My Dealings With Feminist Frequency

Perhaps "my lack of dealings with Feminist Frequency" would be a better title, since getting into contact with either Anita Sarkeesian herself or any of the colleagues she works with on her video series is more difficult than performing brain surgery, but I think it's worth writing about my attempts to do so. It's probably more accurate to say that this blog post is about Anita's propensity to silence her critics not through rebuttals and counter-arguments but through stonewalling and dismissal.

Why is this so important to spotlight? Well, Anita has made a lot of self-congratulatory statements about how the abusive comments on her video "failed to silence her", such as at her TEDxWomen talk and on her blog. Let's put aside the fact that Anita faced an obligation from Kickstarter to continue with her project or she could've faced legal action according to the site's terms and conditions -- so she could've ended up on the receiving end of a lawsuit if she was "silenced" -- and focus on how Anita and/or her Feminist Frequency colleagues don't have any issue with silencing others.

There are a few problems with this; Anita's fans probably think it's petty of me to bring this up and are sure that Anita only silences people who send abusive messages in her direction. Anita's critics, meanwhile, have probably already seen that the comments on her Youtube videos have been disabled, so there's no point in writing about this. I'm preaching to the choir.

Well to Anita's fans, I promise I'm not pointing this out to be petty. There is a serious point to be made and I have proof that Anita does not only silence abusive messages. As for Anita's critics, I understand why you'd be skeptical but there's a lot more to Feminist Frequency's censorship than disabling Youtube comments, so maybe there'll be some new information you're unfamiliar with.

Let's start with that though; if you've been following Anita's videos at all, you'll know that she disables comments on her Youtube videos, ostensibly because she doesn't want to receive abusive comments. She does the same on feministfrequency.com too.

You probably already know about those two but that's just the start. There's a contact page on feministfrequency.com where, obviously, you can get in touch with Anita. In the middle of last year, before I started writing this blog, that's exactly what I did.

Since this was before I knew I'd be writing a blog like this, I didn't take any screenshots of my message to Anita (and because contacting Anita involves filling out a form, there isn't a record in my own "sent" folder). Basically, I wrote a message to Anita that was very respectful and asked if she would be interested in answering a few questions and I did make it clear that they would involve facing some of the criticism that had been sent in her direction. Also, because Anita specifies that members of the press and people who want to book her for lectures and workshops should say so in their messages, I wrote that I was interested in reading her answers to a few questions because I was hoping to get a job with my regional newspaper. At the time, that was true; my regional newspaper rarely updated its "Games & Technology" section, so I figured I'd be a good fit. As it turned out, neither they nor Anita responded to my e-mails, so it was all a moot point anyway.

As it stands now, nothing I've written above sounds like too big a deal; Anita is free to do what she likes with her videos and website, so disabling comments is her prerogative, isn't it? As for the e-mails, perhaps Anita's inbox was so clogged with messages that she never had a chance to read mine, or maybe she read it and wasn't interested, so she never sent a reply. She doesn't owe me a reply, after all.

While that's all true, things take a darker turn when we look at the Feminist Frequency Facebook page. The Facebook page is significant because it's the only place online that's run by Anita or her Feminist Frequency colleagues where you can actually comment on Feminist Frequency. The comments are open, unlike on the Feminist Frequency Youtube videos and feministfrequency.com. Unfortunately, they're also heavily moderated and very quick to start blocking people and not just to stamp out abuse.

The first time I noticed the comments on the Feminist Frequency page were open, it had just been updated with a link to an article on "Mansplaining" and I decided to stop by to voice my opinion. I was blocked after three comments. Once again, I'm sorry, but I didn't take any screenshots of my comments; it was only after this that I realised I should keep a record every time I was in contact with Feminist Frequency because it might not be there the next time I looked. Firstly, I asked if it was "mansplaining" to suggest that Anita answered the criticism that had been directed towards her. I received a reply saying that Anita didn't have to answer my criticism, to which I responded that I was actually referring to criticism from LeoPirate -- one of Anita's backers that left criticism of her on Youtube -- and not my own criticism. That was the first comment to be deleted and the person that responded to me deleted their own comment.

The third comment I left was in response to someone else, a male commenter called Nick -- his comment has since been deleted but I managed to find mine in my history -- who was full of praise for Anita but disagreed with the term "mansplaining". He felt like it was too confrontational. He would've preferred it if it was called something else, something more gender-neutral. Immediately, Nick was leapt on, he was called a mansplainer himself, I believe they questioned his right to have any say, since he was male and "mansplaining" was a term that described him perfectly according to the responses. I decided to come to his defence, with this:

"'Scuse me, Nick, I have to mansplain your response to the people below you ...

All Nick was doing was questioning if the word was helpful to the feminist movement. Are you really all jumping on him for not falling in line and pledging unquestioning allegiance to a word? That sounds closer to fascism than feminism."

I'll admit that my comments were a bit snarky but I thought it was on-point. This was the comment that ultimately got me blocked from the Feminist Frequency Facebook page. Nick replied to my comment before it was deleted and said thank you for understanding, which I was pleased about, and also made sure to repeat that he was a feminist. His comments were removed too before long and I haven't seen a comment of his since.

After this, I started keeping an eye out for any other comments that were likely to be removed but weren't abusive. I'm very happy to say that I found some. Spot the difference between these two screengrabs from Facebook. For the sake of privacy, I've blocked the identities of the people listed (blue for comments by men, pink for comments by women, purple if I wasn't sure):

It seems like "Annie NoMous" is a pseudonym -- not only does it sound very close to "anonymous" but I checked this person's profile at the time and it was completely blank -- but still, I can't see any reason why their comment was deleted other than the fact that it dared to question Anita Sarkeesian. "Annie" isn't alone either. Take a look at this. The first picture was taken on the 27th of May and the second one was taken yesterday:

Jason Wilkins here is an interesting case because even though his original comment was deleted, he wasn't blocked from commenting on the Facebook page. Anita -- or, if not her, whoever runs the Feminist Frequency Facebook page -- took issue with the suggestion that the Tropes Vs Women videos could be improved by (shock! Horror!) pointing out violence against men in the games featured in the video series. Incidentally, if you're interested, the video he linked to in his comment (twice, accidentally) was KiteTales' rebuttal to Anita's second Damsels In Distress video.

Regardless of how you felt about the comment from "Annie NoMous", can you honestly say that Jason Wilkins' comments deserved to be deleted? He was nothing but courteous and showered Anita's goals with praise. However, because he pointed out that Anita could be doing a better job than she was -- and a more equal job at that -- his comments were quietly, unceremoniously deleted. So how does it work? If Anita is showered with praise, her critic gets off with a warning but if they outright oppose her, they're given the full Stalin-esque "unperson" treatment?

For all of Anita's boasts about abusive comments "failing to silence" her, she has no qualms about silencing others at the drop of a hat. It's about as hypocritical as it gets but it's also no secret why she does it; if it makes Anita look bad, it's getting deleted. Think about it:

• Youtube comments
• feministfrequency.com comments
• E-Mails
• Facebook comments

Oh, and case you didn't know, Anita Sarkeesian's Wikipedia page is completely missing a "Criticism" section, unlike the vast majority of other public figures who analyse anything, not just popular culture. I'd also like to post the relevant part here, just on the off-chance that her page is updated with a Criticism section in the future but someone happens to read this blog afterwards.

(Left-click for a larger view.)

As if all that wasn't enough, Anita has censored herself on occasions when she feels like she's made herself look bad; she removed her Bayonetta video from Youtube after she realised that her dumbing-down of the story, missing the point of the main character's sexualisation and clear lack of experience actually playing the game made her come off poorly. It seems to be a similar case with her university research paper, "I'll Make A Man Out Of You: Strong Women In Science Fiction And Fantasy Television", where her famous take on masculine and feminine traits came from. It was once hosted on feministfrequency.com but she has since removed it. Feel free to download it here!

You see, Feminist Frequency is built on censorship and silencing. It's very image-based, with Anita portraying herself as an almost-flawless central figure. On its own, without Anita's boasts about the abusive critics "failing to silence her", disabling Youtube comments and not answering e-mails seems fine. That's up to her to do. With those boasts, however, censoring perfectly polite and rational criticism is the most hypocritical thing Anita could've done. People telling others that Anita's aren't all cracked up to be? That's a failing on her part, sure, but it's one that can be fixed. Censoring the people who are bringing that up, after singing your own praises about failing to be silenced? Hypocrisy.

Let's finish with something fun. After I was blocked from Facebook, I took a screenshot of the comments section of the "mansplaining" article that Anita linked to and it's interesting to see the comments that made the cut when mine were deleted. If you thought the comment Jason Wilkins was replying to above was ridiculous -- I was astounded to find that someone out there actually uses the word "womyn" -- take a look at a selection of the others that made it. I'd post all of them but the picture would be far too big:

Yeah, criticising Anita is off-limits but "going crazy with a baseball bat" is welcomed under the Feminist Frequency banner. You should see some of the comments I had to cut.

As always, feel free to leave a comment below (you won't be silenced!) or send me an e-mail at themalesofgames@gmail.com (I ... might ignore that. I don't check it every day).

The Microsoft "Rape" Joke at E3

This isn't what I planned to write but I've been thinking about it all morning and I've got more to say on the subject than I realised. For those of you who don't know, Microsoft showed footage from the upcoming Killer Instinct reboot (sequel?) on stage for its conference a couple of days ago and during a match between a man and a woman, this joke was made:

Basically, the female player was losing heavily and her male opponent at one point uses the phrase "just let it happen, it'll be over soon". Cue internet outrage.

First of all, although I didn't find the "joke" funny, I didn't think it was about rape either. That, however, was the conclusion that legions of gamers and game journalists came to immediately after it happened. The idea being that the phrase "just let it happen, it'll be over soon" sounded like something a rapist would say during a rape.

Or possibly something a torture victim would be told during torture. Or a doctor might tell you during an uncomfortable medical procedure. Or a colleague might jokingly tell you during an awkward lunch with your boss. I can recall being told something similar by my parents when I went to a wedding as a kid and got bored during the speeches.

People are free to interpret that line as a rape joke if they like though. Even though it shows an unwillingness to accept different interpretations and give the benefit of the doubt, the phrase being interpreted as a rape joke isn't what bothers me. It's fine and, if that's how you feel, I'm also sorry if it offends you. I hate being offended myself and don't enjoy other people feeling offended. What does bother me is people thinking it's indicative of a larger epidemic of sexism in the gaming industry. That's what these two articles claim, unfortunately.

On its own, I probably wouldn't have much to say about the claim that rape jokes represent sexism against women in the games industry. At this point, I think we've come to expect that reaction. What I want people to take note of is just how low an opinion of women the writers of those two articles have decrying the rape joke.

Personally, when I saw the Killer Instinct gameplay, I figured that maybe the female gamer hadn't played it before. Maybe blocking in Killer Instinct is a fiddly thing to do; I found blocking to be tricky when I played the Injustice: Gods Among Us demo, so my mind immediately went to that. I thought the female player's difficulty was either to do with her opponent's experience, her own inexperience or Killer Instinct itself.

Those two articles I linked to, on the other hand, decide to bring gender into things. Take a look at these quotes:

"In this scripted event the man, of course, kicks the woman's ass at the fighting game. "I can't even block correctly and you're too fast," she says, playing a video game like a girl."

"There's another layer of troubling to this - bringing out a man who worked on the game to beat on a woman (the only woman presenter, I've read, but I did not watch the entire presentation to be sure) feels an awful lot like an attempt to reinforce the 'girls can't play games' elitism that permeates the lower strata of game culture."

These two articles, from The Atlantic Wire and Badass Digest, are quick to try and brand the woman a victim, as well as judge her skills as a gamer and enforce gender stereotypes about the way she plays. They're quickest to draw conclusions about Microsoft's intent, the male player and the male audience members who laughed at the joke:

"That this is the trash talk that a man feels comfortable directing at a woman on a stage in front of thousands of people says an awful lot about that man. That people laughed says an awful lot about that crowd."

"And even if it's not conscious, there's a boy's club mentality to gaming that ends up making women feel very uncomfortable."

Essentially, the writer of the Badass Digest article, Devin Faraci, is quick to brand people sexists because they laughed at something he didn't find funny. Nothing more.

I'm not defending a rather petty, unfunny joke but I am willing to defend a bunch of innocent people from being victimised for enjoying some playful trash talk. Faraci writes about elitism and goes on to say that the rape joke was "indicative of a larger cancer eating away at the gaming community". The only cancer eating away at the gaming community is the game journalists who feel increasingly comfortable insulting people who they disagree with, whether it's George Kamitani of Dragon's Crown fame, the male player of Killer Instinct at E3 or even the portion of the audience who enjoyed the joke.

As for the female player, Ashton "Vulcan" Williams, what did she think of the joke?

I came across the Williams' name in this follow-up article from The Atlantic Wire, which is a mess of contradictions; the writer, Rebecca Greenfield, acknowledges that Williams doesn't care. She quotes this progressive female poster from Reddit, who didn't care. Yet Greenfield, still has the gall to write, "this kind of 'smack talk' not only alienates female would-be gamers but also mimics the rampant sexual harassment in gamer culture". She still makes assumptions about why Williams doesn't care with, "so maybe Ashton Williams doesn't mind the rape joke because she's so used to putting up with that kind of stuff just to make it in the gamer world".

Greenfield's justification for this attitude?

"Yes, gamers talk like this all the time. Others responding to the Xbox exchange, particularly on Reddit, note that gamers — even girl gamers — tend to use similar phrasing all the time while playing, which by their logic makes the E3 incident acceptable."

Okay, so why is their logic wrong but your logic right? They're both opinions so why does Rebecca Greenfield's call for a moratorium on rape jokes make more sense than simply telling people not to care about a throwaway phrase between friends while playing a game? Given that the person on the receiving end of the "rape joke" didn't care, that seems like the more sensible option.

There's a tone involved in articles like these that suggests if you don't agree with their opinion, you're wrong. No room for negotiation. Personally, I don't mind if they're offended by the joke and if that was all they criticised, I could sympathise with them. Unfortunately, their stance being "our opinion is fact" and their insistence on insulting anyone who disagrees has diminished any sympathy I could possibly have for them. Here's a few facts that Rebecca Greenfield and Devin Faraci might want to take into account; men aren't all sexists if they laugh at something you dislike. Women aren't helpless children who need to be mollycoddled even when they don't want to be. Although you can say a lot about the XBox One -- and trust me, I have -- Microsoft having a male player defeat a female player in an on-stage demonstration doesn't mean they're horrible people enforcing a "boys' club" in mainstream gaming. Quite the opposite, actually; they're encouraging female participation of mainstream games by featuring a female player during their biggest conference of the year.

Speaking of that, back when Sony announced the Playstation 4, they were criticised for having no female presenters. Does anyone else find it a little odd that when Microsoft does feature a female presenter, they're hugely criticised for not being a good enough gamer. Not only is it very reminiscent of the supposed attitude towards "fake" geek girls -- having to prove their worth as a gamers (or knowledge of whatever fandom they enjoy) before being accepted by other gamers -- but it comes across as moving the goalposts. There were no claims from the critics of the lack of female presenters that the female presenters had to be good at gaming (and I'm not saying that Ashton "Vulcan" Williams isn't) so this is another case of feminist critics -- you guessed it -- creating a no-win situation. While also being far more critical and judgmental of Ashton Williams than the supposed "boys' club" that they speak out against.

Still, both Greenfield and Faraci are fans of Feminist Frequency. I think we know where they get it from.

As always, feel free to leave a comment below or write to me at themalesofgames@gmail.com

Just a short post for today

Hey all. Sorry that I didn't update sooner. I've been very busy over the past week but I'm pleased to report that my last post was the most-read that this blog's ever had! Not that it's been much of a horse race but nevertheless, it gave me a thrill to look at the pageview stats, so thanks to everyone who contributed.

I'm working on a longer post but here's a short webcomic for today, courtesy of For Lack Of A Better Comic:

Author's comment: "If your Privilege stat is above 20, you are forced to roll a Privilege Check before each conversation."

As always, feel free to leave a comment or send me an e-mail at themalesofgames@gmail.com