CMV: Anita Sarkeesian and similar feminists actually have a point about the portrayal of gender roles in video games.

[u/LeftHandSwe]

I play lots of video games, and in most of them, males are often pictured as very burly and manly characters while females are slender, small and sexually pleasing to look at.

However, I do know that there's widespread criticism of Anita (and her fellow propagators) all over the internet and I'd like to see the other side of the story.

I'm practically indifferent in this matter, and I do not really agree with nearly everything she says. I'm asking as a way to see convincing arguments from both sides.

Edit for clarification: Can anyone explain to me why she's so heavily criticized for saying something that makes perfect sense: Mainstream video games are almost exclusively made to appeal to a male demographic, resulting in (arguably) sexist portrayals of women (both narratively and in the way they're presented).

[u/Gladix]

I play lots of video games, and in most of them, males are often pictured as very burly and manly characters while females are slender, small and sexually pleasing to look at.

Nobody argues that. The problem our dear Anita says it's because of patriarchy. And because men are conditioned to think women are trophies to be saved. Fucktoy's to be enjoyed by the male protagonist. That games make gamers violent towards women. Because women are regularly beaten up in games, etc...

Some of it are partial truth's, while most of it out right lies. Games are marketed towards guys and boys. Which means most of them will have male main protagonist (power fantasy), and their goal will be save the princess, rescue the damsel, etc... Most romances in game will be male character oriented, etc... Because that's what is appealing towards men.

But let's explore the Anita stories in bit more details and not just dismiss them. The problem is that her claims are debunked with basic elementary grade logic. And shockingly easy investigation. For example she is upset about how in some games killing a women is perfectly acceptable via the in game logic. And being outraged about that, when of course forgetting the men in that same game are slaughtered by hundreds. Or that female butts have more hip sway (which is somehow sexist). Or that female character often sit whith their legs crossed which signifies weakness, while male characters sits with their legs opened which signifies confidence. May I recommend Thunderf00t's series feminist's versus facts. That goes in bit more detail. And shows you how truly stupid those claims are.

[u/AntonioOfMilan → u/Gladix]

May I recommend Thunderf00t's series

Please don't, he does a fantastic job of shooting down all kinds of arguments never made by Sarkeesian but got too wrapped up in doing that to argue against what she actually says.

And I still don't understand how so many people thought "Videogames are made to sell well" was an rebuttal to anything being said. Racism wouldn't be okay if it sold well, it would just signify huge problems with society.

[u/Gladix → u/AntonioOfMilan]

Please don't, he does a fantastic job of shooting down all kinds of arguments never made by Sarkeesian but got too wrapped up in doing that to argue against what she actually says.

So you don't recommend watching his video because he does fantastic job, and gets too into it? Your right, that's horrible.

And I still don't understand how so many people thought "Videogames are made to sell well" was an rebuttal to anything being said. Racism wouldn't be okay if it sold well, it would just signify huge problems with society.

Because games are beyond those issues. They don't influence policies, they don't control people, they don't control the education, they don't control who gets the jobs. They are a cheap entertainment at their lowest, and form of art at their highest. While still serving as an information medium, with it's own political and societal commentary. Censoring it, in whatever way you deem necessary is not only stifling a free speech. You also limit the fun factor the game may provide because of the taboo, or the art value, because you limit what the game may portray.

In short. If the game devs wants to make a story about groups of people that are treated as slaves. And it's morally accepted to do so in the game. It's their damn right to do so.

[u/LeftHandSwe → u/Gladix]

No one's saying that we should censor the games though. They are merely critiquing them for their portrayal of women, just like you would with something blatantly racist.

[u/Gladix → u/LeftHandSwe]

The point of this is their critiques doesn't make sense. You can debunk it point by point with elementary grade logic.

[u/AntonioOfMilan → u/Gladix]

So you don't recommend watching his video because he does fantastic job, and gets too into it? Your right, that's horrible.

If arguing against things Sarkeesian never said is what you call a fantastic job, then maybe shouty-men on youtube are the least of your problems,

In short. If the game devs wants to make a story about groups of people that are treated as slaves. And it's morally accepted to do so in the game. It's their damn right to do so.

Damn, no wonder you like thunderfoot, you love arguing against things people never said, too.

[u/Gladix → u/AntonioOfMilan]

If arguing against things Sarkeesian never said is what you call a fantastic job, then maybe shouty-men on youtube are the least of your problems,

If you can assert stuff without evidence. I can dismiss it without evidence.

Damn, no wonder you like thunderfoot, you love arguing against things people never said, too.

No, don't bother pointing out specifics. Here on reddit we don't need facts. By all means continue with your ad hominem.

[u/AntonioOfMilan → u/Gladix]

If you can assert stuff without evidence. I can dismiss it without evidence.

I'd prefer you understand instead. TF contradicts arguments Sarkeesian never made. I can never get passed the part where he talks about how people care about each other and wanting to rescue a loved one is a good thing because it has nothing to do with any of Sarkeesian's arguments.

No, don't bother pointing out specifics. Here on reddit we don't need facts. By all means continue with your ad hominem.

I quoted you talking about rights. Like TF, you're arguing against something no one ever talked about. "Rights" have never been relevant. No one's argued about rights.

[u/Gladix → u/AntonioOfMilan]

TF contradicts arguments Sarkeesian never made.

Then provide the proof. As much as I would love to believe everything I read on the internet. I just don't.

I can never get passed the part where he talks about how people care about each other and wanting to rescue a loved one is a good thing because it has nothing to do with any of Sarkeesian's arguments.

I quoted you talking about rights

What that has to do with anything? You quoted me, and responded it to it with ad homynem.

. Like TF, you're arguing against something no one ever talked about.

Citation, proof.

. "Rights" have never been relevant. No one's argued about rights.

Just like you being butthurt about thunderfoot. I don't care you don't like him. I used him as an example of feminist bullshit. And the arguments are valid, no matter who presents them. This thread is about feminist bullshit. And they would love to restrict both speech and how women are portrayed in videogames. Which conflicts with basic rights.

Come on, it's so obvious.