I’ve been getting good mileage out of Damion Schubert’s stupid blog lately. And I’ve got some more good stuff to go on. In his latest post he’s crapping on about Anita Sarkeesian and how hard done by she is and how we are all so misinformed as she is really such a lovely person with our best interests at heart. Here’s a nice little quote:
“… Now because I want to save any of you from becoming sheeple who might be infected by an opposing view by actually watching and considering her work on its actual merits, I thought I would pull a USA Today and share what I found to be the four primary takeaways from her videos so far in easily digestable form:
1. Games should show more women capable of strength, agency and power in your game world, instead of being relegated to simply being background props or quest objectives that could be replaced with a sock monkey.
2. Game designers should be less lazy in reaching for the same, tired stereotypes – or merely xeroxes of male leads – but especially stereotypes showing women as disempowered, and find ways to depict more female characters in more interesting and unique roles.
3. Game designers should keep in mind that a lot of people (and not just women) have a viscerally negative reactions to scenes showing violence against women (particularly as many have first-hand experience with it), so maybe we shouldn’t just throw these scenes in casually.
4. Seriously, all the dead, spread-eagled naked women in games are kind of creepy.
So here’s the thing – all four of the above statements are absolutely, 100% true. As in, its hard to even debate them …”
Well, maybe it’s hard to debate them if you’re stupid. I think the four points are very easy to tear down into little tiny pieces. Let’s have a shot, shall we?
Point one is a logical fallacy. It assumes that there are no or very few women in positions of strength in video games. Playing Elder Scrolls Online, I have to say I’m sick of the sight of them. Every damn captain of a troop or leader of a band is a damn female shoving her tits in my face. Why can’t they get back into the kitchen where they being? So he and Anita want less women as background props or quest objectives because these could be done with a sock monkey? So who do they want more of in these positions? Sock monkeys? No, they want more males in these positions. Males are the new sock monkeys apparently.
Point two is point one using different words. My breakdown stands.
Point three is so stupid it’s funny. In a stupid way. You don’t want scenes with violence against women but you want more strong women in leading roles? In a fantasy game where everyone hacks at each other with swords?? Really? You can put these scenes in, but they can’t be casual? What the fuck does that even mean? Are they saying that these scenes can be in a game but only be epic? And once again, if we’re not bashing women with swords then I suppose that leaves us to bash men. But that’s okay. Seriously, if the hawt chicks just stayed in the fucking kitchen then this wouldn’t be a problem.
Point four is … oh for fuck’s sake, even I don’t know what point four is. What dead spread-eagled women? Does there need to be a quota for this now? Sure if we look at the real world then only men are being beheaded by ISIS, so I suppose by their twisted logic that’s okay then. But these are fantasy games. What happens to chicks in Game of Thrones? Nothing good. And the men? Nothing good either. Hard times, baby, hard times. But fantasy video games, or any video games really, are not acceptable milieus for this sort of thing because … because … they’re based on really nice historical times where everyone was really nice to each other?
Near the end, (if you can get that far), he says this:
“… Why she is doing all this? Because she believes games are important …”
And if you believe that then I have a very large bridge I want to sell you.