Note: Before you start reading, please make sure you take some time out of your day to read this one. It’s really long, and I don’t want my readers to skim through it. If you don’t have the time to read it properly, don’t read it until you do. With that said, happy reading.
The Gaming industry really doesn’t need SJWs. What is an SJW? It’s short for Social Justice Warrior. What in the fuck is a social justice warrior? Well, Urban Dictionary has an excellent definition of the term:
A pejorative term for an individual who repeatedly and vehemently engages in arguments on social justice on the Internet, often in a shallow or not well-thought-out way, for the purpose of raising their own personal reputation. A social justice warrior, or SJW, does not necessarily strongly believe all that they say, or even care about the groups they are fighting on behalf of. They typically repeat points from whoever is the most popular blogger or commenter of the moment, hoping that they will “get SJ points” and become popular in return. They are very sure to adopt stances that are “correct” in their social circle.
The SJW’s favorite activity of all is to dog pile. Their favorite websites to frequent are Livejournal and Tumblr. They do not have relevant favorite real-world places, because SJWs are primarily civil rights activists only online.
In short: A SJW is an equal opportunistic asshole, with no legit personal life-experiences, and loves to be noticed. If that sounded too harsh, good. It’s supposed to be as harsh as possible, so the message is clear – SJWs are not welcome anywhere.
What does the concept of a ‘Social Justice Warrior’ have to do with Anita Sarkeesian? Everything. It’s what she really is. Anita Sarkeesian is a Social Justice Warrior, NOT a feminist, and her statements are all about placing blame of the existence of a real life problem into a form of entertainment, which in this case is Video Games. To prove my point about Anita Sarkeesian, we need to start off with talking about the tools of her trade. First up: Social Justice.
The Joys of Social Justice (Yes, it’s possible)
According to Wikipedia:
Social justice is “justice in terms of the distribution of wealth, opportunities, and privileges within a society”. Classically, “justice” (especially corrective justice or distributive justice) ensured that individuals both fulfilled their societal roles, and received what was due from society. Social justice assigns rights and duties in the institutions of society, which enables people to receive the basic benefits and burdens of cooperation. The relevant institutions can include education, health care, social security, labor rights, as well as a broader system of public services, progressive taxation and regulation of markets, to ensure fair distribution of wealth, equality of opportunity, and no gross inequality of outcome.
I can tell you right now that when it is used correctly (no threats of any kind, including violence) that there is NOTHING wrong with social justice. If something truly unfair and unwarranted is happening in the world (and often times there is), it’s fine to express and state how wrong that is and to offer help, support, suggest and even come together to discuss what is wrong with it, and to collectively come up with a solution or process that could have the potential to fix it, or more effectively, reduce the damaging effects of it over set amount of time.
It is a noble cause, and it’s one that can be expressed calmly, passionately and intellectually, without the need of violence, and within legal boundaries.
But, as with any cause, there are those people who can and will try to use it for their own personal gains… and that happens when you add the word ‘Warrior’, to the end of ‘Social Justice’. When that happens, it means that person is about to take the conversation and turn it on it’s end, stuff it with all kinds of half-assed crap, misdirection, and inaccurate ‘factoids’ (Misinformation).
That’s pretty much how a Social Justice Warrior works, all the time, every time.
“Whenever there’s injustice, I will do my best to exploit it to serve my needs” – that should be the motto of SJWs. Hell for all I know, it might be actual their motto. Now that we have grasped the concept of Social Justice (and I hope I did well doing so), we can move on to the SJWs “Methods of Attack”.
The SJW ‘Methods’ of attack
The one thing SJWs focus so much on is the argument of a topic. As the definition above says: an SJW is “an individual who repeatedly and vehemently engages in arguments on social justice on the Internet, often in a shallow or not well-thought-out way, for the purpose of raising their own personal reputation. “ That is the fuel and ammo SJWs rely on: it doesn’t matter what the argument is, just keep it going by any means necessary, and if possible, find a way to expand on it. Now as with any discussion/debate/argument, there is going to come a point where it comes to an end, and that end result can be in the form of agreeing to disagree, or coming to a reasonable and positive outcome, or just being tabled for another time, etc.
This is something a SJW doesn’t want to have happen at all. If that happens, they are shit outta luck. Personal rep has peaked, nothing more to discuss…The fire has been put out. The 15 minutes are up. SJWs can’t have that: they need the attention and the ammo, so a reasonable solution to an endgame is out of the question, which leads to the first method of attack.
If you ever wondered why an SJW gets so up in arms when they read a sensible comment online, it’s because it defeats their purpose. If you so much as even suggest finding a way, or even offer a well-thought out statement to a ‘warrior’, you are instantly wrong, defeating the purpose of the topic at hand, and are heavily accused of trying to derail the whole ‘discussion’.
In other words: If you don’t agree with the SJW, said SJW will basically accuse YOU of being one yourself. That is their ‘offensive’ method of attack.
Now, when they aren’t getting any comments that defeat their purpose, they will continue attacking the subject they are “fighting” with. That method also requires the needs of misinformation and the facts according to them. The ‘facts’ are nothing more that misguided, non-researched beliefs, that they must be allowed to express without question or critique.
It’s what I like to call the ‘Just go along with it or else’ method, another offensive attack.
And before you point it out, that wasn’t a typo – I did knowingly and intentionally call both those methods an offensive attack, because that’s all a SJW does: Attack.
Now, if you agree with what the SJW says, then you are just golden in their eyes. If you posted an agreement to them on Twitter, Facebook or even Youtube, the SJW will most likely RT(on Twitter), Like and Share (on facebook), or just allow the comment to stay in the list (on Youtube). They might even give thanks and reply to it personally.
THAT, is a SJW’s single and only line of ‘defense’: using other people’s comments to prove that the world according to them is the right world they live in.
And the fight continues on into the Gaming Industry.
Hello Anita…What the actual FUCK?
By now, if you are new to the gaming scene (you’ve just begun taking an interest in playing/developing video games), you might be saying about now: “wow, I’m glad people like that don’t exist in this genre of entertainment”, or words to that effect.
Sadly, I regret to inform you that you are mistaken. They are here, and they are doing a grand job in turning the industry on it’s head, and making sure the problems in the industry persists. To be fair, only ONE SJW stands out the most, and has been drawing a ton of attention for all the wrong reasons.
Which brings us to the main subject at last:
Her name is Anita Sarkeesian, the biggest and most popular SJW in the gaming industry – and that’s a very bad thing. A quick bio from Wikipedia:
Born in 1983, Anita Sarkeesian is a Canadian American feminist public speaker, media critic and blogger. She is the founder of Feminist Frequency, a registered charity, and with Jonathan McIntosh is responsible for the production of the video series Tropes vs. Women in Video Games.
Now even though Sarkeesian labels herself as a feminist, she’s really an SJW in disguise as a feminist. How can I be so sure? The proof lies in her argument about how ‘women’ are ‘treated in video games’. Here is a sample of her scam in action:
To reply this tweet – the following female Video Game Characters kick ass and take names in the games they are in right from the beginning, with the opportunity to become more powerful as the game progresses: Samus Aran (Metroid series), Lara Croft (Tomb Raider series), ANY CHARACTER from Soulcaliber Series, Street Fighter Series, etc etc etc…
There are so many female protagonists that start off with basic skills and powers, and attain new ones as you play the game. The only exceptions where a women has to be saved (and there are very few, btw), are Princesses Peach (Toadstool) and Daisy, from Super Mario Bros and Donkey Kong respectively, Princesses Daphne and Zelda, from Dragon’s Lair and The Legend of Zelda series, and even then, that’s not entirely accurate.
Princesses Peach and Daisy are playable characters in Super Smash Bros., and can beat the fuck out of any character that they go against. Even Zelda kicks ass as a playable character in Hyrule Warriors for the Wii. And this isn’t a bash or some kind of blind rant – I did actual research and personally played some of these games, and the ones I don’t own, I watched “Let’s Play” Videos – People who played these games and recorded the Game play you YouTube, and its not really hard to find this shit out online either. So how does Sarkeesian make this assessment that women in Video Games are being “damsel’d”?
With Tropes, of course.
If it’s one thing that can be said about Anita Sarkeesian, is that she LOVES using tropes. Let’s take a look at what a trope is, According to Wikipedia:
A literary trope is the use of figurative language – via word, phrase, or even an image – for artistic effect such as using a figure of speech. The word trope has also come to be used for describing commonly recurring literary and rhetorical devices, motifs or clichés in creative works.
Sarkeesian uses Tropes to identify what she sees as ‘Sexism against women in video games’. Her most popular one is the ‘Damsel in Distress‘ trope. Again to the Wikipedia:
The damsel in distress or persecuted maiden is a classic theme in world literature, art, film and video games. She is usually a beautiful young woman placed in a dire predicament by a villain or monster and who requires a hero to achieve her rescue. After rescuing her the hero can usually convince the woman to be their wife. She has become a stock character of fiction, particularly of melodrama. Though she is usually human, she can also be of any other species, including fictional or folkloric species; and even divine figures such as an angel, spirit, or deity.
Sarkeesian has used this trope in every single statement in her one-sided statements about sexism in Video Games, and even when she herself was “receiving death threats”. And I’m pretty sure that some of you might have, at one point, even found yourself agreeing with her arguments at times, but you are in fact, being tricked into agreeing that she is making a great point in linking Sexism, a social problem, and Video Games together.
You see, the ‘Damsel in Distress‘ trope is commonplace – as it says in the definition “She has become a stock character of fiction”, in video games and in general (Book, Film, TV, Etc.). Almost EVERY story you have ever read, watched on TV, or in a movie theatre, and even in real life has in one way or another, use this trope (And it does warrant repeating that she has used this trope on herself). Even movies on the Lifetime Network use this trope shamelessly and aggressively.
No matter where you are, there is ALWAYS a ‘Damsel in Distress‘. And that’s the trick to Sarkeesian’s point of view:
We are so familiar with the ‘Damsel in Distress‘ trope that when it’s pointed out to us, we can simply say “Yep, that’s about right”. That’s why so many people are able to connect to her argument: she is pointing out the most obvious thing that anyone who is paying attention to can recognize in an instant.
It’s also where Sarkeesian’s point-of-view falls short. Her statement is that sexism is running rampant in society due to the ‘sexism’ found in video games, and is using the trope as a link, proof and a selling point. But what she fails to acknowledge is that Sexism is NOT A VIDEO GAME ISSUE – it’s a social one.
Anita’s statement claims that the reason sexism exists in real life, is because of how Video Games portray women, thus perpetuating said sexism in real life. Her main argument hinges on blaming an OBJECT for societies problems, instead of blaming society itself…A common factor in an SJW’s argument (a few quick examples: ‘Porn movies ruin marriages’, ‘Video Games promote gun violence’, you get the idea).
It’s also a classic form of misinformation and misdirection. Let’s take a moment about the actual source of where the ills of society comes from. Don’t worry, we are still on the main subject.
The Source of Society’s Ills
To keep it simple, I’ll only address the issue Sarkeesian is trying to connect to video games – sexism. The problem with sexism, comes from the views and opinions of the masses. Literary works can either be used to point that out, but are often embellished to keep anyone interested and engrossed in the story they are telling, but that’s where it stops.
The actual views come from other people, who think alike, and maybe were raised to believe these views are true and justified. The society of today, exists mainly in part of the society of the past, i.e. our Parents.
There are people to this day, who think it’s ok for a woman not be paid equally as her male counterpart. There are people who think being gay is a sin. There are people who think that believing in a different religion other than their own is a bad thing, and are unworthy of love and compassion. The people who believe this were raised by their Parents, who more than likely believe that this is true, and passed/ pushed/pressured those beliefs onto their children. When those children grow up to live their own lives and have kids of their own, they will either pass those beliefs they inherited to their kids (thus continuing the cycle), or they will just do the opposite of what they have learned, and teach them something different altogether (either becoming progressive and accepting of differences, or just do something 110% crazy).
Sexism has existed LONG BEFORE the first Video Game Console came to be. Long before the first Video Game Arcade was erected. Long before Playboy Magazine was even printed. One could argue that literary works might have added fuel to the fire, but it’s not the cause of the fire. [insert Billy Joel’s “We didn’t start the fire” Music Video here]
THIS is how societies and their ills are formed: Social interactions and experiences.
Now, anyone who is observant and open-minded, would be able to find, understand and even express this revelation without too much effort, because this is something that is learned and observed, with time, experience, research and analysis.
The sexist views against women today, were formed by their elders. Video Games do not, and have not played a part in that. Sexist views and beliefs have existed for centuries, even millennia – and to blame an inanimate object of entertainment as the main cause of such existing views and beliefs is, for lack of a better word…”Lazy”.
And that word fits Sarkeesian’s opinions perfectly. Lazy.
Anita’s lack of research and common sense
Anita Sarkeesian has herself admitted that she has never played any of the games she has been talking about. It was proven at one point a few years ago, that the video game footage she used in her YouTube web series was ‘borrowed’ from other YouTubers “Let’s Plays” Videos. Ok…‘Borrowed’ is not a strong enough word, let’s instead say she stole them and clamed as her own gameplay. No alterations of any kind were made to the videos, which made it easy to spot. She has never asked for any opinions or views from other gamers, nor any views from fellow feminists.
Everything she has said has been based on her personal views, which even she won’t consider questioning for one second by checking to see if researching those beliefs are right or if to what degree they miss the mark.
No matter what you believe in, you must understand it to it’s fullest, in order to feel happy and at peace within yourself. You must accept the good and the bad. Its advantages and its shortcomings. Sarkeesian’s argument of Sexism in Video games is always one-sided, close-minded, and at its most, regressive.
And the worst part is that its paying off.
Anita has put herself in a position as the only SJW in the gaming industry, and the most popular and outspoken one at that. No one can ever come close, and it seems that she is still midway of her 15 minutes.
Last year alone, she was nominated for several awards in gaming for her ‘journalistic views’, and I use that term loosely (She didn’t win awards, BTW). Recently, it was reported that she is getting a cameo role in the TowerFall game.
Holy. Fucking. SHIT.
So, is there a solution to this problem, which I’d like to call “The Sarkeesian Gambit”? (I’ve got to admit that was rather impressive to call it that).
Yes, yes there is.
Don’t Support Sarkeesian’s Bullshit.
The title says it all. There is zero place for SJWs and Politics in the gaming industry… Unless of course, you are planning on making a game that pokes fun at politics, being the only exception. The whole point is to make and play Video games, and enjoy them to the fullest. It’s always been about having fun, and sharing that fun with others. That has been, and always should be, the ultimate goal when it comes to playing, making, reviewing and talking about Video Games.
SJWs and Politics have no place in the gaming world, and we should stop feeding and embracing such practices. It just doesn’t fit in here, it solves nothing, and it creates a new set of problems.
Don’t support Anita’s cause, because it’s nothing more than bologna with a creamy shit filling. What Anita Sarkeesian is doing is not genuine Feminism in any way, shape or form – its an brazen attempt to apply a social problem to a form of entertainment as the cause, and to make some money and gain popularity for herself. It’s doing considerable harm on all sides, especially to the actual feminist movement, and it appears to be spreading.
Anita Sarkeesian is a Social Justice Warrior. She is the cause of why Feminism is taking such a weird ass turn nowadays. She has no business using the gaming industry as her personal soapbox. She should do legit research into the games she says “damsel’d” women. When she sees how great and amazing they are, maybe this big ball of crazy will stop rolling, and she’ll actually and activity pursue sexism on the social platform like she should.
This solution can be applied without violence, threats, harsh comments, name calling and anger. And yes, even though I have been using strong language through most of this blog, it’s coming from a peaceful state of mind.
I’ve said it before, but it does bear repeating: don’t support Anita Sarkeesian. If you believe in genuine feminism and actually solving social problems, then I suggest following real feminists who have actually done research, and go forth and solve those problems at the social level. Be willing and accepting to keep an open mind and dialog about gender equality, and always remember that Sexism is a SOCIAL ISSUE – the Video Game Industry has nothing to do with it in any way.
Quick note: If you really want to follow an actual, genuine feminist, who is fair, balanced, and actually supports the feminist movement, I highly recommend following Christina Hoff Sommers (@CHSommers). She is a Resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, a Former philosophy professor, and host of the weekly video blog: The Factual Feminist.
This concludes Part 2 of the “Debugging the Gaming Industry” blog series. Part 3 will talk about how bad exclusive game titles are.