Moviebob when he stepped well out of line and retweeted that awful comic). Apparently, Boogie did a video about the whole thing. I didn't watch it, and since it seems like Devin doesn't know who this guy is, I doubt it's a response to anything he said therein.

Is this just a crack at his weight or appearance? Moviebob himself has probably fielded more fat jokes at his expense than Michael Moore did in his heyday. Why is this funny or even tweet-worthy? Because Boogie's fat? Because he's not necessarily handsome? (NB: Boogie is married.)

This doesn't make sense to me. What is this tweet trying to say?

[korvys]

I think it probably is just because he, in appearance at least, embodies the overweight, basement dwelling neckbeard stereotype (please note, I'm not saying that's a real thing, just that I think we all understand the sterotype) of a "gamer".

Devin has said in the past few days, he's not above just straight up mocking people on the wrong side of this whole thing.

So yeah, it probably is just a crack at his weight/appearance.

[King Kool]

OK. Maybe I did understand it, but I was hoping there was an alternate explanation that was eluding me.

I still don't understand Moviebob retweeting it. I really am a huge fan of his, and this does bothers me.

[korvys]

I'm not sure what to make of it. I think both Devin and Bob fall into the camp of "Don't be a dick to people, unless they deserve it, in which case all bets are off".

I don't feel that way myself, but I can't really muster up a lot of sympathy for any of the people who still think the whole thing is about "integrity".

[King Kool]

OK. Bob just posted this to his Twitter:

Hey guys? Sometimes I just RT b/c why not - doesn't necessarily "mean" or "imply" anything. Just twitter. Chill.

...does he look at the LRR boards?

Part of me wants to say, "Balderdash. Would you have let Jontron get away with saying that?" But that's not really valid, but that tweet was obviously trying to make a statement, where this one isn't. I retweet half perfectly made points and half total nonsense, but I wonder if any of it could be taken as a endorsement of something I don't actually believe.

If Moviebob IS reading this: we've met at the three most recent PAX East's. I was the small chubby guy with the ponytail and glasses (OK, that doesn't rule it down that much at PAX...) You spoke to my associate, Dr. Eyeballtron. I finished your book a few months ago and it was really good. I am legitimately a huge fan of the Game Overthinker. I think it's just about the best show of its kind on the Internet.

That tweet just perplexed me, and I don't know if it would or wouldn't have if I didn't know who that guy was.

[JackSlack]

Moviebob's kind of been an asshole because he REALLY likes Faraci, who totally IS an asshole, and he's following Faraci's lead, and it's annoying as fuck.

[korvys]

Yeah, my typical reaction to Devin: