Friday, 20 September 2013

Anita Sarkeesian is Not a Real Gamer

I should've written about this sooner but, for the very first time, I can legitimately say, "I have a lot going on in my personal life right now", which is the blog-writer's way of saying, "college is time-consuming".

So let's get right into it with this: Anita Sarkeesian is not a real gamer. In her own words.

Back in 2010, Anita gave a lecture at Santa Monica College in California, where she stated, "I would love to play video games but I don't want to go around shooting people and ripping off their heads. It's just gross". So there we have it. In her own words, Anita states she doesn't -- or didn't, at least -- play video games. In spite of the photo of herself playing a Nintendo game as a child that she likes to show at every opportunity.

The video above became popular enough to gain 140,000 views (and counting). I'm a bit out of the loop so I don't know how this happened or who linked to it but I'm pleased it has received so much attention. In fact, it was popular enough for Anita to actually make a response (of sorts) to it.

A bunch of other tweets followed these that were in a similar vein. If you want to read them all, Anita helpfully posted the tweets to her Tumblr account, for reasons I'm not quite clear about. To clear the air, perhaps? Regardless of the reasons, it's silly that even while Anita herself said she wasn't a gamer and the original uploader of the video made it very clear he didn't hold any malice towards her, she still feels the need to blame "angry gamer dudes" (and games themselves, later on). I suppose it's natural to want to go on the attack when you're against the ropes.

It's worth noting that Anita may be telling the truth when she says she fell in and out of love with gaming. It's possible but we just don't know and the video footage of her saying "I would love to be a gamer" is greater evidence against her being a gamer than her word is for her being a gamer.

So what does this prove? Well, as the creator of the original video said, no, the fact that Anita isn't a gamer doesn't disprove or debunk her arguments in any way. People with no prior involvement in a subject can still research and investigate it. So if her arguments could be acceptable one way or the other, why go as far as to pretend to be a gamer?

My theory is that it adds legitimacy to her claims. Critics of Anita, like myself, have compared her to Jack Thompson in the past because of her insistence that video games have some non-descript influence on real-life behaviours and attitudes. However, Anita's arguments have been accepted and praised by mainstream sites and publications while Jack's were condemned and ignored. There are a few reasons for this; Anita doesn't make claims as outlandish as Jack's, for example, and isn't as aggressive in her delivery. There's still plenty of hostility and condescension but no claims that video games are "murder simulators". Her view is also politically correct, while Jack was openly homophobic. That's a big reason for it.

Anita being a gamer is certainly a factor here though; let's say someone was in her shoes who admitted to not being a gamer. "Feminist gamer criticises sexist tropes in games" is going to be given more coverage than "feminist criticises sexist tropes in games, in spite of having never held a controller in her life".

I've already ran into comments on Youtube defending Anita, obviously, although I suspect the ones I've seen are trolls. Naturally, I haven't seen any mainstream gaming sites pick up on this -- although the number of views for the video suggests that somewhere with a large readership reported on it -- and I doubt they will. They'll just quietly file it alongside the misquoted studies and use of other people's footage to continue to portray Anita as a figure who can do no wrong.

Still, at least we know why Anita doesn't like her lectures to be filmed now.

In other news, I've been doing a bunch of gender issues-related things at college. Today, we dealt with the stereotyping of certain groups in games. It wasn't at all in-depth, unfortunately, and men weren't mentioned. It was just basic stuff and the reason we were told not to do it, rather than because we should care about offending people, was because large-chested female characters simply aren't used in a portfolio when trying to get a job in the games industry. The same goes other things, including T-Rexes, for reasons that we haven't been told yet.

Also in college, a prick ruined GTAV for the entire class by revealing parts of the story. Just thought I'd mention that.

Oh, and I found an eyebrow-raising Jade Raymond quote from Develop magazine that I'll write about next time.


  1. I don't think Anita has a love/hate relationship for gaming. She's been going on and on about her love for gaming in her talks and she's been bringing up that photo of herself as a kid as proof of that and it's only after she got called out when she brings up the love/hate thing up?

    Also, I noticed her generalizations of videogames just being about shooting people and whatnot and she didn't compare them to the games she played in her childhood.

  2. And once again, she ignores any women who dare disagree with her, or even think that even if the points she raises are good ones, she still forms her arguments poorly, by putting everyone who disagrees with her under the header of "gamer dudes seeking to maintain the status quo". Aside from the fact that her message is far more palatable and the venom is milder, Ms. Sarkeesian and other liberal-minded censorship advocates have one thing in common with more conservatively-minded advocates of censorship. Both sides make a claim that anyone who would be against them is in some way deviant. In the case of Ms. Sarkeesian, though, it is not an existing norm that is being deviated from, but a belief in what the norm ought to be.

    It's what's seen with alternative medicine proponents and every Social Justice Warrior blog on Tumblr ever. It's not enough that critics just be wrong or just disagree, they must be monsters. Monsters with an ulterior, always evil motive, be it profit from Big Pharma, or just the fun of keeping the womenfolk down. This, among several other sticking points, is why I just can't agree with anyone who says that any of her videos are academic presentations.

    1. Yeah. Completely agreed. It's far more effective for Anita and her supporters to paint all her critics with the same brush. So we'll all have to get used to being called "angry gamer dudes", even if we're not angry, not dudes or possibly not even gamers in some cases.

      I like the comparison to alternative medicine. I know a lot of proponents in almost every group do this but yeah, it is typical of groups to portray their critics as being extremists rather than just in disagreement. I know all of that is stating the obvious but I didn't want to just say, "yep, you're right".

    2. It's also more convenient. If any critics of Ms. Sarkeesian are just "angry gamer dudes", then those critics can be safely ignored, or they can be made easy targets for ridicule. Painting all her critics with such a wide brush might not help her in the long run, but in the short term it helps her seem like the martyr that gaming journalism needs right now, which helps her temporarily.

      I thought that the alternative medicine thing fit because it was one of the other groups of people that I could think of where disagreeing with them meant that one was benefiting somehow. In the case of Alternative Medicine, the favorite thing to trot out is "you're on the payroll of Big Pharma" (If so, Big Pharma must've lost my mailing address; I've got student loans to pay). In the case of Ms. Sarkeesian, however, the accusations lean more toward "angry gamer dude seeking to uphold the status quo"...but no mention of "patriarchal paymasters" or accusing any women of not being women...yet.

    3. It does seem to be typical of how propaganda is created; identifying an "enemy" group, attributing problems to that group and then proceeding to villify and demonise them. Since it's male gamers in this case, female critics get ignored. Although I'd like to think Anita painting all her critics with such a wide brush will be damaging to her in the long run, I'm skeptical; we've seen how little criticism Anita faces from mainstream gaming sites. It's a lot to ask for a journalist from one of them to consider pointing out a flaw or two of hers.

      The alternative medicine analogy is certainly a good comparison but I've never had the chance to talk to any supporters of it (which may be for the best). It sounds like the arguments are very similar though, except for being on the payroll of Big Pharma (although if any evil patriarchal overlords are hiring, I am available). The blanket assumptions made about opposing groups don't hold up to even the slightest scrutiny though; I think it's pretty clear that female gamers who dislike Anita Sarkeesian don't want to "maintain a boys' club atmosphere", so it's much easier to pretend you don't exist. I'm past the point of being surprised that people who claim to support women also do an excellent job of refusing to listen to women's opinions if they don't match their own.

    4. I've started to ignore mainstream gaming sites since most of them tend not to care about gamers of any gender anyway. And Ms. Sarkeesian is the perfect thing for gaming journalism now. A lot of people want to think that there's a secret, shadowy Boys' Club seeking to keep the womenfolk down, and it's an easy narrative to sell. So of course she'll be propped up as the brave warrior fighting against Angry Gamer Dudes. As one of those womenfolk, I know better. I've been playing video games for years and maybe it's because I don't game online, I haven't encountered the abuse that others, male or female, have. It's part of this weird idea that women can't just choose to be interested in, or not be interested in something. There is supposedly an outside force that "pushes" women toward some things and away from others. Therefore, the road to things that women are pushed away from must be made easier for them to travel, and the road to things that women are pushed toward must be blocked off or otherwise made unpleasant to travel. I find this thinking bizarre, especially coming from people who call themselves feminists. It's a view that doesn't see women as adults but as children who need to be told what the "right" things and the "wrong" things are.

      It probably is for the best that you haven't talked to any supporters of alternative medicine. Many of them are decent people when they talk about anything else, but when they argue about that specific subject, they tend to fall back on conspiratorial charges and sometimes straight-up lies, including the assumption that any critics of alt. med. are on the payroll of Big Pharma. So far, there aren't accusations of Evil Patriarchal Paymasters or accusing female critics of Ms. Sarkeesian of not really being female. Sometimes, I am surprised when people who claim to be about supporting women turn around and shut out women whose opinions don't line up with theirs, but mostly it arouses sadness with a good bit of disgust rolled in, since these are the people who say they're all about supporting women, but what they really mean is women who agree with them on every single point.

  3. I find that the reason this is a big deal is not simply that Gamers are an audience that are particularly defensive against 'outsiders' telling them games are bad and doing terrible things to them- making them sexist, violent, anti-social etc. It's also because, as such an interactive medium, its one that can't really be understood well by those who haven't engaged in the mechanics of it.

    Without playing a variety of games it's easy to overlook the fact that not only are there very diverse gameplaying experiences but there are also many different ways to play those games. Some gamers play to get absorbed in a story, others to test their skills and some just to kill time. If you don't understand how people play games its easy to make flawed generalisations about the 'effects of gaming' on people and thus we get too many opinions based on the assumption that games 'instruct' people how to do things when there is almost as tangible a disconnect between pressing a button to make a gun shoot and watching an actor shoot a gun in a movie.

    Anyway, I've probably said this before but Anita could do herself some favours if she made some effort to show herself to be a gamer who, you know, actually enjoys playing at least one or two particular games. If she showed a little more of herself in one or two [side] videos where she maybe did a brief Let's Play through a game she supports- Beyond Good & Evil, Portal, Mirror's Edge etc. or something she'd likely silence a lot of the suspicions about her. Of course there'd certainly be a few people who'd ridicule her competency or style of gaming but then she's already well aware of their existence. Hell, she could kill two birds with one stone here and collaborate with one of the many gaming podcasters to show she's capable of engaging in dialogue with others while talking about games.

    Or she could just stick with her current schedule of making appearances where she talks about games impersonally in order to address issues of feminism in the world...

    P.S. Don't you know the T-Rex is pretty much the privileged white male of the Dinosaur World? Instead, use a Triceratops, Pterodactyl or, even better, an Ankylosaurus.

    1. Some very good points in there. Especially about T-Rex privilege. We really need to do something about that Tyranniarchy.

      I think you hit the nail on the head when describing why gamers are sceptical of games being critiqued. I also like your idea about Anita recording a Let's Play or engage in a dialogue with others about games, even if they have nothing to do with gender issues. The thing is, whenever I've seen suggestions like that, I've read responses from Anita's fans like, "she doesn't have to do that," and then talk about how sexist it is that she has to "prove herself".

      It's true that she doesn't have to do that but it'd be nice of her to do more than the bare minimum. It shouldn't be controversial or offensive to suggest she take a break from gender issues and talk about games she likes once in a while, or make a video showing it. It'd be nice for her, it'd be nice for her fans, so I don't see the problem. Also, while part of it is about wanting Anita to "prove herself" -- although I think that's a bit of a grandiose term, since it's just about wanting to see Anita play a game she likes -- it's not sexist to want to know more about someone who has a lot to say about a sensitive subject but very little to say about herself.

  4. it's gonna sound completely obligatory (and not very polite to point out), but it has to be stated. choose what to make of it on your own.

    this is exactly what guys have been saying about girl gamers for the past decade.

    1. There is a certain truth to your statement and I know several male gamers who made that kind of claim at some point in the past. However, every time I witnessed that use, it was more a statement about video games in general than about the sex of the player: hardcore gamers mocking casual and daily-sim games as not being real games. "Yeah, well, she plays The Sims, but that's hardly a game, she's not a real gamer yet claims everywhere she's a geek, waah, waah."
      This tells more about the perception among male gamers of a certain type of games (those which used to entertain a more female audience) as well the inability to realise in hindsight that not all games have to provide the same form of entertainment they are used to.

      And know what, I can understand part of their reasoning there. Casual games which can be played by everyone don't require the same investment in the whole gaming scene as some other games. People want to feel superior, especially when they have invested so much of their life into all kinds of complicated games, so they won't enjoy being grouped together with other, less "serious" gamers. This is childish and a tad ridiculous but understandable and not really related to sexism, yet certain feminist gamers tend to think sexism is the main mechanic at work here. It is not.

      Now, one can argue that I'm being sexist by claiming that girls used to enjoy casual and sim games over other games. I know the burden of proof is on me, and I'm not being very rational by putting my personal experience first. If statistics exist, I indeed assume they'll prove me right because that's my perception of the whole situation. Still, I'm not saying that's the case anymore: games and gamers have all matured, and I'm not sure that you can find meaningful statistical differences today, except maybe in the sport and first-person shooter genres.

      Again, this is my experience, that of someone who doesn't play competitive multiplayer games, where the "girl = not real gamer" is not used in the same way. There, it is rather a (condemnable) way to childishly annoy and unsettle other players based on their differences; here, sex; in many other cases, country of origin or disabilities.

      Of course, on top of that, there are real, moronic and baffling sexists who really think that girls can't be gamers because they think too different and can't enjoy existing games as well as any future game made to cater to female audiences because those aren't real games. Frankly, I don't think there are many of those. I met someone like that once, he was an asshole from A to Z and sexism was the least of his problems.

  5. Your hateboner for this woman is astounding.

    1. Well that added a lot to the conversation.

      Although I'm not a fan of Anita's work, I certainly don't hate her.

    2. Dude, half your blog posts are about this women. You obviously have a rather creepy obsession with her. You seriously feel the need to take her down a peg.

      Admit it or get help.

    3. Considering she is a very prominent individual (if not the most prominent) when it comes to gender issues in video games (this blog's purpose) and that she thrives off of controversy it's really no surprise she turns up here so often.

      If you want to critique any of the arguments or articles written by the individual that runs this blog that are about Anita then you're free to do so and I'm sure the author will address your concerns. However, until then you're just complaining for the sake of complaining and adding nothing constructive to the discussion.

    4. I'm adding nothing constructive to the discussion? Wow, this is what being a men's rights activist feels like.

    5. Look, I don't normally block people but if you don't have anything to add to the discussion, there's no reason not to. I don't care even if you're commenting with the typical adoration of Anita Sarkeesian that we see elsewhere online, as long as you're contributing something.

      The fact is, as Cpt. Cool said, Anita is a very prominent figure when it comes to gender issues in video games. I would also like to state again that I certainly don't hate her and have actually defended her on issues that other people would happily criticise her for (such as the accusation that Jonathan McIntosh is the brains behind the Feminist Frequency operation). Even in the blog post above, I mentioned that not being a gamer wouldn't affect any of Anita's arguments.

      I do my best to remain objective regarding people and save personal feelings for arguments. I invite you to do the same.

  6. Gasp! Are you saying you're gonna start blocking the comment section? Censoring the debate! Censoring the debate!

    Of course you're the one that's actually pulling the "Fake geek girl" like a simpering manchild. If you can't get it through your head why Anita didn't want to admit to a group of people that she's a gamer, you haven't been fucking paying attention to what happens to women when they do.

    1. He never said he was going to block the comments section, just you. And since you've shown yourself to listen to nothing that anyone else says and would rather throw out insults, I'd say that's an appropriate response.

      Of course, Anita doesn't have to prove anything to anyone technically, but that doesn't mean her actions won't affect the way people view her.

    2. @notactuallyhere
      There were several people disagreeing with this blog already and to my knowledge nobody was blocked. If you're honestly concerned about censoring of open debates, how about you complain to Anita? The only reason he suggested to block you is because you didn't offer anything. And someone who does nothing to further the debate but still interferes with it does more damage than the one blocking him.

      If she was afraid of backlash for playing videogames in her own class, why is she willing to admit it for a public of millions? Nevermind you never provided any evidence whatsoever what women saying they're gamers receive as backlash.

      Incidentally, I think there is now less reason to get you out of the debate, as you made at least a point.

    3. This isn't a debate. It's trolling. I've had people I've disagreed with comment on my blog before but didn't censor them because they were actually more than whiny, attention-seeking trolls.

      I also never said Anita was a "fake geek girl" and, even if I did, I don't see the correlation between that and "simpering manchild". All I did was quote Anita herself. Plus, 45% of gamers are female according to the ESA so clearly, women aren't as afraid to "out" themselves as gamers as you think. Maybe you should give women more credit.

      It's clear that you didn't read the blogpost above and are not interested in reasonable debate. So all of your comments following this one are going to be marked as spam and I recommend nobody reply to notactuallyhere anymore (since your replies will then be deleted too).

    4. You make a blog post titled "Anita Sarkeesian is not a real gamer" and then claim you aren't on the fake geek girl train? Wow.

    5. Two commentors in the same day who have a problem with my blog but neither one bothers to write anything beyond a snark? That's quite a coincidence.

      This blog post was named after the Youtube video of the same name that I embedded above. If you'd read more than just the title, you'd have noticed that I actually stated "Anita may be telling the truth when she says she fell in and out of love with gaming". Again, all I did was quote Anita herself. She said herself that she wasn't a gamer, so why exactly am I getting the flack for writing about her own statement?

      I recommend your next comment have a bit more substance, since I'm clearly flypaper for trolls today.

    6. Try putting yourself in a woman's shoes for five minutes.

      Every day you get nothing but flak for playing games. Men constantly challenge you on the fact. They require you to "prove" your loyalty both online and in person. They go out of their way to yell at you online and send you dirty PMs. They see you as an outsider, a trespasser. And they constantly monitor you for any sort of deviation they can call you on.

      And then when you get tired of it and just give up for a bit, they see that as proof that you're a manipulative bitch. And then they think YOU are the bad guy.

      And imagine you need to deal with that EVERY DAY. Not every once in awhile. Not once in a blue moon. It's a constant, oppressive atmosphere.

      That's the culture you're propagating RIGHT NOW. Oh sure, you might tack on a bunch of "If's" and "But's" and a veil of pseudointellectualism but you have come out and waved a video out in front of you and tried using it as a way of painting a woman in a negative light because she has the gall to have a completely realistic attitiude towards the crap a woman needs to deal with.

    7. You're acting like I've never met a female gamer before. Or chatted to any online. Or read many blogs, posts and articles describing their experiences of sexism, or lack thereof. To say that every day, this happens to every female gamer is a gross and unrealistic exaggeration. Moreover, you're taking the classic stance of treating male gamers as hostile, territorial beasts who don't want those "outsiders" invading their space. You're not the only one either; if you really want to see an entire sex treated like the "bad guy", there are a few Jim Sterling and Rock, Paper, Shotgun articles you might want to read.

      It'd be nice if the people who claimed to support female gamers and women in the games industry stopped treating them like helpless children for a while. It'd be nice if they were considered individuals, capable of forming their own, separate opinions rather than a homogenous, oppressed entity. Anita's opinion isn't the only one out there and certainly not the only female gamer opinion I value. So I have to ask, how am I propagating any kind of anti-female gamer culture by sometimes taking issue with this one female gamer's opinion? She doesn't represent female gamers, women, feminism or any other group. She's simply Anita Sarkeesian.

      Plus, I have no idea how simply writing about something Anita herself said suddenly makes me the bad guy. Here is how this particular debate, if you want to call it that, has gone:

      Anita: "I would love to be a gamer."
      Me: "She said she wasn't a gamer."
      You: "How dare you say a woman isn't really a gamer!"

      There's an illogical leap being made here just to claim offence, over something said by Anita herself.

      Also, I've never really made any attempt to appeal to an academic crowd with this blog, so I don't know whether to be flattered or dismissive of the pseudointellectualism point.

  7. (longtime reader here. I decided to de-lurk to give some of my thoughts).

    I can't tell if the Anita-supporters here are actually trolls or sincerely believe in what they're saying.

    I'm consistently amazed by Sarkeesian's ability to put the blame on others instead of rebutting the facts presented in the video. If she believed in the strength of her conviction, she could easily point out which "fact" in the video was "misrepresented" instead of accusing others of being dudebros or something (or admit that she was wrong and revise her points from there). If she really believed in the strength of her conviction, she would not be waving her victimhood like a flag.

    There's definitely a difference in the way males and females are treated in video games, but Sarkeesian is not the person to be talking about this difference, given her shifty researching methods and now this video. Also, anyone who says Sarkeesian's videos are academic has never read academic papers or do independent research.

    (just in case someone accuses me of being a dudebro, I'd like to point out I'm 100% female)

    1. She wasn't replying to that video with those comments. They where completely separate instances with no association that the blogger here thought where linked.

    2. Really? When the date that video was posted and the date those tweets were posted were only a day apart? When her second tweet said "I’ve been told I’m “not a gamer” ever since I can remember" and that video is titled "Anita Sarkeesian is Not a Real Gamer?" I find it hard to believe she *wasn't* referring to that video when she made those tweets, given that it got a pretty decent amount of views shortly after being posted (it made its round on tumblr too).

    3. "Sarkeesian is not the person to be talking about this difference, given her shifty researching methods and now this video."

      I agree, but who else can reach the infamy and notoriety that Anita has reached at this point while also providing arguments that are backed up by facts and not completely half-assed? Who in the industry can be just as famous as her and not come off as confrontational?

    4. People who are, frankly, too busy making video games.

  8. I think "Alma" is "notactuallyhere" under a different name, or at least a friend(from the same area of the web), and I bet either they have the same IP or one of them is using an anonymyzer.

    Regardless, you are being disrespected and trolled.
    Neither of these idiots (assuming they are not the same person) has given you the 'benefit of the doubt' on your own blog.
    Even though your language has been measured and respectful and your argument as presented in your post logical and fact based (you have links), neither of them has done crap all to counter your arguments.

    Instead they've either played the "woe is poor little me" card, or tried to shame you.

    You've had a few big disagreements with people on your blog before. But I don't remember anyone being so openly condescending, dismissive, insulting, and unable to stick to the topic of the post.

    I'd ban Alma, and ANY post from now on that ever begins with personal insults or accusations.

    Just my two cents.

    1. I have the right to be angry.

      Just because someone says something in a measured tone doesn't mean it's not laced with venom.

    2. I completely agree, ClarenceComments. Debating is fine but by willingly ignoring the facts to prove a point -- such as repeatedly stating that I'm "accusing" Anita of things she said herself -- there's no real point in having this debate. There's just reactionary responses and attacks from "Alma". Just confrontation, rather than discussion. So it's another person for the spam folder.

      Thank you to ClarenceComments and Hoolius McHoolia for commenting though. I'm very pleased to have you as readers.

    3. Admin, no offense, but I can't help but notice: didn't you get kicked out of TVTropes for doing the same sort of things Alma was doing?

    4. I had a feeling that if I told my experiences as a female gamer where I didn't get flak from other guys and was even invited to play with them, they probably wouldn't count in Alma's eyes because I wasn't online playing a FPS or whatever game Alma was playing.

    5. Nettacki - If you're that interested in learning why I was banned, go to page 143 of the "Edit banned/suspended" topic on TV Tropes.

    6. So you got banned for constantly trying to play oppression Olympics, and your reply was to try playing Oppression Olympics?

    7. Where did he play Oppression Olympics? Especially in the "Edit banned/suspended" topic his point was never that some people had it worse than others. It's just really hard to argue about men's rights almost everywhere, without automatically being called misogynistic, as the thread very much displays.

    8. What is with the trolls over the last couple of days? Don't get me wrong, I'm happy for the site traffic, but I'm just interested to know where they're coming from. My traffic sources don't turn up anything concrete.

      DragonElle, in case you'd like to know why your comment was deleted, suggesting that all MRAs are misogynists is no more accurate than saying all feminists are man-haters. Just like on TV Tropes, I take offence to that suggestion. Unlike on TV Tropes, I'm able to ban people who make that claim.

      I'd also like to point out that I was suspended on TV Tropes not for playing "Oppression Olympics" but simply because my posts were reported. There were plenty of other members on both sides of the debate playing "Oppression Olympics" but while people such as myself and esteban 009 were suspended, members like King Zeal, Shirow Shirow and Imca are still around.

      Besser, I apologise that your comment was deleted as a result of marking DragonElle's comments as spam. I know it must seem like I'm ban-happy lately and I'm sorry about that. However, being polite and reasonable doesn't seem like a lot to ask in my opinion.

    9. You might think that being polite is a big deal, but being polite is easy for you ain't it? You don't get angry because you have no reason to be angry. You've already won.You don't have to live your life watching over your shoulder in fear or needing to talk twice as loudly to be taken half as seriously.

      You live your life somehow thinking that someone calling you a dick is equivalent to someone calling a woman a cunt. You think that someone calling out men for being assholes is offensive to you because they don't specifically say "Except these ones right here. They're alright." You've never needed to hide your gender online for fear of people harassing you over it.

      And you think some people angrily telling you the truth is somehow equivalent to you calmly telling other people lies.

    10. I like how you make blind assumptions with nothing to back it up. "It's different for women" is something that needs some evidence. And, of course, saying he lies without any examples of where he lied.

      And I was deleting my post already, so doesn't really matter.

  9. Your blindness to your own privilege continues to astound me. I think that sentence right there, with you asking for evidence about how the lives of women are different when their are countless articles, books and studies that state quite clearly that they are VERY DIFFERENT is like the face of your little movement here.

    1. The difference in lives of people of different genders isn't in question here. It is when they both experience essentially the same, yet it somehow is still worse for women, when you require evidence.

  10. Jesus freaking Christ, Kevin:
    Grow the fuck up.
    You don't go into someone's home and INSULT them.
    You don't get to hang bigotry and privilege onto someone else (whom you don't know from a fucking hole -in the head) and use that as an excuse to insult them because of your own immaturity or maybe even bigotry and prejudice.
    I don't see how this would turn ANY reasonable person to your cause, or to thinking your 'issues' were worth exploring.

    Here's the thing: I haven't seen you or your banned buddies even TRY to make a coherent argument, link to any verifiable facts or in other ways engage the topic of this post. Instead you've focused on attacking the messenger.

    I recommend you read these rules:
    And then you should ask yourself if you have the intelligence or maturity to argue coherently, fairly, and rationally under such conditions.
    I bet the answer is no.

    And I'm willing to bet that the real reason your 'side' is not actually arguing the facts of this post but is instead arguing unfalsifiable bullshit and personal insults against the blogger is because... you can't.

    I dare you to prove me wrong.

    1. I got no reason to prove you wrong. Nor do I have motivation to.

      Indeed, it is wrong to come into a place about one gender's rights and start talking about the other gender's problems constantly.

      I completely agree.

    2. It's kind of funny that you take the high ground about how tactless it is to complain about one sexes' problems on a site based around the other sexes' issues only after leaving two comments doing just that. Then more-or-less saying you don't have to prove those two statements.

      Still, I'm honestly not bothered. Kevin, if you're polite and sensible enough to step away from the discussion without being banned, more power to you.

    3. Oh man oh man.

      If you think the sexualization of men is a problem then THAT'S a problem... Men actually have the OPTION of not being sexualized. It's a privelege of theirs.

      Women. Don't. The percentage of women that are sexualized in gaming means the ones that aren't sexualized are the minority. Meanwhile, the percentage of men that are sexualized in gaming means the ones that ARE sexualized are a minority.

      And there are far more male characters then there are female characters.

      You see where I'm going with this?

      You have no idea how good you got it and you're still saying that you have it as bad.

    4. Now, that's just a perfect example of Oppression Olympics. "Women have it worse, therefore you can't care for men" is basically what you are saying. Unless you want to argue that sexualization is only a problem when it happens to a minority of characters in a given demographic. In which case it's pointless to complain about a single occurence of it. That's beside you assuming without evidence again that women get sexualized more often than men in percentages.

    5. Meant to say majority when it says minority there.

    6. This comment has been removed by the author.

    7. Kevin, I'm afraid I'm going to have to stop you there, partly because I don't want to keep this debate going with just the two of us here -- I think it's insensitive to other readers and kind of arrogant for us to do this back-and-forth all evening-- but also partly because I've just checked your Blogger profile (and DragonElle's, Alma Heppler's and notactuallyhere's) and I've noticed that they all list, "On Blogger since September 2013".

      I didn't really believe that it was a coincidence that so many different comments from different trolls showed up over the course of a few days and, thanks to you, I'm able to see why ban-dodging is frowned upon in so many forums. If you want answers to your last debate comment, feel free to browse the blog for them. I've said many times that I want more variation in character designs in general, which sexualisation plays a part in. I don't think I've ever stated that male characters have it "as bad" but, when you're making the claim that men are "rarely to never" sexualised, we're a long way away from a reasoned debate.

      I have to leave a few of your comments, for the sake of other people's replies, but that's all. Please don't sign up with another pseudonym.

  11. Since this seems to be getting a bit out of hand, if any of my regular readers think it would be best to just walk away and finish the debate, I can just switch Comment Moderation on and put an end to it. Personally, I'd prefer not to do that because I'm fine with an argumentative comments section as long as nobody is offended or insulted.

    Having said that, you guys come first. If this debate -- if you can call it that -- risks alienating any readers, it would obviously be best to put an end to it.

    1. You shouldn't worry so much about alienating readers. People reading your blog appreciate the logic you put in what you write and can see through the façade of anyone who tries to bring circular arguments for the sake of destabilizing you into the debate.

      I would personally love to see some of your opponents contribute to the discussion with level-headed arguments and a good understanding of what you've written until now. So far it hasn't happened, but on the off-chance that it might happen, leaving comments open seems to be the better solution.

      Anyway, maybe I'm just speaking for myself, but it's very easy to see through notactuallyhere/DragonElle/Alma Heppler/Kevin Wade's brand of reasoning and you don't have to worry about your readers being misled by them.

    2. I agree. Don't let the trolls weigh you down.

    3. Don't worry about alienating anyone. At the same time, if people come along with reasonable arguments, even if given somewhat aggressively, do not ignore them completely.