When it comes to being on the internet, there are some things that you can’t get away from. Whether it’s an all new Ice Bucket challenge videos, or whatever game journalism scandal, I reckon Twitter, Facebook and other Social Networks make every news item seem like a huge deal. But there’s one thing on that gets arguments going on the groups and forums: Anita Sarkeesian. As an admin on a Facebook group, I’ve learnt that any thread that starts along the lines of “Here’s what I think about Anita Sarkeesian” is usually going to end with arguments, hatred, and usually a declaration that it’s not sexist to think Duke Nukem totally holds up as a character. Another thing people mention is that it’s not the whole feminism thing they have a problem with, but the production and screen presence of Anita herself, where she doesn’t know how to perform the most difficult and arduous of things: A Youtube Commentary show. Here’s my thoughts on each of the episodes that have been released so far, with the focus being on the show itself instead of whatever supposed scandals or truths that are being thrown about everywhere. Buckle up, people!
Let’s start with how the show itself is presented to the viewer. This is a show that takes certain tropes that can be found on information wikia pages such as TV Tropes, and offers an opinion and sense of perspective on them in relation to video-games. In this show, video-games are the context, and the tropes shown are examples and evidence of the social trends that are mentioned. This means that everyone’s going to have a certain level of mileage on what evidence counts as genuine, as we all have different perspectives on each game. A common issue I had with each episode was that there was an over-abundance of examples being used, where a large amount of games were shown to help make the point as clear as possible. I see what she is trying to do, but it occasionally gets overbearing, and it left me wondering when she was just going to get to the point.
Meanwhile, Anita herself describes and narrates each episode from the perspective of a teacher, as apposed to the usual perspective of a comedian. By this, I mean she’s not making videos with the same goals and aims as Jon Jafari’s ‘Jontron’, James Rolfe’s ‘Angry Video Game Nerd’, or Arin Hanson’s ‘Sequilitis’. Those shows are designed to be comedic in nature first, and informative and descriptive second. We are given several signs that we should focus on the writing and style of the personality, while the information they give assists in establishing a tone or conclusion. AVGN uses anger and frustration to make it clear that the Sega CD sucks, for instance. Sequelitis even uses animation and a script to help establish each point it makes. The use of a defined personality is especially important for Let’s Plays and Opinion pieces, where the idea of the video is that we are learning about the opinion of the content creator.
I bring this up because Tropes VS. Women in Video-games seems to go in a different direction. Anita Sarkeesian isn’t a bombastic narrator, or even an especially opinionated one. She uses evidence and references to back up whatever points she makes, and dedicates a great deal of her videos to reaffirming the importance of evidence on screen. The games are supposed to speak for themselves, while the narrator is merely there to guide us through each concept of feminism. This seems to be considered a negative point for most people, where they don’t think her style of narration works, and she should be more impressionable on the viewer. This is a case where no-one’s right or wrong, and it depends on personal preference. People watch TotalBiscuit or PewDiePie not just for the video-game content, but for the personality commentating on top of it. Meanwhile, people watch a Feminist Frequency video because of the content it provides. Not to say that Anita herself is dead weight, as she presents each video professionally, and with a good sense of editing, timing and writing.
Now that I have about as good a perspective on the presentation of the show, how are the episodes themselves? Here are my impressions of each subject, and a general idea of what each episode is about.
Damsel In Distress (Parts 1, 2, 3)
The premiere of ‘Tropes VS. Women in Video-Games’ is all about one of the most well-known tropes in history, where the dashing knight must rescue the helpless princess from whatever evil force. The episode focuses on the history of the trope in video-gaming, the continued evolution of the trope, and all the other different perspectives. The aim seems to be that the trope isn’t being promoted or encouraged as such, but is instead being trivialised to the point where people see it as normal. Ironic interpretations of the trope don’t do anything to upend the trope, and instead assist the trivialisation. The Indie Games that have such tropes aren’t wrong for using it, but there are far more ways to add context to a story. The argument that ‘the motivation to continue the game is there, so what’s the problem?’ is debunked as part of the continued persistence of the negative aspects of the trope, with none of the less harmful aspects being referenced. These episodes set the tone for what to expect from the show, so they work as an introduction to this particular presentation.
Ms. Male Character
This is not as heated as the previous episodes, as there are more examples that could be seen as light-hearted. This includes several adverts for Ms. Pac Man, or comparisons between characters that are male and female. That doesn’t mean the episode is entirely a barrel of laughs, as the focus is on several well known issues in gender representation, where women are usually given specific icons and signifiers to let us know exactly what gender they are. The episode works well as a decent introduction to feminism concepts and lessons, with the difference being that the context is video-game character design and assignment. Everything from Barbie to Dresses is colour-coded, and the binary assignment of genders is considered especially important when looking at representations in society. As such, I enjoyed watching this episode, if only to see how well-produced an introduction to feminist theory can be.
Women as Background Decoration (Parts 1, 2)
The focus is placed on the use of woman as background characters, usually as prostitutes, hookers or exotic dancers, and usually in open world sandbox games. Most of the time, women are described as accessories to either look at, or victims of abuse. The fetishisation of the female body is combined with the portrayed disposability of sex workers. Occasionally, there are certain examples that I disagree with, as well as certain representations of the sandbox genre, but the point remains. The idea is that we are exposed to the brutalisation of women on a constant basis, and are told that such images are normal. The second episode is especially good at explaining this, and the barrage of clips being shown are great at exposing the reality of modern games using NPCs as victims. If previous episodes established that most issues are caused by ignorance and a lack of understanding of how such presentations can harm, and maintain the continued problem of violence against women in gaming.
One of the arguments in support of these sort of representations is that ‘the world is terrible, and these instances help establish that’. To a small extent that’s true, but the extent of the violence and specific nature of female victimisation. Characters exist to be brutalised, and it’s considered normal by games. The previous episodes were interesting for me to watch, but this one in particular showcased how destructive video-games are capable of being when NPCs are programmed in the background. I find this to be an especially powerful episode, as it uses it’s concepts, themes and presentation makes for a harrowing episode
Looking at the show itself after all the controversy and spectacle surrounding it, I was left wondering what was so terrible about it all that deserved the reaction it got. The show is presented as an introduction to feminism is a concept, with the context being the world of video-games. It’s a young market that begun as a mainstream market in the eighties, so the evidence used is recent, and more relevant to the experiences of certain viewers. Looking at the show itself after all the controversy and spectacle surrounding it, I was left wondering what was so terrible about it all that deserved the reaction it got. The show is presented as an introduction to feminism is a concept, with the context being the world of video-games. It’s a young market that begun as a mainstream market in the eighties, so the evidence used is recent, and more relevant to the experiences of certain viewers. I’d recommend watching this show as a way to gain an understanding of feminist theory as an educational subject, as apposed to an opinion-piece. If you think it’s all basic information you could have guess just from noticing a random woman in a game, it may offer a lot more than that. The idea isn’t just point at things at say they’re sexist, it’s to use the very principles of feminism to showcase how trends and styles have changed over the years, and their relation to civilisation.
Adam Likes To Watch 