Ok, let's begin, Anita, Tomb Raider was a successful game, but, as someone who's played it, I can assert that the game was successful because it was fun, and I can also suggest that, like you said, Rare wanted to make a game that was not a 007 game, so they made Perfect Dark, is it possible that the protagonist's gender was informed by their intention to make something different from Golden Eye, as well as the smash success of Tomb Raider. I don't know about you, Anita, but I really like this trailer, Joanna Dark is a super spy, that doesn't mean she has to be a clone of Bond, even Daniel Craig Bond in Casino Royale, nothing sexualising there, but I digress, Joanna being a superspy, her ass kicking would, from a character perspective, be just as important as her espionaging. That means she would naturally put a lot of effort into her appearance, and exploit her sexuality however she can for the mission. But your argument stops when the trailer becomes gun porn, Perfect Dark was a shooter after all, and the line in the trailer, "the only person man enough to handle a job like this, is a woman," that sounds quite empowering to me, Anita, but I don't want to spoil your surprise, so do go on. Nice use of the Proton Gun sound clip in your god awful parody of the perfect dark trailer, I'm serious, do you genuinely think people would look at your poorly thought out, poorly animated piss take and take it serious, Anita, it's a joke, for someone campaigning for human rights, you're not taking this very seriously. And I love it, Joanna is treated differently is she, like if it was a sequel to Golden Eye, Bond would be portrayed like your stupid Grimshadow, what the shit, Anita. And here for the first lump of Hypocrisy, you criticise Joanna Dark for being 'sexualised' like that's a bad thing, and argue that she's only being valued for her sexual appeal, and you say this while wearing makeup, ear rings, and with nicely done hair, ask yourself Anita, why are you doing this, why aren't you sticking it to sexualising and objectifying concepts, like beauty, do tell. And now for something I refute whole heartedly, the outfit conveys the most important element of a character, Anita, this is just wrong, take Halo 4 for example, Chief is in his armour the entire game, and it's changed very little over the years, but it doesn't convey the primary element of his character, and that is him struggling with his emotions, and facing the prospect of losing someone he loves. What about Dom in the Gears of War games, on the surface, hardcore, heavily armoured badass with arms like tree trunks, but play the game and you'll learn of his struggle to find his missing wife, and in Gears 3, trying to deal with her death, same with Marcus and his dad, I'd argue that what's more important to a character than costume is their struggle, what they have endured or will endure, and what or who they are struggling for, their motivations and pains are far more pressing than their costume, you'd know that if you'd play a game.
Female characters are out saving the world, fighting bad guys, and doing dangerous things, like my argument for struggle and motivation, Anita, in this regard the gender is irrelevant, they are the same; the only one obsessing over their outfit is you. And now for some juicy hypocrisy, she cites Soulcalibur as an example of sexualised women, while, if you'd played the game, or at the very least looked at a wiki, you'd have seen Hong Yun-seong and Maxi, 2 male characters with pecks like professional wrestlers, are they not sexualised, I'd argue that in an equal world, they are, but you don't see it like that, when you show the vs screen from Streetfighter, it is literally right in your face, Anita, look at Ken's arms, look at Ken's fabulous blond hair, look at how 'sexualised' he is, seriously, it's right there, on the screen. I did some leg work of your 'the hyper sexualisation of female characters' theory, and I found a few things, your organisation, a few blogs and tumblrs, and a few totally not biased sites, to be honest, I'm impressed I found anything, I'm impressed you hadn't just completely made it up when you were writing the script, and gave it some 'rumour has it' to make it sound more professional. At this point Bayonetta is a dead horse, the character was designed by a woman, she lives in a world that is completely insane, and she's sexy, and you know what, Anita, were I a woman, I'd find a sexy woman completely owning her sexiness to be quite empowering, to be that confident in yourself, I'd say, is a very admirable character trait, but you don't like it, because your dreaded Presumed straight male player may like it, which makes it inherently evil, because patriarchy. And may I say Anita, what are you, the democratically elected spokesperson for all women everywhere, because unless you are, you have absolutely no right to tell them what is and isn't empowering to them, if a woman finds Bayonetta empowering, good for her, she is getting something good from it, and yet you have the balls to assert that she is flat wrong, and that Bayonetta's sole purpose as a thing that exists is for the evil men of the world to wank to, this won't be the last time I call you a Puritan. And now for something really funny, you argue that players control her sexuality as a weapon, which, in and of itself, is a ridiculous statement, but you say that while playing footage of Bayonetta kicking shit in with a big arse hammer, what do you think is the more effective weapon, because let me tell you, if I was in a fight, I'd rather have a hammer than a pair of tits. Your BDSM assertion I also find baffling, maybe the BDSM thing is true, but here's the thing, in these executions, were they BDSM, what role is she in Anita, she's the one inflicting pain, she's the one in control, the one with the power, is being in a position of power now disempowering, is it, because that makes literally no sense. And the whole hair thing then leaves you speechless, Anita, have you played Bayonetta, because I have, and her hair being both her clothing and a weapon is not even in my top 5 weirdest things about that bat shit crazy game, if that's what you care about above all else, there is no way you've played the game, none. This paragraph's getting long but she's still on Bayonetta, yes, Anita, Bayonetta might be empowering to some women, because women are all individuals, they all have their own brains, and not all of them are sex negative prudes like you, would you rather Bayonetta wear a Burka, honestly?
Anita, you are repeatedly bringing up for presumed straight male player crap, yes you are. But I did some legwork here, and I found a useful few numbers, that being men only make up 59% of the gaming audience, it's a majority, but that still leaves 41% that are women, furthermore, I looked around for stats on the population of LGBT people in the united states, with numbers ranging from as low as 2% to as high as 15%. I went for the CDC number of 96.6 % of the population being straight, through a bit of maths I worked out that, as a result, straight women make up 39.4% of the total gaming audience, and 1.6% are lesbian. The vast majority of M rated console games like Bayonetta are played by that 59% however, while women are more likely to play mobile games, but even then, your PSMP assertion ignores the 2.1% that are gay, it devalues them, isn't that a little homophobic and transphobic of you, you bigot. Partially agreeing with you for a minute however, yes, Anita, M rated console games are made with the idea of selling it to a predominantly male audience, but the reason isn't your mythical patriarchy, the reason is simple, that male audience are the ones who buy the games, they are where the money comes from, of course a company would try to sell a product to them, companies like money. And our culture, a hard as it may be to hear, doesn't only value women for their sexualized body parts, if that were the case, why do actresses like Judi Dench and Helen Mirren still have movie careers, why is the Democratic front runner for the 2016 presidential campaign a 68 year old woman with a stare like a shark and a smile like a corpse, clearly these women are only where they are because their sexualised body parts and not, at least in the cases of Dench and Mirren, their ability and their merits, that's all they're good for, isn't that right, you Misogynistic bint. You even say it yourself, the fact that they can slay armies and save the world is not important, what's important is that they're sexualised, and they have no intrinsic value as people, it's striking how misogynistic this feminist sounds. Oh but some women are empowered through their sexuality, oh really, Anita, because if sexuality in women is inherently sexualising and 'damaging' to all women, where is the room for women who are empowered by their sexuality, there isn't any in your messed up utopian mind is there.
Just like Mulvey, it's nice that you're using totally not biased sourced like Susan J Douglas, totally not biased. But yes, Feminism is bad for you, it's a cultish ideological mentality that asserts that women are inherently inferior to men, that they are not the equals of men, that men are all evil rapists, and that women are only valuable because of sex, and that women embracing their natural beauty is evil and misogynistic, it's an ideology that thinks women are all children, with no freedom or agency of their own, it's its own Antithesis, Anita, it is bad for you. But now for something that's sure to be juicy, Anita addressing critics, let me just check the lotto numbers, I hope I don't get struck by lightning too. Your first point is a very odd one, since I've never heard that said, I've heard many reasons for women dressing sexy in games, but not that one, so, Anita, where have you heard that, because I'd be interesting in knowing. Welcome to my turf, Anita, play Halo, specifically Halo 4 and 5, and you will learn that Cortana does in fact like having attention, she likes attention from people, and from John, it's arguable that she even exploits John in Halo 5, she likes having eyes on her, and the power that comes with it, and if you think that's BS and she's only naked because patriarchy, play Halo Wars, because that game has an AI who is a woman, who wears clothes, Anita, Jesus, she wear clothes, yet no, only male AI's wear clothes, do some actual research for once. And now for something that really, really pissed me off. "Players are just meant to unquestioningly accept..." Unquestioningly accept, is that bad, Anita, Ms Anita Listen and Believe Sarkeesian, holy fucking shit, listen to yourself, have a shred of self awareness, god it pisses me off, this does. When your PSMP unquestioningly accepts something it's bad and evil, but when your fellow cultists listen and believe, that's fine, just blindly head nod to something with no evidence at all to support it, Anita, if you are going to criticise me for not questioning something, how about you go fuck yourself. And don't you dare criticise game devs for giving reasons as to why a character is dressed like that, you shouldn't just unquestioningly accept it, but you should absolutely listen and believe. Oh now is when it gets worse, because holy mother of the son of god Jesus Christ halleluiah peace be upon him, arguing that a character makes their own choices in clothing is ridiculous, because they're not real, they're not people, they don't think, what the fuck is wrong with you, you constantly say that these women should be respected as people and not just objects, and we should see them as 3 dimensional, but ho no, when someone tries to tell you that a woman in a game may have chosen her outfit, that's ridiculous, they're not people, they're just lines of code, Cortana never chose to be naked, she's not real, she's not a 3 dimensional character, Roland never chose to be an old fashioned aviator, he's just lines of code. Anita, this is it, this is your finest fucking hour, this is what I meant when I said at the beginning that you completely wreck your own argument, women are people, even ones that aren't real, and we should respect them as people, even when they're not real, but when we do respect their agency as people, that's crazy, they're not real people, fuck yourself, Anita, fuck yourself. And when you completely fuck your entire position like this, it really helps to be super patronising, I have a twin sister, I know what a Sports bra is, you condescending bitch.
The amount of skin shown isn't the problem is it Anita, I've stopped being even slightly nice at this point so fuck off, the skin showing is precisely the problem, if they were all wearing Burkas you'd be happy, because then the evil men couldn't ogle them and sexualise them. oh but video game outfits are designed with the primary goal of sexualising women, says Anita; democratically elected spokesperson for all game devs everywhere. Oh but women in games can still be sexually without being sexualised, says the sex negative prude, this had better be good. The last of Us, a game that, if it 'sexualised' it's main character, would be paedophilic, not a terribly good example, then again, we're talking about a game by Neil Druckmann, maybe it's just me, or maybe there's a bit of sisterly favouritism going on, by the way I have nothing against Druckmann, The Last of Us and Uncharted 4 are 2 games I very much love. by contrast Ride to Hell is a game that literally no one loves, and the creepy, fully clothed, supermarionation looking sex scenes are a bad example, regardless of the point, they're a bad example. what's also a bad example, but more specifically of your point, is RPG games, which have romance options, this is something that a lot of RPGs have, and your 2 examples, one of them has an R rating, and the other is completely devoid of any explicit content, Anita, if I, a 19 year old who spends an unhealthy amount of his wages on Lego can treat RPG romance quests like an adult, maybe you should too. I am stunned, I hate Anita Sarkeesian, that's no secret, but how on earth is it possible that she made me hate her even more, but in all honesty, this may simultaneously be the best and worst video she has ever made, because no video she has made, that I've seen, has so beautifully shown her complete lack of awareness, knowledge on the media she claims to critique, and of any kind of cohesive argument, her level of hypocrisy in this video is jaw dropping, and when that isn't enough, just throw on some prudish puritanical condescension, that always helps. It baffles me that people gave her $159'000 so she could be this stupid and dishonest, to those fools I say money well spent.
No comments:
Post a Comment