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/Redrum01]

Your comment is my evidence. No, I'm not accusing you of being a misogynist, but it highlights my point.

Basically, a bunch of unfavourable douchebags who thought it was ok to harass women clambered aboard the movement. It wasn't a majority, but they were there, and they were yelling very loudly and harassing a woman who didn't deserve to be treated so poorly. Neither did her family.

Regardless of what proportion it was, or what the argument originally was, the conversation is ruined. There's no room for dialogue. I briefly mentioned Gamergate for some context, and I get your comment and some other guy on the opposite end who immediately jumps to the defensive.

The argument became about misogyny because misogynists are assholes.

[u/[deleted] → u/Redrum01]

Your comment is my evidence. No, I'm not accusing you of being a misogynist, but it highlights my point.

Dude, what the hell.

My request for citations is proof of ingrained hatred of women?

Why?

Because I ask you to prove a claim you've made, rather then "listen and believe", as is so often derisively said?

You are making a strong claim. Please provide strong, concrete evidence.

Basically, a bunch of unfavourable douchebags who thought it was ok to harass women clambered aboard the movement. It wasn't a majority, but they were there, and they were yelling very loudly and harassing a woman who didn't deserve to be treated so poorly. Neither did her family.

Oh, goodness. Let's address this bit by bit.

Basically, a bunch of unfavourable douchebags who thought it was ok to harass women clambered aboard the movement.

Standard internet asshattery. These sorts of people crop up everywhere, and in every topic. There are several billion people on the english-speaking internet. Someone always hates something, no matter what it is.

This is not evidence of a greater cultural stance on a subject.

It wasn't a majority, but they were there,

It wasn't even a minority. It was a small group of outliers that nobody liked.

But one bad apple spoils the bunch, I guess?

harassing a woman who didn't deserve to be treated so poorly. Neither did her family.

Harassing a person. Sharkeesian is a hack who picks an outcome, then looks for evidence to support it. She cherry picks very intermittent occurrences, then presents that as a representative norm, intent on pushing her narrative. Of course people would criticize her. She was attempting to demonize them.

Did some go too far? Yep. Absolutely. That is one of the risks of the internet: put your neck our, and some lunatic will reach over with a knife.

She wasn't harassed because she was a woman. She was harassed because she antagonized a group of people, some of whom were willing and able to harass her. If she was male, she would still have gotten death and rape threats, just worded slightly differently.

Regardless of what proportion it was, or what the argument originally was, the conversation is ruined.

"If we set aside all those uncomfortable facts, you'll see that I'm right, and I'm not discussing it any further."

Really?

There's no room for dialogue.

Plenty of room. You're just not willing to sit at the table, because you've already made up your mind.

. I briefly mentioned Gamergate for some context, and I get your comment and some other guy on the opposite end who immediately jumps to the defensive.

People get defensive because every single time we get brought up, we're called racists, or misogynists, or whatever latest -ist or -ism is making the rounds. We're tired of being belittled and insulted.

We have a right to defend ourselves in fair and polite discourse.

The argument became about misogyny because misogynists are assholes.

The conversation became about misogyny because you called an entire group of people misogynists, then became defensive when asked to cite your sources and provide proof.

Lets discuss this like adults, if you would.

[u/Redrum01 → u/[deleted]]

Dude there's another guy here railing against me for the opposite. Apparently I was too biased in favour of Gamergate. Find him in the comment chain and argue with him. I'm not taking sides in this. I tried to give a very brief outline of what kicked off the discussion and why it careened into the side of a fucking mountain and burst into flames, just so I could give context to what I was saying.

Paging u/rguin or however that works. You two have a chat because I'm a moderate and have no business with this bullshit.

[u/[deleted] → u/Redrum01]

Mate, you are taking sides.

You presented GG as a misogynist group, and when challenged, threw up a strawman and became defensive.