Kickstarter "Tropes vs Women in Videogames"

[Key-Glyph]

This latest one was excellent. I think she explained the larger context of the issue much more clearly. She might have been motivated to do so preempt some common, uninformed criticisms, but it was presented wonderfully for everybody, even if you regularly ponder this stuff. I'm mentioning this because I know there was concern about whether she could balance her writing to equally address the knowledgeable and the uniformed, or if she'd favor one audience over the other. I think she really nailed it for all parties here.

I like how she made use of the Streets of Rage remake sequence to directly rebut Thunderf00t's interpretation of it without making explicit reference to him. Shows smarts and class.

I also like how she touched on the male stereotypes at the end.

I do wish she'd open up her comments and ratings though. I understand why she isn't, but I feel like the result needs to be seen. It'll prove its own point.

EDIT: Also, what Hobie said. These tropes are established, recognized, culture-wide conventions. They're unplagiarizable by nature.

[Valkyrie-Favor]

These tropes are established, recognized, culture-wide conventions. They're unplagiarizable by nature.

That's true, but it doesn't apply to works about the tropes.

I'm not calling her a criminal or anything. I just think she doesn't deserve the recognition she's getting and that she's adding nothing to the discussion.

[Key-Glyph]

I'm not calling her a criminal or anything. I just think she doesn't deserve the recognition she's getting and that she's adding nothing to the discussion.

I get you, but I find it curious that you don't think she's adding anything to the discussion. Her video series is now a discussion in itself; from the moment the spotlight fell on her Kickerstarter and the brouhaha that sprang up around it, the success of her project's impact in promoting sexism awareness became measured not only by its actual content, but by its very existence. The fact that she's persevering in the face of horrific bile and violent criticism to deliver her product with an attitude strength sends a clear, important message.

As a bonus result, media outlets are reporting on her work and writing their own reactionary pieces, which stirs up conversation, debate, and introspection in wider and wider audiences. If Sarkeesian isn't telling you anything you didn't already know, that's great, because it means you're an informed and thoughtful consumer. But at this point, what you personally get out of her journalistic efforts as an individual viewer -- while important -- is only a fraction of the bigger picture at work.

[Gunstar Green]

I do wish she'd open up her comments and ratings though. I understand why she isn't, but I feel like the result needs to be seen. It'll prove its own point.

This is really my only serious complaint as whatever I agree or disagree about with her is my own opinion and not a problem on her part.

If you're going to offer something up for discussion you have to allow it to be open to discussion. Are you going to get idiots and trolls? Yes. But part of creating content like this is having a thick enough skin to ignore the idiots who aren't interested in the conversation.

Otherwise you're making it look like you're dictating your opinions and you're not interested in any opposing viewpoint. It's counterproductive and the perception it creates may even drive away fence-sitters that may have otherwise taken the argument more seriously.

[Ack]

I do wish she'd open up her comments and ratings though. I understand why she isn't, but I feel like the result needs to be seen. It'll prove its own point.

This is really my only serious complaint as whatever I agree or disagree about with her is my own opinion and not a problem on her part.

If you're going to offer something up for discussion you have to allow it to be open to discussion. Are you going to get idiots and trolls? Yes. But part of creating content like this is having a thick enough skin to ignore the idiots who aren't interested in the conversation.

Otherwise you're making it look like you're dictating your opinions and you're not interested in any opposing viewpoint. It's counterproductive and the perception it creates may even drive away fence-sitters that may have otherwise taken the argument more seriously.

But, as Key-Glyph pointed out, discussion is still taking place. Journalists and writers on other websites are using their own formats to congratulate or criticize, and many of these allow comments to take place. Discussions are also occurring on forums like this one. Yes, it may not be that we can comment directly on her video (though you could do a YouTube comment/criticism video in direct response to hers), but people are still finding ways to express their opinion.

[Gunstar Green]

I'm not saying they aren't, I'm criticizing the message that disabling comments sends to your viewers.

I don't for a minute think this is her intention, but it still says, "I'm right. You're wrong. I don't want to hear it."

Maybe it's just another excuse for people to criticize her but it's one that she could easily do away with simply by enabling comments even if she ignores them.

[Hobie-wan]

Maybe it's just another excuse for people to criticize her but it's one that she could easily do away with simply by enabling comments even if she ignores them.

Regular youtube comments are already the lowest of the low and cause brain damage in nine out of ten viewers. Do we really want to risk even greater damage by having them enabled?

[Erik_Twice]

I can't see any reason to allow Youtube comments on anything.

[dsheinem]

I can't see any reason to allow Youtube comments on anything.

+1

[irixith]

I can't see any reason to allow Youtube comments on anything.

Precisely.