A Whole Lotta NOPE Going On (OR) This is what selection bias looks like (OR) Anita Sarkeesian is a HACK (OR) Oppression Olympics FTW!

This is a note I made on Facebook months and months ago and I feel it needs to be revisited:

Would be nice if Anita Sarkeesian gave any sources, allowed for peer review or academic discussion about her assertions...but apparently, even a thumbs up and thumbs down system would be harrassment.

She also selectively chooses her material on the basis of supporting her argument, cherry picking scenes but eclipsing the overarching plot of the story such as her use of the Psychonauts character Lili Zanatto. Lili is abducted and saved by the main character, Raz, this is true, but what Sarkeesian conveniently fails to mention is that Raz is forced to save essentially every other camper (male, female, adult and child) at the Whispering Rocks Psychic Summer Camp. At the end of the game, Raz does not accomplish the final goal alone, rather Lili is by his side as an active participant in the victory. This is selection bias at it's finest, but apparently, you don't need context to see how much misogyny is threated throughout this video game (ugh). This is an academically dishonest use of source material, pure and simple.

To me, it seems as though Sarkeesian is expecting the audience to simply accept that violence against women in video games is inherently more damaging than violence in general. These videos pay no mind to the fact that the majority of video games has the protagonist (male or female) plowing through hundreds of faceless, nameless male peons to reach the boss battle. Instead, Sarkeesian seems to allude to the notion that violence against women should be taboo simply because those killed or trapped are women. Her exploration of the "female in the refrigerator" device suggests that had the character who is sacrificed to move a main character plot forward been male, the death would be more acceptable. If equality is truly what we pursue as a society, then such distinctions cannot and should not be made. Surely the death of any supporting character would have the similar impact of driving the story, regardless of gender - rather it is the value of the relationship that the main character shares with the sacrificed character which determines the audiences reaction. The generic structure of a male character losing a spouse would be for the husband to lose his wife, not because the video game creators are perpetrating violence against women, but because the predominant demographic of video game players are male. There is an inherent, biological desire to protect women and THAT is the truth about male/female relations. These are tropes only insomuch as they represent the devastation of a loss so deep - that of a parent/spouse/child - that the protagonist cannot help but relate.

These revenge plots, wherein the male protagonist is avenging the death of someone other than his wife/daughter/mother/sister, are a fundamental story arch that is used in literature, film, and theater and is not inherently misogynist because of the gender of the individual person who dies. That the sacrifice is a female should have no different impact on the audience than if the sacrifice is male. Revenge quests are always preceded by the death of some character and yet, Sarkeesian takes particular issue with those quests which are preceded by the deaths of women while again making little mention of those story lines wherein the sacrifice is male or the roles reversed entirely, saying only that such games are virtually nonexistent. This is factually untrue. A brief survey of video games reveal a wealth of female protagonists who are engaged specifically in revenge quests. Some examples of this reversal are Jill Valentine from the Resident Evil series, Samus from Metroid whose entire family was killed preceding her revenge quest, Chun-Li avenges the death of her father in Street Fighter, Annie from Wild Guns shares a similar plot with True Grit but with a female playable protagonist, Ayame from Tenchu has her entire village killed as well as the male lead until Tenchu III and so she takes up the yoke of avenging everyone she knew and loved. There are numerous examples of women in the revenge roles and I only wish to point out the flaw in Sarkeesian's selective arguments. 

The reason such plot lines are predominant are because they are compelling and relatable, not necessarily because they function as a male power fantasy. Such stories are just as compelling with a female protagonist avenging the death of a male family member. Yes, such plots are an easy fall back as the backbone of a story, but the fact remains that many video games are structured around generally violent concepts and the reason for that is pretty simple: violence sells as evident by the 20 or so variations and sequels of the Call of Duty franchise. You cannot frame a strong argument about "violence against women" and then discredit those women in video games who are presented on equal footing with their male counterparts claiming them to be exempt because they undermine the argument you are attempting to present as valid. Unfortunately, I cannot evaluate this claim effectively because Sarkeesian makes the assertion and then moves on without any discussion, just as she does with the assertion that some of the tropes "cross the line into blatant misogyny" without giving us a single example.

The Grand Theft Auto III example that Sarkeesian uses is yet another misrepresented video game, fitting in nicely next to her Psychonauts reference. In the opening scenes of this game, Maria Latore shoots the main character (because I cannot use the word protagonist to discuss any GTA game - ask anyone, I find the series detestable) in the head, putting him in prison and the revenge is set in motion from that point on. The entire plot line hinges on the death of Maria - shooting her was the goal in the very beginning. Her death was not because she was talking about "girly things" as Sarkeesian asserts. It's not misogyny when the Latore character was the crux of the plot line - she SHOT YOU IN THE HEAD.

Then she moves onto the cut scene vs. active participation in the killing of a female character for "their own good". Many of these women are in the midst of transforming into a monster and are literally begging to be put out of their misery or are voluntarily sacrificing their lives to serve the common good. In the circumstances in which the player is asked to kill a female character at all, these scenes are accompanied by a sense of reservation and remorse - the mercy killing is a better option than the fate that is inevitable should you not pull the trigger. Unless, of course, she was a villian from the beginning of the story, in which case there should be no distinction made. Anita again seems to argue that the violence perpetrated against women is inherently worse than violence perpetrated against men. One powerful example of this implicit in Sarkeesian's assumptions as there is now extensive documentation of serious conflating of statistical analysis surrounding the development of annual domestic violence rates. Turns out, the truth is a lot more complicated.

Sarkeesian pays no mind to the hundreds of men that you slaughtered to get to the cut scene, they are simply an obstacle to be destroyed and never thought of again. Additionally, there are plenty of games wherein the more ridiculous or unnecessary the means by which a man dies at the players hands is not only acceptable, but rewarded - such as in Dishonored where you can slow down time and allow a man to be shot by his own bullet earning the player various achievements. I see no outcry for that, but force a player to make a morally ambiguous and difficult decision about killing a woman and suddenly, the entire feminist community is frothing at the bit to rally and point out the misogyny of the industry.

Forcing a player to fight the loved one of the protagonist is prevalent, again, because it is compelling - because you, as the player, do not want to engage in this fight, but in order to save yourself, save the world, right the wrongs, etc, you must. Sarkeesian asserts that these types of fights are indicative of the justification of domestic violence perpetrated by men against women to return the women to their senses and connects it to the "real life epidemic of violence against women…on the planet" without any consideration to the reverse. Fortunately, I have done the research on the reverse and while the nature of violence is historically linked to a masculine energy, this assumption is inherently flawed as research has shown and continues to show that women are equally as likely to be violent and/or aggressive in intimate relationships. In fact, according to Dennis Hines et al, four conclusions can be made about the roles of men and women in domestic violence situations: “(1) the majority of women do not cite self-defense as a motive for their violence against their male partners, but rather anger, jealousy, retaliation for emotional hurt, efforts to gain control and dominance, and confusion; (2) half of all violent arguments are initiated by women; (3) in approximately 50% of violent relationships the violence is mutual, in approximately 25% the violence is perpetrated by only the male, and in approximately 25% the violence is perpetrated only by the female and; (4) on average, men do not have more power than women in American families.” (Hines, D., Brown, J., & Dunning, E. (2007). Characteristics of Callers to the Domestic Abuse Helpline for Men. Journal of Family Violence, 22(2), 63-72. Web.) Hey - look at that, a source...

Sarkeensian makes the observation that video game developers are “[un]concerned about the struggles of women in navigating the mental, emotional and physical ramifications of violence” - to which I must reply: such dialogues are not explored for either gender for the obvious reason that such a transaction would make for a miserably boring video game.

The video in question (only watch it if you really, really must):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toa_vH6xGqs