Lena Dunham

[Zot!]

The difference is that Bergman is brilliant and accomplished and watched tons of movies, and can slag off anyone he likes.

Sorry, no. Your claim was an all or nothing gambit: either "legitimate artists" have good all-round critical opinions of their own art-form or they don't. You can't excuse or explain away the counter-evidence just to save yourself the hard work of revising your opinion.

It was knives who insinuated that artists should have some critical coherence regarding their chosen profession. I don't think I disagree in general, but if you're an ignoramus, at least stay within your wheelhouse. The problem is she doesn't have anything interesting to say about films and she speaks as if she were a precocious thirteen year old who just learned some new potty words. Domino had it pretty well wrapped up. Admittedly, it doesn't help that I don't think she's funny in the least. Also, the Bergman quote is taken out of context. He praises Mouchette and Diary of a Country Priest to high heaven, but doesn't like animals, so Balthazar did not resonate with him.

[Black Hat]

Who are Dunham's parents and how have they hooked her up?

Her parents are visual artists Laurie Simmons and Carroll Dunham. Theories and rumors abound that they used their connections and wealth to make their daughter's career happen (though I can't imagine what kind of cachet people think two modestly accomplished visual artists have at HBO.)

Yeah that seems odd to me. Even if she had been given an opportunity because of her connections her work, although polarizing, has been successful on its own merits.

Why is there something to be said for that? When you play Operation and clumsily elicit a buzz from the game board, do you also say "Well, there's something to be said for that"? What about in an actual operation, if the doctor strikes the wrong nerve and paralyzes you for life. Is there something to be said for that as well?

Oh come on, this has nothing to do with anything. Part of being an artist is putting yourself out there thru your work, it's frankly terrifying. And say what you will about the quality of what she's doing but she did create and I don't think you can deny that her creation has struck a chord with people both among her fans and detractors. I don't see how you can not give her credit for that.

[swo17]

You originally said "strike a nerve," which I take to have more of a negative connotation (i.e. provoking a mostly negative response) than "strike a chord," i.e. to resonate. My point was just that provoking a strong reaction is usually intrinsic to works that intend to shock, and does not inherently make them any more or less worthwhile.

In any event, my comment was intended more generally. It was not necessarily directed at Ms. Dunham specifically, whom I personally find a bit gross for my tastes (for reasons having nothing to do with personal appearance) and largely just try to ignore.

[FerdinandGriffon]

I don't think you can deny that her creation has struck a chord with people both among her fans and detractors

.
"Nerve" would certainly make more sense in this sentence than "chord" does. She hasn't struck any of the latter with me, though she's made her presence felt on more than a few of my nerves. I'd describe her as more of a "jangler" than a "harmonizer".

[gcgiles1dollarbin]

I just credit the Facebook commenters responding to Dunham's list for exhibiting restraint by not calling for the destruction of Islam. Way to keep it focused!

As for Dunham, I don't think she has much wit at her disposal, but at the same time, there are so many time-honored comedies adored and cherished by contributors on this site that I think are dismally unfunny (and that I would never decry without being prepared for verbal snot flung like a gaucho's bolas).

So if it's a question of comedic taste, we are lost in this argument before it even begins. No one can convince me that Artists and Models, for example, is funnier than I'll Take Vanilla, the short from which a key gag was cribbed (involving a water cooler).* Give me Charley Chase over Jerry Lewis any, day, of the week, suckas! At the same time, I readily admit that Frank Tashlin's colorful, innovative work is much finer than Eddie Dunn's, um, not-so-impressive oeuvre, even if I laugh twice as hard at Chase in a dumb two-reeler than anything Tashlin has made outside of The Girl Can't Help It.

I think we are talking about at least two different things, in other words. Lena Dunham will likely never make a film with astonishing mise-en-scène, bold staging and blocking, or innovative sound design. I don't think she cares much for any of that. She's going for a kind of shock-of-the-real authenticity that resonates with young, privileged white women struggling in urban environments. The rest is point-and-shoot.

On top of that--and this is where I think she fails and where most of the ire among her critics stems from--I really think she is trying to cultivate a personality that reliably and consistently inhabits her performances, a "Lena Dunham" persona that presumes to speak for a certain demographic (whether she openly admits this or not). She wants to be the Will Rogers of my-shit-stinks-too, liberal-arts-college-graduate, second-wave-feminism-past-its-prime, twenty-something women. And while I'm all about shit stinking (if not liberal arts college graduates), I don't think she comes off as authentically natural in this regard. When Louis CK talks about jerking off in the basement like a troll, there is no fucking doubt in my mind that that is a recollection more than a bit. When Lena Dunham has awkward sex in a drain pipe, I'm thinking, "Yeah, this probably never happened to you." There is a mugging coyness to her shtick that will always seem fabricated rather than organic. I rarely catch that with effective "transgression" comics like Louis CK or even Apatow's stable of actors, whether male or female. (Keep in mind that these impressions are totally unconnected to whether these unflattering things have indeed happened to any of them! I'm talking about the persuasive mystique of histrionics and characterization.)

Having said that, I do think many of her male (and female) critics too often resort to misogynistic, irrelevant nastiness, and they do it with such relish, I begin to suspect that they really need a Lena Dunham to excoriate, as part of some half-baked masculine purging ritual. But most comments sections fall immediately into the lowest common denominator, anyway, as I suggest above. Bullies and brutes will always be the most visible, particularly when they can spew bile with relative anonymity. I don't know why anyone bothers reading them, although, at the same time, I am more fascinated with this provocative discussion about Lena Dunham than I am with Dunham herself.

*I'd say that Tashlin may have cribbed himself as a writer for Hal Roach, but it appears that he joined that studio a year after the Chase two-reeler was filmed.

[onedimension]

From what I've seen of her talk show appearances, she has the vibe of a precocious kid delighting her parents' friends at parties- she seems very eager to please. And there is a vanity in her lack of vanity, absolutely- as if she's priding herself on having no pride.

I do credit her for her ability as a performer, though- on 'Girls', some of her scenes are really very quick/alive and subtle and good. But your description actually reminds me of Woody Allen, who mined a neurotic Jewish male persona- whereas Dunham is mining a liberal arts graduate sexually awkward floundering 20-something female persona..

So why does she strike a chord/nerve? Because we're ALL floundering 20-something sexually awkward women from liberal arts colleges, on the inside.

[flyonthewall2983]

I have not a whole lot I can contribute thoughtfully to this. I watched one half of an episode of Girls just to see what the fuss was all about. Some things I was mildly amused by, but overall I felt it wasn't something I couldn't relate to. I think I can relate to female characters just as much as I can to men, on other shows and in certain movies. But in this case, it just felt pretty foreign to me. Maybe it's because I'm from the Midwest and have only seen NYC on television or in movies, but a few young women I know of who live in rather large metropolitan areas I know of have expressed dissatisfaction as well which makes me feeling better for saying this.

But if people do relate to what she does, all the better for her then. We all have different tastes and are entitled to defend them if put down as she has been. The negative body image that's thrust upon her in certain parts of the web I find completely distasteful for example. But that makes it harder for me to truthfully criticize what she does, because then anyone who will agree with the crux of what I say will call her so and so. Maybe I can get away with that a bit here, hopefully.

That all said, it felt so typical she would choose one of the most beautiful films in the CC and focus on (for me anyway) the worst part of the whole movie.

[Jarpie]

I think part of the reason why many dislike her is the "privileged pretentious 'artsy' hipster"-wibe she gives and that has tendency to rub off people wrong way.

[Gregory]

That's exactly what people who don't like Wes Anderson say about him. Dunham and Anderson have extremely little in common, which says a lot about how little those common descriptions usually mean.

I don't know about a "vibe" of privilege, but she's obviously hit a striking level of early success. I saw an interview on Huffington Post back when this topic was still current where she said that she gets why it bothers people that she's landed her own show without having paid a lot of dues (I don't think she phrased it that way) and that it would probably bother her a bit too if it were happening to someone else. Some amount of envy is understandable, I think.

[Brianruns10]

I think a lot of ill will does derive from questions of class and economic anxiety. There are lots of young people struggling to get by, trying to find success, not just in the arts, but in ALL fields. But especially those in the arts struggle to get their work seen, struggle to make ends meet while trying to keep the dream alive.

And then here comes Dunham who scores a breakout hit with her first major film. Not only that, she got a criterion release...I think this was THE beginning of the vitriol. Becuse it seemed too much too soon. Criterion is something of a lifetime achievement ambition for most filmmakers. She gets one on her first at bat. And so resentment builds.

It builds too because, as Dunham herself aptly pointed out, people didn't understand what made her work so special. It could be argued that what she did is what mumblecore had been doing for a decade. It's what just about every indie filmmaker does...mine their own lives for solipsistic films about finding oneself and all that. It's practically it's own genre, a cliche of the form.

And so it seemed to many to be unfair. And they look for a reason, and when they find one, such as class privilege or something, they latch on. It makes more sense, to claim the game of success is rigged, rather than to acknowledge that it may just be luck, and that most of us wont' find success like her.

I speak to this because this is a terrible anxiety I cope with as a documentary filmmaker. I've not yet made a film that made any impact, and I often wonder if I ever will, or if I'll waste my life making films no one cares to see. I don't think I'm alone. I think many feel this way, fear they are average, fear they don't have what it takes to succeed like Dunham...or maybe they do but it won't matter, because that opportunity will never come, or maybe their work will never be understood.

And to be fair, Dunham hasn't helped her cause. I think when we see people succeed, we like to see them be humble about it. Take Jennifer Lawrence, for example, or Jessica Chastain, both of whom worked their way up, in obscurity, for a number of years before achieving a breakout, while remaining rather self-effacing and ostensibly humble. I think it's why someone like Lawrence is rather well liked. Not just because she's beautiful (beautiful people are a dime a dozen), but because she seems to be true to her roots, and genuinely grateful.

Dunham can at times exude a sense of that entitlement which typifies the generation to which I am a member. She doesn't seem to be grateful. She seems to act at times like it is a birthright, or something she expected and deserved. Whether being self-parodic or sincere, her DGA speech where she mentions Spielberg did seem a bit over the top, and I'll say, while I enjoy "Girls" very much, I cannot stand Dunham's twitter feed, which is a perfect mix of obnoxiousness and celebrity name dropping. She assumes, at times, the seeming role of a teenager, at once thrilled to be surrounded by famous people, while drawing validation from it.

But I talk in perceptions. She is a smart woman and a terrific writer, and maybe this is all a put on. Who knows. I just hope she keeps growing as a filmmaker, because I see much untapped potential in her, but only if she continues to hone it.

If she continues with the schtick she currently employs to occupy the headlines, and resorts to making displays of her nudity, it will be with diminishing returns, and interest will wane. She needs to keep working on her craft, and ought to approach the public sphere and twitter with care.

Because as Paula Deen has shown, as well as Michael Cimino...it can all go away in an instant. One bad tweet can do irreparable harm. One poorly chosen phrase and everyone can turn on you in an instant, and your career has been set back five years. She couches much of what she says in a kind of irony that, again, typifies my generation. It is a safety net, allowing her to say transgressive things, but not *really* mean it because, y'know, irony. But someday without caution, that safety net will fail, and irony will not rescue her.

Yes, she has been the subject of a great deal of vitriol, much of it unfair. But I believe she too has invited this to a degree, and she has the potential to be her own worst enemy, doing more harm to herself and her growing reputation than any slings and arrows from anonymous internet commentators such as yours truly.

BR

[Jarpie]

Deleted

[Gregory]

I'm not sure I understand some parts of that and if you're saying that what I've said seems naive to you, but of course I'm aware that there are both misogynistic assholes and all kinds of other assholes on the internet. I said it was appalling, not surprising. There's also a big difference between expecting something and accepting it as the way it has to be.

I stand by my statement about how easily predominantly male enclaves of fan communities will lapse into misogynistic language in comments, and predominantly white enclaves can easily resort to racist language in comments, and it's far from being just young gamers who treat everyone equally bad. RaceFail '09 in the SF/Fantasy blogosphere in which when heated discussions about race happened, racist comments started pouring out.
Again, of course there is tons of general assholery in Facebook and YouTube comments but a lot of it is gender-specific and it seems like both men and women alike will judge women based on their appearance and make hurtful comments along those lines. If a male celebrity puts on a bunch of weight and shirtless paparazzi pics circulate, then of course people will comment about men in similar ways, but I don't think it's quite the same. So it's the obsessions with celebrity culture and body image that I'm interested in, not defending Dunham per se, even though I do disagree with some of the criticisms of her (the extremely common nepotism criticism of Dunham and Girls in general being among the silliest).

[Jarpie]

Deleted.

[jindianajonz]

The problem isn't that chauvenists exist; there are always going to be idiots in the world. The real problem is how common they are. There are some reasonable disagreements with her project in the thread (the second post is a good example of this) but they are dwarfed by the number of responses that call her a slut, tell to get back in the kitchen, or reduce her to an object whose only purpose is to titilate them (either asking her to show her boobs or complaining about how ugly she is), and to complain that the former are being conflated with the latter is missing the crux of the problem.

I understand that sometimes cries of misogyny are used to silence reasoned critics, but reading through the comments it is clear that this is not the main problem here. And I don't think that this thread is as much an abberation as I would like it to be. Sure, chauvenism can run both ways, but you'd be hard pressed to find a situation where a man is demeaned in quite the same way.

You could try to dismiss these comments as people jumping on a bandwagon or people acting like idiots because they are protected by the anonymity of the internet, but I don't believe people would make these comments if there wasn't some sliver of authenticity to them. The mere fact that they feel these comments are ok, anonymous or not, betrays the fact that buried misogynistic feelings are present in a much wider segment of the populace than I would have expected, and this is quite troubling.

[matrixschmatrix]

The 'well both sides are equally bad, why can't everyone be reasonable' argument is essentially concern trolling, because the thing is that the status quo immensely benefits straight white cismen, the people who around whom the status quo revolves and for whom things are designed. Anyone who complains about something that is an accepted part of the status quo- like, for instance, the prevalence of the damsel in distress trope in games old and new that Sarkeesian discusses- is going to be attacked as making something out of nothing and dismissed as unreasonable or even hysterical. That inherent imbalance in the system means that there is no equivalency at all between privileged people getting called racist or homophobic or whatever and minorities or women or other groups getting shut down and attacked- and making the claim that people should stop defending themselves or fighting to change things because that only irritates the in-groups more is concern trolling at its purest.

Moreover, the 'well I bet men get attacked for their looks too' thing is a.) pure conjecture, b.) inaccurate, and c.) totally missing the point, which is that there is a whole social context in which things exist and which affects the way things work in every single situation. A man getting called fat is not the same as a women getting called fat, because there is not an underlying assumption that men are valued only for their looks operating in such insults, nor will such an assumption be read into it.

[Jarpie]

Deleted.

I deleted my messages because english is not my first language and some things I said could be intepreted wrongly.

[Jarpie]

Okay, let's try this again. By asking people to be more reasonable I meant to be more diplomatic and not throwing around that kind of rhetoric where you instantly paint everyone who doesn't agree with your own viewpoint 100% as chauvanistic trolling pigs, and I never said not to talk about this or that it isn't a problem.

If you know internet at all, you also should know that there are people in internet who loves attention, loves to troll and to piss people off and the best way to deal with them is by ignoring them and not giving them attention, when they see someone replying and reacting to them, they just get more excited to troll and to piss people off more. In recent years those people have seen that issues such as chauvanism and misogyny is sure thing to get into the more wider media and getting attention, so they are bound to use that. Sure, there are men who are chauvanists but SOME of those loudest are just trolls. Dealing with the chauvanists rationally or ignoring would imo be the best way dealing with them and I'd argue that bringing those loud chauvanistic men into spotlight just gives them the platform to spread their own word.

I think that when someone who either haven't thought about the misogyny being problem or it haven't crossed their minds sees more extreme people yelling about misogyny or calling them chauvanistic before they've barely gotten word out to ask why is it a problem, they will be bound to think they're hysteric or overreacting. Let's take example from something different, when you see two people yelling their lungs out at each other for something you don't think it's not a big problem, do you think they are hysteric and overreacting? If you see two people arguing, and other one is yelling their lungs out and other one is trying to calmly argue, who do you think other people are bound to take seriously?

So to win over those people who aren't chauvanists/misogynistic but who just haven't thought about it you need to be diplomatic and try to explain why it is a problem in your opinion. Some will start to think about it more and will be more considerate.

Do you see where I'm coming from?

Some of those people who criticise Sarkeenian's videos who aren't trolls or assholes have very good points about them, such as lifting examples out of the context or not putting the games in perspective of the time and technology they were done, which is in my opinion very important when talking about fiction from any angle. When someone complains that characters in silent films tend to be very shallow and not very deeply developed, you'd probably argue that they were like that because silent cinema couldn't really use dialogue to bring that depthness into the characters like they started to bring in the late 20s and early 30s when the sound films appeared.

This will be long-winded argument but bear with me:
Let's take Super Mario Bros or two first Zeldas for example, NES to which they were made for couldn't really handle much more than very simplistic story, and what is easy to be made to draw in the boys playing them? "Save the princess and Be Hero!" as the young boys who were the majority of the console players at that time responds to that the most. As someone who have been gamer since mid-80s when I was 6, I know from very good experience that girls weren't interested of playing -anything- when I was in elementary school or business school till turn of the milennia even if the games they saw were adventure-games, puzzle-games, rpgs or anything. Sure there were exceptions that girls played videogames but based on my experience they weren't even one in fifty girls.

Super Mario Bros is simple platformer made for boys what doesn't have mechanics to tell anything else than very simple story, which in this case is "Save the princess and be a hero", same I'd say about Zelda too. If people wants to see games not using tropes, they should look for western rpgs and point'n'click adventure games. Ultima 5 for example from 1988 is a game in which you can choose your gender, the gender of your character isn't referenced in it at all, the story has MUCH more depthness into it than Zeldas or Super Marios, as it deals with moralistic absolutes, twisting the ethics, tyranny and dictatorship and corruption as much as the technology of that time allowed in computers.

That's why many people don't like her videos as they take very small segment of the whole gaming history and doesn't put them into the perspective of the said medium and the limitations as I explained above. I'll get into the games more in depth below.

Also in my experience, the games which are the most objectionable tend to be the worst games I've seen, especially from the writing and have very simplistic story, but also worse from the gameplay as well. I've followed gaming industry for ages and if there's one thing I've learned is that the big problem why gaming has actually gotten progressively worse is the marketing people and studio executives who are actually dumbing down the games.

They have been ruining the gaming industry since the very beginning and here's why: The best written games I've seen has always been good (western) crpgs and adventure games, which both basicly vanished 10-13 years ago, because they weren't games for masses. The marketing people and studio executives force developers (unless they are indie) to make games which are not complicated from mechanics or stories/plots because mass audience don't care for those and easiest stories to tell are those most simplistic ones which uses the tropes like Damsel in Distress.

When you look at the best written games which have much better story and storytelling, they tend to have much better written female characters as well and doesn't lean on tropes. For example LucasArts' point'n'click adventure games from mid 80s and 90s, Origin System's RPGs (such as Ultimas 1-7), Fallout 1+2, Planescape: Torment (Granted, some of the portraits are pretty wtf but the writing is absolutely golden), Fallout: New Vegas, Broken Sword and 2 and so on. I haven't played Sierra's adventure games from the 80s and 90s but I'd be willing to believe that they are like Lucasarts' games which didn't really use the tropes unless they were mocking them or doing the pastiche, like Maniac Mansion did of the horror films where the girl always gets kidnapped or killed.

As long as the games are being written by the horrible writers, they continue to be shit. I think the reason why female characters are being written to be very shallow and use tropes is because the writers are so fucking horrible that they don't have skill to write anything else rather than the most writers being misogynistic per se - the male characters are as shallow as the female characters but the tropes they use are just different, such as "Stoic and muscled soldier" because their idiotic audience responds to that.

When you look at the best writers of the game industry, such as Chris Avellone, you'll see that his female characters are much better written than the writers who are shit. When the so-called AAA+++ gaming industry eventually crashes (crossing my fingers!), then we're gonna have better written games once again unless the ability to do so is completely forgotten. That all being said, I do see objectifying women as a problem, for example in games but as I said, the problem for that is the quality of the medium rather than misogyny itself.

I hope you managed to stay with me this long.

If you think men aren't at all attacked or laughed at because of their looks, I have no idea where you've lived in, and I'd be willing to bet I'd get laughed and mocked at because I'm overweight in the youtube comments if I'd put video on where I try to play football (soccer) for example. You have no idea how much fat kids gets bullied or mocked in schools and even as adults overweight men are mocked. Also, name me one huge male film star (in caliber of Tom Cruise, Ryan Gossling, Johnny Depp etc) who isn't handsome, who is fat and who isn't comedian or didn't start as comedian because I can't think of any.

I'll grant you that it's worse for women in internet but you don't think it'd be better not to value ANYONE on their looks?

Since this is Lena Dunham topic, if she is only valued or considered for her looks, why do you think she's gotten as far as she has as she doesn't look like super model?

[matrixschmatrix]

Okay, let's try this again. By asking people to be more reasonable I meant to be more diplomatic and not throwing around that kind of rhetoric where you instantly paint everyone who doesn't agree with your own viewpoint 100% as chauvanistic trolling pigs, and I never said not to talk about this or that it isn't a problem.

If you know internet at all, you also should know that there are people in internet who loves attention, loves to troll and to piss people off and the best way to deal with them is by ignoring them and not giving them attention, when they see someone replying and reacting to them, they just get more excited to troll and to piss people off more. In recent years those people have seen that issues such as chauvanism and misogyny is sure thing to get into the more wider media and getting attention, so they are bound to use that. Sure, there are men who are chauvanists but SOME of those loudest are just trolls. Dealing with the chauvanists rationally or ignoring would imo be the best way dealing with them and I'd argue that bringing those loud chauvanistic men into spotlight just gives them the platform to spread their own word.

I think that when someone who either haven't thought about the misogyny being problem or it haven't crossed their minds sees more extreme people yelling about misogyny or calling them chauvanistic before they've barely gotten word out to ask why is it a problem, they will be bound to think they're hysteric or overreacting. Let's take example from something different, when you see two people yelling their lungs out at each other for something you don't think it's not a big problem, do you think they are hysteric and overreacting? If you see two people arguing, and other one is yelling their lungs out and other one is trying to calmly argue, who do you think other people are bound to take seriously?

So to win over those people who aren't chauvanists/misogynistic but who just haven't thought about it you need to be diplomatic and try to explain why it is a problem in your opinion. Some will start to think about it more and will be more considerate.

Obviously, civility and the presumption of good faith are helpful for any discussion. However, the whole premise of concern trolling is to abuse those things in an attempt to control the message and shut down certain modes of communication; thus, calls to be 'reasonable' or to 'stay calm' often function alongside a concerted attempt to make the demands made by people outside the status quo look inherently hysterical or ridiculous or what have you. It's not always conscious on either party's part, but it's still a problem. To me, Sarkeesian is extremely civil in her presentation (though perhaps not so incisive as other feminist writers I enjoy) but not interested in confrontation of any kind; I don't see that as a problem. Moreover, I think it's absolutely impossible to look at the level of hatred towards women displayed in the reactions to her and presume that it does not say anything in particular about the particular makeup of the audience for video games.

Let's take Super Mario Bros or two first Zeldas for example, NES to which they were made for couldn't really handle much more than very simplistic story, and what is easy to be made to draw in the boys playing them? "Save the princess and Be Hero!" as the young boys who were the majority of the console players at that time responds to that the most. As someone who have been gamer since mid-80s when I was 6, I know from very good experience that girls weren't interested of playing -anything- when I was in elementary school or business school till turn of the milennia even if the games they saw were adventure-games, puzzle-games, rpgs or anything. Sure there were exceptions that girls played videogames but based on my experience they weren't even one in fifty girls.

I think you may be reversing cause and effect here; insofar as its true that women didn't play video games (which doesn't jibe with my anecdotal experience, but that's beside the point) it may be specifically because they were designed and marketed as something for boys. Games like Mario are so abstract that there's really no need to gender them at all, but it was made for boys, and girls were excluded. The way that operates and the effect that has is more or less the whole point that Sarkeesian is trying to get at.

I don't think Sarkeesian is trying at all to say that video games, as a medium, are hopelessly misogynistic trash for boys only; quite the opposite, she is a fan of the medium trying to disentangle a history of sexist garbage from what makes the medium valuable.

As far as the looks thing goes- it's not a question of whether attractive people generally do better in Hollywood, or whether unattractive people get made fun of, it's one of a larger societal situation, and if you honestly don't believe that looks are a greater determinant in how women's worth in society is constructed than for men, then I think we may live in such different worlds that further discussion is going to be impossible.

[jindianajonz]

I am out of the house for the weekend and typing this on a phone, so I can't respond in as much depth as I'd like, but one thing I want to point out is the word "trope" does not necessarily imply something negative. here for more details.

With that in mind, I don't think she is setting out to skewer the video game industry for improper treatment of women. Instead, she wants to study how women are treated and come to an understanding of why that is, which is ironically the same thing you were doing when you tried to explain how Mario was aimed at a male audience. (Though I do agree with Matrix that weak female characterization and girls not playing games is a chicken-and-egg situation that would probably warrant more exploration)

[Jarpie]

Obviously, civility and the presumption of good faith are helpful for any discussion. However, the whole premise of concern trolling is to abuse those things in an attempt to control the message and shut down certain modes of communication; thus, calls to be 'reasonable' or to 'stay calm' often function alongside a concerted attempt to make the demands made by people outside the status quo look inherently hysterical or ridiculous or what have you. It's not always conscious on either party's part, but it's still a problem. To me, Sarkeesian is extremely civil in her presentation (though perhaps not so incisive as other feminist writers I enjoy) but not interested in confrontation of any kind; I don't see that as a problem. Moreover, I think it's absolutely impossible to look at the level of hatred towards women displayed in the reactions to her and presume that it does not say anything in particular about the particular makeup of the audience for video games.

Serious question, do you think I am "concern trolling" and misogynistic? If you are, then there's no point to try to have this discussion as you've already formed your opinion on me. Not all who are calling people to stay calm or reasonable are trolls or misogynistic, it's very important to see and recognize the difference between genuinely condosending comments and just being polite and diplomatic, as I tried to explain.

My calls for people staying calm or being reasonable is because if the people who I'm trying to have a discussion with are being hysterical, yelling or starts to insult me, for example by calling me a troll or misogynistic, makes any productive discussion impossible and doesn't lead into anything. I almost didn't write my last post because you instantly started to call me a troll (at least that's how it looked like) when I was being polite and reasonable myself and only wished that other people would be too so that there'd be actual communication between us more neutral ones and more...how to put it...more gung-ho liberals/feminists. I hope this doesn't come across wrongly as english isn't my first language and I'm not always best at expressing myself in english.

There are a lot of people like me who are perfectly capable of understanding your point of view but disagree on some things. But when we try to dicuss things in civilized manner, and we don't agree with something the other side is saying, we get called as trolls, misogynistic or yelled at, that is at least my experience, maybe it is because people with your viewpoint or women gets a lot of flak from the actual chauvanists and become very defensive but I'm only guessing.

Maybe I'm being too idealistic and it's impossible to have civilized discussions in this subject. I've tried couple times to have civilized discussions on this subject but it almost always ended up with name calling or spouting rhetorics without even properly listening my arguments or views. I know better not to engage with misogynistic, racist etc people as their views are usually deeply rooted and they tend to be hostile but I'd hoped that your side would be willing to discuss things in more civilized manner but that's proving to be impossible so might as well give up.

Like I said in my previous post before I edited it, I try to adhere with the sentiment "disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Maybe I should just listen my own advice and stay away from the sparkly subjects where things get easily heated up.

If you are interested hearing my opinions on why gaming industry has sexists elements and how I see them, I'd be happy to write those down.

[jindianajonz]

I don't think anyone is accusing you of trolling or being misogynistic, Jarpie.
However, it seems like we are talking about two different things. You are saying that you are worried that people with reasonable arguments may be lumped with the trolls and effectively silenced. But I don't see that happening in this conversation. I acknowledged above that there are reasonable objections to the Kickstarter project (and pointed to the second post in the thread as an example of this). But I am simply not concerned with the reasonable objections; I find the sheer volume of comments genuinely based on hate and misogyny to be much more concerning than the fact that some people may have their comments drowned out.

[matrixschmatrix]

Yeah, I'm pretty much with jindiana on this one. Jarpie, I'm not particularly concerned with whether you yourself are concern trolling or a misogynist- but frankly, if you believe that stating that an argument can be fundamentally one that silences women (via concern trolling) is beyond-the-bounds hysterical or uncivil, I think you're kind of making my point for me, because without that tool the whole thing breaks down.

It's surely true that at some point in the history of the internet, men have been unfairly silenced in their perfectly reasonable objections to feminism or feminist critiques, but given that a.) I haven't seen it happen, b.) I have seen it happen frequently that dominant groups use the language of civility to silence minority groups, and c.) I'm not all that concerned with dominant groups have a voice and a soapbox, since basically the entire apparatus for the dissemination of information is by definition in the control of the dominant groups, the idea doesn't worry me much. I'm somewhat baffled as to how Sarkeesian's side- deleting comments I guess?- became the uncivil one in a situation where she's been endlessly threatened with sexual violence, but in this situation, I think it's massively more important to defend her right to say her say than to defend the right of critics to confront her directly.

[Jarpie]

It's sometimes hard to read the tone from messages as I probably misread the tone from your messages, and we're probably talking a bit past each other so to speak. Sure, I can see how in some cases the "be reasonable" or "calm down" can be used as a way to silence the women but I was trying to point out that it's not always the case, and misunderstandings can drown the genuine attempts to find common understanding. We probably also see the solution (in lack of better word) to the getting the change fundementally just so differently. As it's usual for us finns, we most of the times try to find out solution to which everyone (or most) can agree on or find mutual understanding (or something along those lines), that's just the way we tend to think.

And yes jindianajonz, I was talking about that people like me might be lumped with the trolls because the trolls just provoke and are the loudest so our genuine attempts to find common ground and understanding is drowned. Because of this we might stop trying to mediate or find common understanding, and then there are only those left who yell at each other and rest of the people will just see two groups of the people acting hysterical since they both just escalate each other and rest just ignore both. You don't see this as a potential problem at all, matrixschmatrix?

I can't see how anyone with a brain could find the comments Sarkeesian has got acceptable, and it's a shame that there can't be genuine communication between her and those who disagree with her politely as she does present her videos well and sounds like someone who would be able to have good and polite debate. A good and proper debate about issues with intelligent people is in my opinion crucial in getting progress done as both sides can learn something about each other and about their views and find the common ground I was talking before.

I do agree there is a problem with sexism/misogyny in, for example some modern games but we probably disagree on the cause why some games have those elements, as I see it as part of the bigger problem which is lack of the quality/ability and the way game companies are run, rather than inherited sexism itself in people in gaming industry.

Very common issue where a lot of people disagree is the reason why more games aren't aimed for girls/women, or not aimed at that lowest common denominator crowd (aka the dudebros). The reason for that is that the publishers know only how to make games with very small budgets, such as games for tablets, facebook etc. or games with huge budgets which brings in the huge profits and the profit is the only thing they are concerned with - believe me, as someone who has followed gaming industry for almost 30 years I know the business side almost inside and out. They just don't see how they can justify making a game with budget of 40-200 million (only type game publishers know how to do) not aimed at the lowest common denonimator (they don't know how to market to anyone else) and bringing in the profits in at least quadruple and hopefully tenfold vs. the budget. I don't like it anymore than you do as this way of thinking has pratically killed off any and all high production value traditional crpgs, point'n'click adventures, most of the strategy games and simulators and replaced them with basicly same type of action games.

So in short: When we get rid of the "Let's make games for the lowest common denominator!", we get rid of the sexist elements.

When it comes to the old games from the late 70s to the late 80s and maybe till late 90s, I don't think the thinking was nefariously "Let's not make games for girls and let's keep them away from the gaming" but much more along in the lines of "Boys likes to play games, right? I don't think girls would be interested playing so there's no point doing games for them", which is a shame and missed opportunity.

[Mathew2468]

Youtube is not a place for genuine communication, the comment system only allows for quick jabs.

[Jarpie]

Youtube is not a place for genuine communication, the comment system only allows for quick jabs.

So true, and most people who comments in youtube are idiots anyway. I think there's also been some misunderstandings between me and matrixschmatrix, which is very easy in textual communication. Hopefully I've managed to clear my message enough so that I managed to express the point I was trying to make.

It's very easy to only see the more extreme sides of any issues in internet due they are most visible and we all probably have been at least a bit guilty of just seeing those ones instead of that most people are somewhere in the middle who would like to reach across, so to speak.