That sounds almost as awesome as NEITHER men NOR women serving in the military :D

I was trying to respond in light-hearted manner to InsaneBoredGame's comment.

Such an awesome community =)

Did you know that 90% of backers were male? What do you make of that?

That men have more purchasing power in our fucked up world.

Oops ;P

You keep using the word bias. I do not think it means what you think it means. Also the fact that you're talking about what "we" (who's we? The two dichotomous sexes of humanity that aren't actually real things?) are "meant" to be any one way is kind of horrifying... sounds like "God intended" stuff. Not really useful.

The thing is that this lady here is basically trying to get a message, a complaint across - would she STILL open her trap and blurt about the issues with sexism if she didn't have that money? No, she most likely would still bitch about it. The only difference might be the extent of her audience - by kickstarting such a thing, and having her name uttered all over the net, she basically got a bunch of cash AND people to listen. Is it a high-quality video series with masterful equipment? I dare doubt that. I'd even go as far as to say that most of our late-teen users on here could do something of the same quality, if not higher.

Most of our late-teen users are being clothed and fed and sheltered and don't need to worry about providing for themselves. This issue of money is a total straw man.

There seems like there's an intellectual discussion going here. So let me join in and fuck it up a bit.

"Oh, what's this? People are saying intelligent things about real issues? Guess I'll go and dumb things down! That sounds like a good idea!" I see from your profile that you've been banned and stripped of moderator powers. You really fit the archetype! I guess at the end of all this you're going to make some kind of cute face and say you were "just trolling." That would be clever, you should do it! I'll have so much respect for you.

Money. Yes, I will start with that. As I already said in the other thread - you do not fucking need any real money at fucking all to make some fucking videos! Now, women video not only aimed for much more that the men video, but it received more and I am still to hear about Sarkeesian donating anything to fucking anyone.

So you need a surgeon. There are two people who offer to help you: a trained professional, and a kid who lives in his parents' basement. The professional says that he needs to be payed to do his job. The kid says he'll do the operation for free.

You realize that complaining that someone get compensated for her work is fucking ridiculous? If she were actually making off like a bandit there'd be a problem. But as far as I can tell, she's using the money to cover the costs, and opportunity costs, of making the video series. When she got more than she'd originally asked for, she decided to do more work.

And donating? We don't even know where the misandry guys are going to give the money. If you want to donate to a charity, give the money to a charity you know is good. Don't give it to a bunch of sexist douchebags who may or may not give it to charities of questionable repute. Personally, I would donate to a charity that produced educational materials about sexism... oh wait.

Background. Okay, I have no idea who the guys who are making men video are. But I know that Sarkeesian is a journalist for feminist magazine and she is a feminist. Feminists and sexists (are those the correct opposing terms?) are both extremely stupid. And those guys can be sexist, maybe? Could be. But maybe not. And with Sarkeesian - no doubt there, she is a feminist and, by default, biased.

Being opposed to something dumb makes you dumb? Let's see how this plays out... anti-racists are stupid because they're opposed to racists; humanists are stupid because they're opposed to homicidal sociopaths; smart people are stupid because they're opposed to idiots. I guess I'm stupid, too, because I'm arguing against you ;)

And the more important objections: feminism is not "bias." It's a desire to undo the misogynistic control structures created by thousands of years of male dominance. It's a desire for equality. It's a critical eye toward sexism. Because it's such a broad term, there are feminists who are more or less strident, or abrasive. There are misandrist feminists; they're a vocal minority. The way you're talking about feminism is disgraceful.

The attitude. In women video the problem is given too seriously. Like it's the fucking catastrophe which suddenly fucking struck us poor humans. The attitude in men video seems more relaxed, humorous maybe? It is a better attitude to take.

Did you stop to think about why the attitude is different? Maybe it's because Sarkeesian is actually dedicated to a progressive cause and is reacting to a serious issue, while the "misandry in video games" douchebags are just mocking her—and if that is not enough of an indication of there being a problem, you're not looking closely enough.

Now, tell me, honestly, do we - gamers - know about those problems? Sure we do. We usually do not give a fuck, but we know about the fucking thing. Okay!

I don't think you know about these problems. And if you did, and you still "usually did not give a fuck," dot dot dot.

IS Sarkeesian pretending that females are the only ones poorly represented in media/VGs, though? I highly doubt it. She's probably just selected one issue to focus on. When a scholar selects a topic, it's not really appropriate to be like "HEY DUDE YOU ACTUALLY NEED TO TALK ABOUT EVERYTHING," because like, scholars would never get anything done if they tried to cover every issue or question. The way scholarship works, the way research works, the way criticism works, is by selecting a topic—in this case, misogyny in video games—and working with that topic. I also don't understand the complaint about Sarkeesian getting money for her work. I mean, sure, I'm a communist, and also I believe that all information (including media) should basically be free, so in my ideal world Sarkeesian's just getting a paycheck from the government to do the kind of investigations she wants to do, but given that we live in a shitty world where people need to receive compensation for their time in order to feed and shelter themselves, what gives? When her project was over-funded, she decided to do more work. As far as I can tell, she's just using the money to cover the costs (and opportunity costs) of making these videos.

So I'm not seeing the "soapbox for a slanted documentary," nor an issue with the paycheck. I also don't know what you mean by "the self-aggrandizement of fringe groups"... feminist bloggers? Female gamers? What fringe group, and how is it being aggrandized by itself? Where is the intellectual dishonesty? Was it intellectually dishonest when, in writing about story and plot, E.M. Forster focused on Western written forms and didn't devote half his work to [i]mono no aware[/i] and how it spawns totally different beasts from conflict->resolution texts? IMHO, no; again, you select a topic, you do the topic justice. That's all you can do.

And yes, you do sound like you're making the video's argument ("listen, the problem you see is just a symptom of the target demographic! Chill out!"), and I think I've previously shown that the video's argument is both problematic and contradictory. But you know, it's all good.

Asking who stands to gain is always a good idea. Not sure why you think we differ on prioritizing that question. But despite your heavy-handed implications, I'm not sure who YOU think stands to gain from WHAT. Also where's the unsolicited information? The films Sarkeesian wants to make? To me they seem not only solicited (people donated) but demanded (by the existence of the issue she wishes to cover). So if you want to expand that, or elucidate in any way, I'd love to hear what you mean.

As for my mention of The White Man's Burden and comparison to complaining about expectations of chivalry (not the "aggregate ideal," chivalry specifically), it might be cuter than necessary, but I think there's something to it. Kipling holds the "burden" as a good thing, ultimately, but it's still a burden. The white man has all the extra tasks of supporting and policing the inferior peoples, even if that's a noble duty. (Hey, what Kipling illustrates is kind of like chivalry, but that's not what I was getting at.) And it's a duty created by white men, for white men; they are the ones who benefit/profit (though Kipling probably wants to make you believe that the non-whites benefit more...). Fast forward a bit and you see whites in America complaining about this burden, either directly or indirectly; they dislike the projected impression that they're being held accountable for slavery; they don't want to be in the spotlight as the supreme group; blah blah blah. Now take men complaining about chivalry. Chivalry is something created by men, for men, to stoke egos, to ensure sex-based injustice, to create a noble duty the performance of which elevates men. No woman who has spent a minute of her life considering chivalry critically will ever want a man to be "chivalrous." It's entirely a by-men, for-men kind of thing. And now guys complain about the expectation they've created.

The imperialist white man, if dissatisfied with his burden, can simply pull out, stop conquering, mind his own business (p.s. we haven't yet). The modern man, if dissatisfied with chivalry, can simply drop it. Both abandonments are [i]progressive[/i] moves away from shitty systems, and parallel each other pretty closely. Anyway, sorry for the long tangent here at the end, and also for the matter-of-fact way in which I described some of these issues (I personally don't believe in "inferior peoples"), but I hope my comparison makes more sense now.

So that's what you were trying to say. Well.

As I said, misandry is bad. Harmful representations of men are bad. I'm not arguing against that.

But most of these representations you're talking about ARE NOT SEXIST. They might be unrealistic, or harmful in any number of ways, but they're not misandrist. They're primarily created by guys who want to prop themselves up or generate a heroic image of masculinity. So, when confronted by a feminist saying "hey guys, sexism!", if the response is "NO U," that's just base and stupid. I'd wager the majority of people who say "what about misandrist representations of men in games" are just trying to mock the feminist critique. The rest are clearly not thinking cogently about the topic, though they might be acting in good faith for all I know. That's fine and all.

I agree with whoever above said that basically representations of people in media are shit. That is definitely true. And I'm not trying to make light of the the issue, or even to say that it's restricted to one category of people. But it's also true that bad representations of women in games are largely sexist, whereas those of men aren't.

I can't speak for Sarkeesian's specific critiques because I'm unfamiliar with her work, and I'm not going to try to write my own essay(s) about these issues right now... but if you really think that either A) there is [i]no[/i] sexism at work in representations of women in games or B) sexism is majorly responsible for the representations of [i]both[/i] women and men in games, I think you could due to learn more about how sexism operates. I don't mean this in a demeaning way... I would strongly suggest that you acquaint yourself with these things, as they're important (IMHO). Misogyny often operates in ways that men (who exactly is active in this thread? hmm) are, by default, blind to—this is the main reason why @Gargron "never sees" it, going back to his earlier post. Anyway, I don't mean to go off on a long-ass lecture.

Just like, think about it.

Cheers!

p.s. men complaining about expectations of chivalry remind me of The White Man's Burden...

For my part, I'm not gathering anything from your post, Trev. What are you trying to ask? :P

Oh I don't doubt rape culture and brony culture are intertwined in various ways—there's very little untouched by rape culture—but throwing the term in there when it had no actual relevance to the discussion was inappropriate IMHO. That said... not sure what bestiality has to do with any of it. Projection of femininity upon non-consenting animals? O_o