Top
60°

Anita Sarkeesian’s ‘Women As Background Decoration’ Videos Are Actually Excellent Critiques

An opinion piece via EGMR that is 'totally going to ruin gaming'.

Quote: "But that is that and here we are today, talking about the latest in the Feminist Frequency series of videos listed under Tropes vs Women in Video Games; this mini-series entitled Women As Background Decoration, with the second part of these videos only recently released. Naturally, the internet erupted with the usual ferocity over yet another video that is going to ruin gaming for everyone, and so on. Meanwhile, I watched it and thought to myself, “Holy hell, she actually has a goddamn point.”"

The story is too old to be commented.
MaxwellBuddha1357d ago

Anita Sarkeesian is an opportunist and a hustler who makes her living by stirring up controversy where there is none, deliberately antagonizing the gaming and development community in the process, then portraying herself as the victim when criticism comes her way, made worse by the fact that it's all paid for by the donations of gullible fools.

She's literally the Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton of video games.

arbitor3651357d ago (Edited 1357d ago )

what kills me are these white knight losers who are willing to **** on video games just so they can appeal to the feminists. with the vain hope of someday getting laid thanks to their efforts. which is never going to happen, no matter how much money they throw at the screen.

LightDiego1356d ago

Looks like that's the only chance to "journalists" of sites like Kotaku and Gamespot to get laid.

Blacktric1356d ago (Edited 1356d ago )

You know what I find funny? People actually having the audacity to call blatant lies and misinformation as "excellent critiques".

She uses the footage of some random guy on YouTube, playing Hitman: Absolution like a madman. He's inside a strip club, which is where Anita raises the oh so excellent critique of; "as you can see, women are just background objects here" (eventhough they are strippers in a strip club, along with the men who are oggling them like the background decorations they also are).

Then the guy goes upstairs, kills two random strippers the game didn't ask you to kill. Gets penalized for it by having his points drop. Then grabs the bodies and drags them around the room. Which Anita uses to raise another excellent critique; "as you can see, the game ENCOURAGES players to kill and play with these poor dead women's bodies."

So I ask again; how the hell is saying; "because you can do something bad in a game, it means the game encourages people to do it", is excellent critique? I can basically kill myself over and over again in Grand Theft Auto. Does this mean the game encourages people to kill themselves? Even if you're getting penalized in the form of losing money and time if you were doing a mission?

Give me a goddamn break.

Story quality?: WTF
Like this website?: NO

insomnium21356d ago

Hey arbitor365! Do you have the same name on youtube? If so where have you been? I liked your videos man.

morganfell1355d ago

These idiots are all out of control. Its, time to call Maddox and let him give them the royal smackdown. Here is what happens when they tried to bring the same crap line to comics.

https://www.youtube.com/wat...

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1355d ago
viperman2401356d ago (Edited 1356d ago )

Or the female version of Jack Thompson

http://i.imgur.com/uiEWHd2....

@arbitor365

Look what Anothony Burch tweeted, this is hilarious. that coming from a guy who lets his wife bang other dudes.

https://twitter.com/reveren...

just-joe1356d ago

"Look what Anothony Burch tweeted, this is hilarious. that coming from a guy who lets his wife bang other dudes."

Never heard about that.

viperman2401356d ago (Edited 1356d ago )

@just-joe

I'll be glad to inform you, he's in an open relationship with his wife, please let that sink in.

https://twitter.com/reveren...

Mind you, he's on the SJW side of things. Saying gamers are all misogynistic and what ever other rhetoric they like to use to classify us.

https://img.4plebs.org/boar...

Dee_911356d ago

how is she the "Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton of video games."?

morganfell1356d ago

He explained it fully. If you cannot see the parallels in the clear post above, another recounting will not assist you.

InTheLab1356d ago

Because people like him have allowed fox news to paint a picture of Sharpton and Jackson and they completely believe it. Out of countless cases of violations of Civil Rights, they constantly bring up misfires like Tawana Brawley as if that invalidates the last 40+ years of good work these two have done.

It's not a fair comparison, but one I would expect from those that could care less about Civil Rights...

morganfell1356d ago

So because someone rightfully sees Sharpton and Jackson as charlatans that person must be a right wing Fox News convert? No. Your thinking they are some sort of diving protectors makes you equally brainwashed. And all of the news channels lie. Some lie by not wanting to mention the facts. The left is as guilty of that as the right *cough* IRS Coverup, Behghazi, *cough*. Your downfall is you think one side has some sort of superiority over the other.

Dee_911356d ago (Edited 1356d ago )

@morganfell
Maybe I wanted to know what exactly Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton was stirring up controversy where there is none for, and deliberately antagonizing what ?
I'm trying to figure out how 2 icons of our civil rights movement is equal to what she is doing.Because what it seems like to me with what just happened less than a month ago, he's saying what happened in ferguson shouldn't be controversial and that they are simply antagonizing whats going on out there.. Thats the "parallels" I am seeing, but I highly doubt he actually meant that..
Sorry morganfell, I am trying to give him the benefit of the doubt instead of just writing him off as ignorant bigot that just compared two monumental characters in our civil rights to a girl complaining about video games.. I didn't notice he had one bubble though, so maybe I should have PM'd him.But considering the amount of disagrees I just got, I am quite curious to hear what part of that idiotic part of his comment they agreed with.
Maybe since you were the first to actually reply instead of just disagreeing, maybe you can elaborate ?

morganfell1356d ago

@Dee,

Let me repeat this. Explaining it in a more clear fashion is not possible. You either understand the reference or you do not. If you do not then that occurs for two reasons.

Blinders. Nothing can be done to help you there.

Living under a rock. If you are not aware of the deceptions and the number of times these two have lied or climbed across the back of a legitimate cause in order to make money, promote themselves perconally, and stroke their own ego then you have been living under a rock.

Dee_911355d ago

But you just explained it in a more clear fashion...Which was the entire point of my original comment.I don't keep up with Al sharpton or Jesse Jackson, because I personally don't care for most of their opinions, not because i'm patrick the star fish.But I do realize what they have done for civil rights around the world, and I don't think its right to compare them to her. Because not only does it belittle all the right they did because of the wrong they did, but it says that Anita actually accomplished something of the same scale, which she didn't

morganfell1355d ago (Edited 1355d ago )

No I did not. I restated it but nothing was further explained. Your response shows what I suspected which is you knew all along merely you had an "issue". Your own reply demonstrates clearly that your initial remark was simply an agenda.

Dee_911355d ago (Edited 1355d ago )

"If you are not aware of the deceptions and the number of times these two have lied or climbed across the back of a legitimate cause in order to make money, promote themselves perconally, and stroke their own ego then you have been ...."
where was this stated in his comment? Seems like elaboration yes? a further explanation yea? did I know that al sharpton and jesse jackson supposedly "lied or climbed across the back of a legitimate cause in order to make money.. "? no.
Thank you for elaborating for me.
My agenda was for him to elaborate.If you think me not thinking those 2 should be compared to her is some sort of agenda then you need to take 2 step backs from your computer and reevaluate.Then look up the word opinion.
If that was my "agenda" I would have said it from the beginning instead of asking him to elaborate.You don't know me well enough but I am not one for tip toeing around what I feel.Especially on this site.
I don't see the issue here.

morganfell1355d ago (Edited 1355d ago )

It appears you fail to understand the nature of elaboration. Stating a matter with different terms but adding no real facts is hardly elaboration. You're just looking for a way out. Knowing Anita Sarkeesian describes your two heroes perfectly.

It is unavoidable for you at this point. Your previous responses showed it from the beginning you have an agenda. And as we can see by the disagrees other people realize this as well. You know full well what you were doing. Your problem is you are not as slick as you believe yourself to be. Often agendas are hidden or at the very least veiled. Yours was far less so than you believe it to be and from what you have written is actually on the blatant side. Busted, would be to turn that defines your attempts. It is obvious from the beginning you meant to represent the defendants, errr, individuals and after several posts you got around to it. Rather obvious from the beginning.

Dee_911355d ago (Edited 1355d ago )

... So your telling me that you added absolutely nothing to his comment.That I knew exactly what he was talking about despite me not knowing anything about al sharpton and jesse jackson lying to acquire money and to " promote themselves perconally, and stroke their own ego "? Add to that, you called the two I just said I" don't care for their opinions" my heroes? You think I take it personally that you believe she describe my "two heroes perfectly" despite the fact I stated me believing she shouldn't be compared to them is " my opinion"? I'm not sure rather I should feel disrespected or confused.A lot of both right now considering I respect and agree with your opinions for the most part on this site.
Maybe its you with the agenda? Maybe you should take what you read at face value instead of making crap up? Maybe you should admit that you did indeed further explain or elaborate his point instead trying to make this something its not?

My response from the beginning was asking him to elaborate that point he made. Had you said what you said on #1.3.5 on #1.3.1 instead, you wouldn't have gotten what I said on #1.3.4. Can you not see that?
You implied it was an obvious parallel despite the fact I asked what was the parallel.So I told you the only parallel I saw at the time, before you further explained what he meant..
Maybe I should try to crack the case and see whats really your agenda? Was it too late for you to edit your answer @ #1.3.1 so now you can't admit to actually further explaining what he meant?
Now its just "hardly" an "elaboration instead of not being an elaboration at all? Sorry my friend there is no in between.Its either isn't an elaboration or it is..
Its really clear that you don't know me considering you just brought up disagrees.My stance since 2010 has been disagrees are futile until someone makes an actual comment to explain that disagreement.Hence "Maybe since you were the first to actually reply instead of just disagreeing, maybe you can elaborate ?"

I see you like to jump to assumptions and run with it like it fact... I see obvious parallel because obvious parallel is obvious, I have agenda because I have agenda.. nah.That seems to be the mantra on N4G, say it until its true..
The only thing I am trying to look for a way out of is an unnecessary argument with some dude on the internet telling me I have an agenda for asking an question..

The comedy of it is I don't even see an issue with having an agenda..But thats beyond the point here and thats an entire different argument.. Even more comedy is that I actually dislike Al sharpton lol... but I have an agenda to save his image on this gaming board apparently .. hmm

morganfell1355d ago

I do not jump to conclusions. I take the obvious at face value. The intent of your intitial remark was quite evident. You yourself at first attempted to play innocent and then your remarks bore out to clearly and without doubt demonstrate your intentions - exactly as I first estimated them. So you see, there was not a wild jump but rather a logical decution that bore out as fact.

I was correct.

I called out what you were doing, you denied it, and then proceeeded to do exactly what I said. Not only am I right but you made sure to prove my case. Thank you.

I do not need to know you nor do I want to do so. I have something better than your proclamations about yourself.

I have your actions.

And in action there is truth, in action there is the best reveal of all and you have revealed yourself to be exactly as I called it.

So you see, nothing else in this discussion is of slightest consequence. Nothing else you have to say matters nor is it worth my commenting nor my reading.

Why?

Because the initial issue, the initial disagreement between us turned out to be precisely as I first defined it. You and your agenda remark played out to the letter because your nature and original intent got the better of you.

Use that last bubble well because those will be your final remarks.

Dee_911355d ago (Edited 1355d ago )

Oh wow, now he's saying he doesn't have to read or respond to my comment.. Okay well feel free to stop reading here and ignore or block me. That would be the next step when someone says that usually.
Lets get something straight.Your accusing me of doing something that I would have no problem doing, so how the hell do I play innocent if I don't see having an agenda as something to be guilty of? Do you believe people with agendas have agendas for ill intentions? or do believe people have agendas because they actually believe in the cause of that agenda? You have a loose grip on reality if its the former.Your trying to make having an agenda out to be a bad thing, something you believe I would need to deny being part of.
Ahh crap you got me, you exposed my agenda of having the opinion that I don't believe those 2 idiots should be compared to a bigger idiot, aww shucks,you are indeed correct, your detective skills are ace mate! everything from here on is me back tracking, you called infinity, I can't count higher than that! you won mate!...
You failed to answer any of the 20+ questions I asked but I wont hold that against you because it would actually make you admit things...I find it incredibly funny that you start your comment off with " I don't jump to conclusions" then continue that comment off by saying you did exactly what the definition of drawing conclusion is..
I see that you can't admit to things.You can't admit to actually further explaining his comment despite the fact that you obviously did.. well you did actually tip toed around admitting it so i'll give you that, but now you can't admit to making assumptions, despite the fact that every thing you basically typed would classify your entire claim that I have an agenda to be you drawing conclusions.Maybe from now on I shouldn't accuse you of things so that you don't have to admit to anything?

"I do not need to know you nor do I want to do so. I have something better than your proclamations about yourself.

I have your actions. "

I said that to see your reaction to build your character and get to know you.. you know.. instead of jumping to assumptions and accusing people that I don't know of doing stuff based off a 9 worded question I read too much into.I don't know, maybe we have different moral etiquette, but I would rather get to know someone before accusing them of doing something as vile as having an agenda.Hey look at that I called it.. I said you like jumping to assumptions and that comment proved it.. You don't need to know someone to judge someone.. just jump to an assumption and accuse them of things immediately!! You did get that bit right../s

Are you going to keep your fingers in you ear say the same thing again for the third time or are you going to actually try to explain yourself? Are you going to explain whats wrong with having an agenda and why is it something I need to deny having? Are you going to explain how your explanation wasn't an elaboration of his original comment? Are you going to explain how you just knew in your bones that I keep up with my two heroes and their mishaps ?
Or are you just going to give
'I told you so', and ' I called infinity so I win' type of response?

The initial disagreement between us was that you couldn't further explain what he meant... then went on in your next comment to do so, then in your next response accused me if killing baby jesus..
I would have been perfectly content living with all my beautiful disagrees and never commenting on this article again.But somehow from that short innocent question is a big ugly evil agenda to you...
You have issues..
Wont sway you but look at that! I got morganfell to use most of his bubbles! Chalk that as a win for me!

morganfell1355d ago

For the last time, and this is your last time, the initial disagreement began because you had an agenda to defend your heroes from the very start. And you made that clear despite your earlier protestation.

Hypocritical to say the least.

Plenty of people have agendas for ill intentions. They also possess them for dishonest reasons as you have shown.

Actions are the great definer. As Buddha stated, you and your actions are one. It has a double meaning. One meaning deals with mushin as employed by great swordsmen of Japan. The other meaning applies here - your actions define you and you were spring loaded waiting with your baited question to leap to the defense of two crooks you erringly view as valiant people. What can you expect of a kid born in 91.

I admit plenty on this board including when I am wrong and have done so more than once. But in this case I have you nailed like a cheap 2 X 4.

I own you no explanation and you get nothing from me. I have done enough explaining to someone that isn't really interested in explanations or the truth for that matter. You just want to ask your springloaded gotcha question except this time it blew up in your face. Nice egg by the way.

If you want your questions answered try an education for a change. The fact you do not realize what a couple of charlatans Jackson and Sharpton are only proves you are the one with your fingers in your ear and a blindfold to boot.

A win for you? No a loss. A huge fat embarrassing loss. As you can see I still have a free comment, you do not. You remind me of some soldier that keeps trading shots with the enemy until he is out of ammo. He thinks he has won because he is out of rounds while the enemy still has enough left to blow a hole in him.

Fail.

Like your loaded question attempt that began this.

Fail.

Like your attempts to say that was not your goal then you proceeded to execute an agenda toward that goal.

Fail.

And you are wrong. The initial disagreement began because of one of the two conditions I mentioned. Living under a rock eh. No. We know that now. The OP gave plenty of information and if you cannot deduce what was meant by his analogy then you should have stayed in school. The world is a big place and when you cannot grasp even simple political inferences then you should check yourself into a home that cares for the diabled. Its a big blue ball out there. But then again, it was your agenda which you not only made clear but defended to your last bubble.

Fail.

Done and done.

Excuse me while I turn out the lights and take a victory lap.

+ Show (10) more repliesLast reply 1355d ago
mananimal1356d ago

@ MaxwellBuddha

not only that but she's a tool of the secret government....this is how they operate, they create these brainwashed opportunist like this cunt Anita, and they create chaos, then bring in "the thought police" and act as if they need to regulate and control gamer TROLLS.

The Government is sooooo corrupt, I promise you their blood dripping finger prints are all over these "false Flag" attacks in the gaming Industry.

Its all BS. just 1 more step towards "Totalitarianism".

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1355d ago
Reefskye1357d ago

People just need stop giving her hits and ignore her, by now most people know she isn't a gamer like she says she is. Stay away and she will have to find a real job.

vongruetz1357d ago

You know the sad thing is that the people who judge and criticize women the most are other women. From what they wear to their makeup to hairstyle, women are brutal to other women. I know they like to put on this sisterhood act, but man can they be harsh.

I know a ton of women would watch this video and the one thing they would say is "What is she wearing? A button up PLAID shirt?? What is she, a lumberjack? And she is supposed to speak for me??"

Whether they're "mean girls" in school or overly critical moms who judge other moms on everything, it's obvious that there's more to be concerned with than some guys voicing extreme opinions in a comments section.

And yes, a lot of times women are overly sexualized in games. And men are often depicted as brutal, uncaring psychopaths. Both are extremes.

n4gusername1357d ago

I bet she makes a mean sammich.

arbitor3651356d ago (Edited 1356d ago )

i love the double standard in feminism

"women should be able to wear as skimpy clothes as they want without criticism or harassment. the female body is beautiful and should not be hidden"

"all these women in skimpy clothes in the media is degrading and dehumanizing and shows that there is something deeply wrong and sexist about our culture"

apparently if we men like seeing the female body that means there is something wrong with us. Its not like its basic biology or anything

DefenderOfDoom21356d ago

Yeah, but women who wear skimpy clothes , does not mean that men have the right to beat and rape them.

crazysammy1356d ago

Well no shit. Thats not what he said at all. Reread it.

Mega241356d ago

Who the F#[email protected] is talking about beating and raping?!?

His only stating the truth about the double standard. Some women dress like street walkers (whores, prostitutes, etc.), now, when they do that, man can't even look at them because apparently we only have one thought, "Raping and Killing her". That's total bs. So I think I'm gonna dress like a male stripper and walk around like that, the moment a woman sees me, Ima start screaming that she wants to rape and kill me...

kremit-211356d ago

If your first thought of the sight of a scantily clad lady is to beat & rape, then you have some MAJOR psychological problems. Male or female that is sick line of thinking.

Show all comments (68)
The story is too old to be commented.