A Note on Socialism (Addendum to a Previous Post)

Back in December of 2013, I wrote a lengthy (20 page) post concerning Socialism and Communism, A Rebuttal: Socialism, Communism, and Arrogance. The substance of that post was aimed at pointing out the differences between Socialism and Communism, in context of history. In my post, I laid out the reasons why I tend to think that communism has never existed. In critiquing an argument made by another person, I pointed out that he had been using the terms communism and socialism interchangeably. I also, rather emphatically, supported the idea that the two terms are different. This, I now realize, is in error. This post is meant to correct that error. Moreover, I will explain why my critique is still valid.

On the Interchangeability of Terms

Is there a difference between the two terms? Yes, and no. Karl Marx used the two terms (communism and socialism) interchangeably, viewing them as meaning the same thing. So why is it that if you search Google for “the difference between Socialism and Communism”, you land at pages such as Diffen’s page, Communism vs. Socialism, where the two concepts are separated into 17 different categories, from philosophy, religion, to political system. Interestingly, their page differentiates between “key proponents” and “political  movements”. It would be difficult to understate the level of confusion that this page my generate, if only due to the fact that it is very much a historically vague, philosophically redacted, and very much a western view of the two concepts.

Then there’s UShistory.org’s explanation of the two, first, their definition of communism is:

“The most important principle of communism is that no private ownership of property should be allowed. Marx believed that private ownership encouraged greed and motivated people to knock out the competition, no matter what the consequences. Property should be shared, and the people should ultimately control the economy. The government should exercise the control in the name of the people, at least in the transition between capitalism and communism. The goals are to eliminate the gap between the rich and poor and bring about economic equality.”

and socialism:

“Socialism, like communism, calls for putting the major means of production in the hands of the people, either directly or through the government. Socialism also believes that wealth and income should be shared more equally among people. Socialists differ from communists in that they do not believe that the workers will overthrow capitalists suddenly and violently. Nor do they believe that all private property should be eliminated. Their main goal is to narrow, not totally eliminate, the gap between the rich and the poor. The government, they say, has a responsibility to redistribute wealth to make society more fair and just.”

If one is to talk about this issue in an honest light, and a correct one, we must understand the two terms to be the same thing. To Marx and Engels, there was no difference between the two terms. As such, we cannot refer to one as meaning the other.

Much of the difference between the two terms is very much thanks to Lenin. It is only until now, that I realize that our modern separation of the two terms is because of Lenin’s forced revolution, as well as redefinition of socialism. Leninism is not Marxism. I made a similar statement in my previous post concerning this issue. To really explain the difference of view, Marx saw socialism as a stateless, classless, money-less society. Lenin, on the other hand, defined socialism as such:

For socialism is merely the next step forward from state-capitalist monopoly. Or, in other words, socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly. (The Impending Catastrophe and How to Combat it – Can We Go Forward If We Fear To Advance Towards Socialism, September 1917: Retrieved from Marxist Internet Archive)

Lenin, through his redefinition of socialism, as opposed to its original (and at the time widely understood definition), in effect created a literal interpretation of Marxist view of transition between capitalism, to communism. Much of the Western historical view of this transition implies that the political and economic change would go from capitalism, to socialism, and finally to capitalism. This view is false, and not meant to be taken from a literal view if one is to understand Marx’s view of communism.

To this end, I was in my previous post, supporting this distinction, while also using it to attack the notion that communism has ever existed.

To sum up the yes/no dichotomy as to whether or not the two terms mean the same:

Marx: Yes

Lenin: No.

USA: No.

The west has greatly succeeded in misrepresenting Marxism, but has also greatly benefited from Lenin’s socialist definition.

Richard Montague said it best, in my opinion:

“The western media, particularly oblivious to the implications of communism even as defined sometimes in their dictionaries, frequently drew attention to the poverty of the Russian workers. Conversely, and correctly, it also drew attention to the privileged and opulent lifestyles of the “communist” bosses. The same media, apparently without any sense of contradiction, was telling the public in the western world what the “Communist”-controlled media were telling workers in the Russian empire: that Russia represented the Marxian concept of a “classless” society.

The litmus test of the existence of “communism” for western journalists was recognition of the claim, by a state or a political party, that is was either “socialist” or “communist”. Similar claims by such states and parties to be “democratic” was never given the slightest credibility. It might be argued that those who rejected the “democratic” claim knew a little about democracy whereas they appear to know nothing whatsoever about socialism.

The contradiction between the views of Marx and Lenin set out above relate to fundamental issues. Inevitably, however, they formed the basis for numerous other conflicts of opinion between Marxism and Leninism. In the light of these basic contradictions, it is absurd and dishonest to claim that there is any compatibility between Marx’s concept of a free, democratic socialist society and the brutal state capitalism espoused by Lenin. Journalists, especially, should be in no doubt about the interests they serve when they promulgate the lie that Marxism or socialism exists anywhere in the world. (Marx and Lenin’s views contrasted, The Socialist part of Great Britain, December, 2001)”

On the Validity of my Previous Critique

In the article for which this post serves as an addendum, I argued that true communism has never existed, thanks much to Lenin’s various changes to the various fundamental principles that Marx laid out. This is still true. Moreover, while my opponent for which that article served as a rebuttal used the two terms interchangeably, he did so in context of the modern western view. He views socialism and communism as meaning the same thing, much the same as Marx did, although he disagrees and rejects socialism (or any other delineation of it), believing capitalism to be superior in every aspect. The unfortunate circumstance of his argument though is that, 1) what we call “socialism” here, is more applicable in light of Lenin’s definition, or “state capitalism.” In effect, his argument becomes a straw man argument.

Conclusion

This post served mostly to point out a philosophical and historical error that I inadvertently supported. To this end, both definitions are true, and it is for this reason as well that I share this information. It is important that when discussing topics, we use the proper definition. It is not worthwhile for political figures, or even every day citizens, to reject a piece of legislation on the basis that it’s “socialism” because that word, very clearly, has different meanings in history and application.

Feel free to like, share, rate, or comment.

A Note on Objectification (In Video Games, and in General)

I recently read a post titled Game Gals, posted by The Jones Rant. In it, the author discusses the notion of objectification in video games. In sum, he suggests that 1) It’s not bad to objectify video game characters, 2) 1 is true because all video game characters are meant to be acted upon. As always, I encourage you to read the article prior to reading this, as there’s a lot of context that I will not be adding to this post, only to save time. This post serves as a rebuttal in part, but mostly as a reply to very interesting questions both in the body of his post, as well as the comments that further inspired this post. Unlike the great many posts I have come across concerning this issue, this particular article attempts to articulate important questions, indeed a different point of view, that should be included in any conversation that pertains to the current debate surrounding video game culture.

The author of Game Gals states he read a comment in a Forbes article that said, essentially, what he wanted to say, and that the individual who wrote the comment began by defining objectify, and sexist, and that mixing the two begets sexual objectification. For the sake of integrity, I will also define those words here.

According to the dictionary, objectify means:

1 : to treat as an object or cause to have objective reality

2: to give expression to (as an abstract notion, feeling, or ideal) in a form that can be experienced by others

and sexism (sexist) means:

1 : prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially  : discrimination against women

2 : behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex

Our modern understanding of objectification began with Immanuel Kant, especially within the feminist framework. Kant believed objectification to be the act of reducing someone to an object, in effect removing (or ignoring) their humanity, and he believed humanity to refer to a persons ability to make rational choices. To him, humanity led to the concept of dignity, and in the end, he believed that the humanity of people should be treated as both a means and an end, not simply one or the other. Kant also believed that objectification outside of monogamous relationships made it more likely for people to be objectified only for means of sexual desire. Lastly, Kant agreed that both men and women can, and indeed are, objectified, but that women bare the brunt of that objectification.

Kant’s influence on feminist notions of sexual objectification cannot be ignored, as it created the philosophical underpinnings for our modern view of the term. That being said, objectification has since been more broadly defined by Martha Nussbaum, who identified seven traits in treating people as objects:

1. instrumentality: the treatment of a person as a tool for the objectifier’s purposes;
2. denial of autonomy: the treatment of a person as lacking in autonomy and self-determination;
3. inertness: the treatment of a person as lacking in agency, and perhaps also in activity;
4. fungibility: the treatment of a person as interchangeable with other objects;
5. violability: the treatment of a person as lacking in boundary-integrity;
6. ownership: the treatment of a person as something that is owned by another (can be bought or sold);
7. denial of subjectivity: the treatment of a person as something whose experiences and feelings (if any) need not be taken into account

Another scholar added three others:

8. reduction to body: the treatment of a person as identified with their body, or body parts;
9. reduction to appearance: the treatment of a person primarily in terms of how they look, or how they appear to the senses;
10. silencing: the treatment of a person as if they are silent, lacking the capacity to speak.

Nussbaum has also stated that objectification isn’t necessarily, or always a bad thing, and that context matters. She also states that her classifications may also be too broad, in some ways they can lead to the idea that everyone is objectified. Several individuals, most notable Alan Soble, and Leslie Green, have argued that everyone is in fact objectified, although Soble takes it to a different level, arguing that no one person can dehumanize another due to a lack of ontological status. Although that may be the case, Nussbaum states that context is extremely important. If a husband catcalls his wife, consent is present, indeed, it may be a regular routine in that relationship. The context of this event does not necessarily negatively dehumanize the individual, as the husband readily understands the humanity of his wife, and in fact, may in part be doing what he is doing not just out of some primal desire, but because he also admires his wife. The wife may also find pleasure from this.

In contrast, however, if a woman is walking down the street, and a random man driving down the road catcalls a woman, there is no consent present. The man has no understanding of the woman, and in fact is only doing it because he finds her sexually appealing. Her capacity to make rational decisions means little to nothing to the man. The woman walking down the street may feel dehumanized from this event. Indeed, in a great many instances, that is how women feel. To this point, it is important to state that women must live up to very specific standards of beauty. These standards have an impact on anxiety, and depression. This cannot go ignored, or understated in context of this discussion. Moreover, research has shown that these beauty standards impact self-esteem, and image of themselves, in a negative way. A recent post that I wrote elaborates on some of the research, and you can read more on the topic here as well. Fore examples of marketing and objectification of women, you can read this article.

At this point, some of you may read this and say: “but men experience that too!” First, I would say that you are correct. Indeed, many scholars on the topic of sexual objectification, indeed feminists en mass, would readily agree with you. They may also say that this is a sign of trouble, and not progress, because it in fact makes the problem worse. Feminists would also say that this is indeed a product of patriarchy. Second, I would say that although true, stating as such is not a valid rebuttal towards the sexual objectification of women, nor does the fact that men also have beauty standards negate, or reduce, the overall negative impact that it has on women, or the overall case that women tend to be the victims of said objectification.

So that I may move on from theory, and tackle the article for which this post serves as a reply/rebuttal, I encourage you to read Feminist Perspectives on Objectification published by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. It is linked above in regards to the facets of objectification. I have in fact read the vast majority of the sources used to create the post, and their page serves as a really good source on the philosophical roots discussed in here, and in other posts. I also encourage you to read Papadaki‘s paper Sexual Objectification: From Kant to Contemporary Feminism published in the journal Contemporary Political Theory, which you can read here. Papadaki shares many views of Nussbaum’s, but also some of the criticisms, particularly that of broadness, as well as futility in actually defining the term sexual objectification.

Moving on, to quote from the Game Gals article:

What is so bad about objectifying a VIDEO GAME CHARACTER. For starters they are already objects. They are not real people and as such have no human rights, liberties, or dignity other than the attributes given to them by their creators. If I want to make a character that is an absolute slut and sleeps with everything that moves (even animals) then that is what she will be….

What about sexualization?…No other medium receives the criticisms and scrutiny that video games receive. Is there some angst that feminists have against young boys being attracted to women – never mind their attraction being perfectly normal, healthy, and necessary for their development as men…We want completely boring, un-sexy, and domineering women to parade around in completely practical armor, and never need rescuing….

So if game characters aren’t human and have no rights, why are we attempting to give them rights?…

We need to stop this crusade against video games and their developers, it’s only serving to stifle creativity and to regress the medium….because sexy women are inherently evil.

Let me be clear – objectification and sexualization are not inherently evil. We do it everyday to people we meet in almost every occasion….

So that no one is confused, each “…” indicates content that I did not include in the quote above. I did this in order to quote the important bits that I want to tackle. Moreover, the bits that I did not quote from do not necessarily redact context. As such, as I stated above, I encourage you to read the entire article for yourself.

That being said, in replying to a comment that I made, the author responded with this:

All video game characters, whether they are male or female are “acted upon”. Even the main protagonist whom you play as is acted upon….Why is it we make a special case for female NPC’s? The shopkeeper in an MMO is there for the player to click on and buy things from. Whether or not it is male or female is irrelevant….

When you catcall a woman on the street are you really “reducing” her? Are you explicitly saying “you are nothing more than legs and breasts”? No, what you are saying is “I acknowledge your beauty”. (following this, the author refers to our biological tendency to seek the most “fit” – although these are my words, I am explaining here to save room)

There’s nothing inherently evil about the “male gaze” despite what Anita Sarkeesian might want to tell you.

First, let’s talk about game characters, and ‘acting upon’ them. The author is correct in saying that every character in any game is an “object”, however digital they may be, or as he refers them “bits of data in a SQL table.” In his reply, he details the fact that you must act upon your main playable character, in order for them to interact with other NPC’s, or, to act upon. Another way of wording it is that you, the person, must act upon to act upon a character. Still, games such as Halo, and Dishonored (for the most part), the main playable character’s actual features are hidden behind a mask. Although there’s been much speculation as to when, or if, Master Chief’s face will ever be shown, there’s been a lot of conversation as to why it remains covered. The voice actor for Master Chief stated back in 2005 that the character is likely left masked so that the identity of him can remain with the player. In a similar mention, Frank O’Conner, the franchise directer, in 2012 stated that he’s left masked so that the player can remember that they aren’t a hero, and that there’s no expectation to be a boy, or a girl.”

Halo is both a poor example, and a good one. For one thing, it’s a poor example in context to sexual objectification, because the whole franchise revolves around (for the most part) playing as Master Chief and shooting aliens. But it’s a good example in context of acting upon characters, and more importantly the “gamey elements” (Frank O’Conner) that are put into games that allow, indeed invite, the player to be  in the game. The objects, i.e., the main playable characters, are mean to become extensions of the real physical player. The character, then, is nothing more than a virtual vessel to act upon and interact the other characters in the game. Books work in much the same way. First person dialogues allow the reader to “become” the character discussing life. In third person, you are viewing the events. Although that’s the case, literature still allows the person to fill in the blanks with whatever they think, or wish, to happen. Movies, in large part, lack both the ability to “fill in the blanks”, or even to “act upon”, being reduced only to observation. Video games, on the other hand, allow you to participate, to determine endings, to interact, to juxtapose your own moral values into events, such as Fable, Mass Effect, and Dragon Age.

Context is everything. Referencing back to a recent post (In Defense of Anita Sarkeesian, Pt. 2: Tropes vs. Women), I discussed in part this context. Although I didn’t elaborate so much in that post, it may be pertinent to somewhat elaborate on it now. This having to do with societal roles. Part of the feminist critique of objectification stems from social and gender roles. To this end, feminists argue that women are expected, as per their gender roles, to conform to a standard of beauty, and for no other reason than to gain attention from men by meeting this standard of attraction. Juxtaposing this line of reasoning, with respect to roles, into video games, a trend occurs.

Indeed, the context of role cannot be ignored if we are to discuss objectification, sexualization, or other concepts in video games. In Halo, your role is to kill aliens throughout a very linear campaign. Your role, although hidden behind a mask, is to be an aggressor. As such, you cannot be victimized. Even to that extent, the notions of victim-hood and aggressor, right, wrong, etc., become skewed in context of war – which is a theme in Halo. That being said, in games like Grand Theft Auto, where you play as a male character, and can kill prostitutes, the context is different. Your role, which is changeable only in the way that you want to play, is to be a criminal. There then becomes a very clear notion of victim-hood. The context was coded in that way. Just because a video game is nothing more than bits of data, code, or what have you, does not negate the implementation of very real world situations. It does not negate the fact that you can exercise criminal elements, or violence against women, or see women in battered and violent environments.

Having stated all of that, individuals, such as Anita Sarkeesian, aren’t criticizing the fact that such content exists. Those critiques stem from research, predominantly concerning pornography, and sexual objectification in media, that show how consuming such media, or interacting with such media, leads to male acceptance of the rape myth, as well as an increased likelihood to sexually harass women. There’s a dearth of research with respect to video games, but the trend has most certainly been seen with pornography, media, even marketing. Sarkeesian is arguing that it’s logical to assume the same trend with video games, where women are largely underrepresented, and of that representation, largely misrepresented. Her point isn’t just nuanced explanations, it’s a statistically upheld trend that has existed since the 1980’s. It has little to with making “a special case for female characters” and NPC’s, and more to do with, very conceivable, real world consequences. Moreover, Sarkeesian rejects the gender roles, or the expectation that women should look a certain way: i.e., huge breasts, butts, etc., and having that role completely juxtaposed on video game characters. Sarkeesian’s point isn’t about being including for NPC’s, but inclusive to the interests of female characters. A great many women who play video games would greatly like to see more options, and that’s really the bottom line here. So to that end, I would like to reiterate that no one is attempting to remove nudity, or cleavage, or sexualized characters, or even objectification out of games. That’s never been the point, except by a few more politicized individuals (such as those congressional leaders that aimed to censor music CD’s), Sarkeesian not being on that list of people.

Second, it should be noted that no one is attempting to give video game characters rights, liberties, dignity, or any other modern day facet. This is a straw man argument if used to rebut criticisms of game content, particularly Anita Sarkeesian. She has not advocated for such things. Nor has anyone suggested, or insinuated, that sexy video game characters, or sexy women, are inherently evil. This also is a straw man argument. To her credit, she has argued the contrary. She has stated that 1) having sexualized characters does not automatically make the game sexist, 2) you can like sexualized characters, 3) she argues that attempting to add diversity would actually increase creativy, believing the overused plot devises actually weakens creativity, 4) she has very clearly stated that removing the damsel in distress trope, removing cleavage, or even doing it equally to male characters, are not answers to what she views as a problem. Frankly, all she has genuinely asked for with respect to video games, is more creativity, different challenges, and more accurate representation of women in video games. Hardly a call for abstinence or revenge.

Third, on the matter of catcalls vs compliments, saying “hey baby,” or “hey sexy,” or “nice legs” or what have you, aren’t really compliments. For one thing, that woman isn’t “yours” to call “baby”. This follows the line of thinking that women are taught, from a very early age, that everything they do must be done for men. Regardless of this, catcalling tends to be in the form of very sexual comments, yelling, whistling, blocking paths, or staring, among other things. Saying “that’s a lovely dress” is far different than saying “you have nice legs.” Moreover, the context completely changes when it’s a stranger saying it, as opposed to a friend, or family member. For one thing, a stranger knows nothing about you, they indeed view the woman as an object.

The question then, inevitably, arises, “is catcalling a bad thing?”, or “but I don’t mean it to be mean, or offensive.” First, a great many woman experience that kind of stuff, a lot, and a great many woman, do not like it. So, is it a bad thing? Well, knowing that many women don’t like it, I would simply argue that it’s in her/their best interest for men not to do it, so as not to risk making women feel unsafe, uncomfortable, etc. Second, if you find a woman, who is also a stranger, to be attractive, good for you. How you word things, and when you word things, makes a difference. But more importantly, knowing my first point, it then becomes your discretion to determine if if your feelings should trump hers. I.e., you may not mean to be offensive, but what if how you said it comes across offensive? But my point, overall, is simply this: why even catcall a woman to begin with? I may find many woman attractive, but I have never catcalled them. I’ve never complimented them. There are a great many ways in which you can make a persons day, that don’t risk offending them, or making them feel uncomfortable, and that doesn’t involve their attraction. Tell a joke, simply smile and say “hello”, or “how are you?” Etc. The differences between these examples is that one acknowledges their body, the other acknowledges their humanity. Whether or not catcalling, from a philosophical, or scientific point of view, actually reduces a woman, isn’t really the point that I am attempting to make, support or show. My point is simply this: if women feel uncomfortable experiencing it, and a great many do, why do it?

The male gaze, along with catcalling, are concepts and behaviors (respectively) that take no consideration in the fact that women have a sexuality as well. That they aren’t there simply for men to enjoy. That they are in fact, people. Moreover, Sarkeesian, and others, aren’t saying that it’s inherently evil. They’re point is that it’s a construct of social roles, and that it would be nice if women, in a societal context, weren’t treated in a way that suggested that they exist to be looked at, as opposed to being treated like a person.

Still, it isn’t enough to resort to the biological notions of our sex drives. Indeed, women also have sex drives, but are not prone to the sort of engagement that would render men feelings afraid, or awkward. In the same way that men are programmed to find hips as being more “fit”, women also find various physical traits to be “fit” as well. Yet, it is astounding the subsequent lack of women catcalling men for having “ripped abs” or “hairy arms”, or what have you. Our conceptual notion of catcalling would be reduced to a kind of “mating ritual” akin to frogs, or birds, if we are to go with the notion that we’re just biologically programmed to do it. We are not though. We may be biologically prone to viewing a woman, and finding them attractive (or vice versa for women, or the same (or different) for LTBTQ) for purposes of mating, but that is not the same as saying that we’re biological prone to saying “nice boobs!” Even more to the point, catcalling isn’t about reproduction, or finding a “fit” partner, it’s about sexual pleasure, which is a very important distinction. Following feminist and sociological thinking, that sexual pleasure is in context of a society that overtly, and overly emphasizes the idea that women are meant to be used by, or looked at by men for their pleasure. There are social influences that alter our notions of attraction. Sexual attraction is a waltz between biological and social influences, with biology taking the lead.

Please like, follow, share, or comment. Followers are awesome, but engagement is even better.

Edited: added the last paragraph concerning biological notions of attraction. 

In Defense of Anita Sarkeesian, Pt. 2: Tropes vs Women

I’ve watched far too many videos concerning Sarkeesian’s YouTube channel, Feminist Frequency, most in particular her Kickstarter series, Tropes vs. Women. Many of her more vocal critics are men, most infamously, YouTube personalities such as Mr. Repzion, Thunderf00t, The Amazing Atheist, Alpha Omega Sin, arbitor365, MundaneMatt, the list seriously continues. Just between the first two, there’s 36 videos, nearly 9 hours, and nearly one-million views.

There are female critics as well, most notably Liana K, The Factual Feminist (Christina Hoff Sommers), and Tara Babcock, who criticize Sarkeesian on the same exact points, and in very much the same way, as the larger list of male critics. In defense of the Factual Feminist, she’s far more intellectual in her responses to Sarkeesian than the other two, as would be expected considering the fact that she’s a well respected, read, and educated woman, having earned her doctorate in philosophy. I would say, that of all of the videos I have seen (over 60 videos/15 hours), the Factual Feminist is the most respectful, on point, and intellectual of them all. That being said, though, I strike my disagreements with her, as have many other feminists, since her 1994 book Who Stole Feminism, where she discusses the two main camps in contemporary feminism (third wave), as being Gender Feminists, and Equity Feminists – herself being the former. And, to a point, Liana K can make some valid points that are critical of Sarkeesian, as well as her ideas, but most of the time her stuff is either too personal to be generalized, or falls in line with the rest of those that just want to assassinate Sarkeesian’s character.

It would not be intellectually honest in posting this refutation without also discussing, at least in some part, Sarkeesian’s Kickstarter project, Tropes vs. Women. After all, this is what she was originally criticized for. I’ve watched each segment several times, and read all of the transcripts. It be these transcripts that I’ll be quoting from.

We’ll begin with her first video, Damsel in Distress, Part 1. This video gives a very general overview of the history of the trope that she’s discussing. It’s an interesting perspective that she writes, one that is consistent with various sociological perspectives concerning media, media bias, and gender biases in mass media mediums (games, movies, magazines, etc.). That being said, she makes a few statements, that, in my opinion, most of critics have completely skimmed over.

In the beginning of her first video, she states:

This series will include critical analysis of many beloved games and characters, but remember that it is both possible (and even necessary) to simultaneously enjoy media while also being critical of it’s more problematic or pernicious aspects.

Maybe her critics are unclear of what a trope is, or even what a plot device is. She explains it by saying:

As a trope the damsel in distress is a plot device in which a female character is placed in a perilous situation from which she cannot escape on her own and must be rescued by a male character, usually providing a core incentive or motivation for the protagonist’s quest.

In video games this is most often accomplished via kidnapping but it can also take the form of petrification or demon possession for example.

Traditionally the woman in distress is a family member or a love interest of the hero; princesses, wives, girlfriends and sisters are all commonly used to fill the role.

She is in fact not false in saying this. The dictionary definition of trope is: “a word, phrase, or image used in a new and different way in order to create an artistic effect.” Although it elaborates further by saying “1b: a common or overused theme or device: cliche.” And a plot device is a component to the plot that assists in moving the story forward. So, in effect, the Damsel in Distress is used to move the story forward, and, as Sarkeesian points out, to the specifically further the story arch of the main playable character. More importantly though, she’s specifically only discussing this trope. To Sarkeesian, it isn’t necessarily this trope that’s pernicious – it’s the fact that it is overused in video games that makes it a pernicious aspect. I say this in reference to the many individuals who subsequently responded to her videos with scorn because she used their favorite game as an example (most notably Hit Man 2). The point of her videos was not to analyze and critique all violence in video games, much like the political fad of the 1990’s. The point of her video games was discuss the plot device, Damsel in Distress. It is not worthwhile, useful, or even honest to critique her on the basis that she didn’t critique something else, when that wasn’t her point. Her videos hone in on a very specific element, and  as such, all critiques of her videos should remain focused on that point as well. If you have a different analysis and interpretation on the overwhelming amount of female characters that can be viewed, or abused sexually as opposed to men, than please offer that as a rebuttal, instead of calling her names, or attemping to prove she’s wrong through any other form of character assassination. If you must resort to personal attacks, it shows the weakness of your stance far more than it does your opponent’s.

In any case, near the end of her video, she states (in whole, emphasis added):

The pattern of presenting women as fundamentally weak, ineffective or entirely incapable also has larger ramifications beyond the characters themselves and the specific games they inhabit. We have to remember that these games do not exist in a vacuum, they are an increasingly important and influential part of our larger social and cultural ecosystem.

The reality is that this troupe is being used in a real-world context where backwards sexist attitudes are already rampant. It’s a sad fact that a large percentage of the world’s population still clings to the deeply sexist belief that women as a group need to be sheltered, protected and taken care of by men.

The belief that women are somehow a “naturally weaker gender” is a deeply ingrained socially constructed myth, which of course is completely false- but the notion is reinforced and perpetuated when women are continuously portrayed as frail, fragile, and vulnerable creatures.

Just to be clear, I am not saying that all games using the damsel in distress as a plot device are automatically sexist or have no value. But it’s undeniable that popular culture is a powerful influence in or lives and the Damsel in Distress trope as a recurring trend does help to normalize extremely toxic, patronizing and paternalistic attitudes about women.

Sarkeesian’s second video,  Damsel in Distress (Part 2), goes on to elaborate more, giving more specific definitions, and adding the element of sexual violence. Sarkeesian can be quoted as saying:

Since what we are really talking about here are depictions of violence against women it might be useful to quickly define what I mean by that term. When I say Violence Against Women I’m primarily referring to images of women being victimized or when violence is specifically linked to a character’s gender or sexuality. Female characters who happen to be involved in violent or combat situations on relatively equal footing with their opponents are typically be exempt them from this category because they are usually not framed as victims.

Further on she says (emphasis added):

Even though most of the games we’re talking about don’t explicitly condone violence against women, nevertheless they trivialize and exploit female suffering as a way to ratchet up the emotional or sexual stakes for the player.

Despite these troubling implications, game creators aren’t necessarily all sitting around twirling their nefarious looking mustaches while consciously trying to figure out how to best misrepresent women as part of some grand conspiracy.

Most probably just haven’t given much thought to the underlying messages their games are sending and in many cases developers have backed themselves into a corner with their own game mechanics.  When violence is the primary gameplay mechanic and therefore the primary way that the player engages with the game-world it severely limits the options for problem solving. The player is then forced to use violence to deal with almost all situations because its the only meaningful mechanic available — even if that means beating up or killing the women they are meant to love or care about.

One of the really insidious things about systemic & institutional sexism is that most often regressive attitudes and harmful gender stereotypes are perpetuated and maintained unintentionally.

Likewise engaging with these games is not going to magically transform players into raging sexists. We typically don’t have a monkey-see monkey-do, direct cause and effect relationship with the media we consume. Cultural influence works in much more subtle and complicated ways, however media narratives do have a powerful cultivation effect helping to shape cultural attitudes and opinions.

It is important to reiterate this point, in her own words. Many of the critiques made against her, indeed the vile atmosphere that has since shaped the conversation following the release of these videos, seems to point towards some pernicious attempt on the part of Sarkeesian to turn video games into something entirely different – devoid of nudity, cussing, and violence in general. But this isn’t the case. She has very clearly stated that:

1. You can enjoy games with violent content,  
2. You can even enjoy the trope,
3. Not all games with this content are sexist,
4. Game developers aren’t intentionally attempting to misrepresent women,
5. Games don’t turn people into sexist people overnight – the change is subtle,
6. Most people aren’t sexist on purpose, indeed it is unintentional,
7. Most of the games discussed don’t explicitly condone violence against women,
8. Although most games don’t condone violence, it does trivialize violence,
9. Developers should seek to make video games less sexually violent,
10. Violence against women in games tends to be casual in nature,
11. Casual violence used to gain a quick emotional response from the gamer should be replaced with more thought out and engaging scenarios.

Yet, her critics have responded by suggesting that she is saying the exact opposite, and have managed to shape the entire debate as though that is exactly what she said. They’re frame of mind, indeed their arguments are that Sarkeesian isn’t just suggesting,  indeed she stating with fact that somehow video games are sexist, people who play them are sexist, that you can’t enjoy a game if it has violence in it, especially towards women, and that developers are sexist and bad because of it.

On the Matter of Research, and Calling Sarkeesian a Liar

The quotes that I shared above served three purposes: 1) To show that her critics are changing her words entirely, either through arrogance or ignorance, 2) To summarize and explain her overall point, 3) To share the most criticized portions of her overall argument so that I may back them up here.

Although it may come as a surprise to many, what Sarkeesian pointed out in her two videos has been a matter of academic research since the 1980’s. There’s been a great deal of research regarding television (movies in general), and ponrography, and how it shapes and changes perceptions of those that watch it, in particular the acceptance of the rape myth. It is well known that watching material (even though it is considered a form of free speech (pornography)), it still has a negative impact. In particular, watching porn reduces the sex drive towards other women, and those that watch it tend to believe that women essentially ask to be raped, or victimized. But what of video games and violence towards women?

A study in 2009, using an experimental design sought to determine if playing a sexualized female character would illicit short term decreases in self-efficacy and self-image. The results were not entirely as expected, but in the end, the authors cautiously remarked that playing sexualized female characters “unfavorably influenced people’s beliefs about women in the real world.” A phenomenon that certainly exists in context to watching pornography, which is an industry built on objectifying and sexualizing women. It’s also imporatnt o understand that these effects don’t just effect men, they effect women. A study published just this year found that when women feel objectified by their spouses (frequently being “surveyed”) they experienced more body shame, and less sexual agency. Although this study focused on intimate relationships, and research on the topic objectification is lacking, it would not be farfetched, or even illogical to think that the trend also happens in the greater society, outside of intimate relationships.

Another study published this year focused on the lifetime play of video games and found “a relationship between video game consumption and RMA via interpersonal aggression and hostile sexism.” The authors also noted that this study in particular does not suggest a causal link, the results are still important in the context of this conversation. Another study completed in 2012 found similar results, stating “this exploratory study found that a video game depicting sexual objectification of women and violence against women resulted in statistically significant increased rape myths acceptance (rape-supportive attitudes) for male study participants but not for female participants.”

A Response to her Critics

Mr. Repzion in his video Re: Damsel in Distress, he seems to think that Sarkeesian’s main point is that “video games are primarily all male protaganists.” (1:21-1:25). Among other things, he seems to think that Sarkeesian is saying that there are no good female role models in games, that objectification is bad, and that video games shouldn’t use the damsel in distress trope. For one thing, none of that was really the main point of Sarkeesian’s videos, and at not point did she say that we need to get rid of the plot device. It would be safer to assume that Sarkeesian believes the plot device to be overused, which is why she refers to it as a trope, and not simply a plot device. Mr. Repzion then goes on to say, (2:10-2:18) “I am here today to make one main point. There are plenty of female role models within gaming.” He goes on to say that Sarkeesian seems to think games with female protagonists don’t exist, and that some of his favorite games have female protagonists.

The two main problems with Mr. Repzion’s response is that 1) He’s making a straw man argument against Sarkeesian, 2) his “one main point” is factually wrong. The first failure is that Sarkeesian is critically analyzing the plot device, damsel in distress, as being a trope. She elaborates on how that trope is bad, and how it evolved into more violent expressions, and finally how those violent expressions are bad. Although she does at various points point out the lack of female protaganists, to suggest that it’s her main point largely misses, indeed ignores, the overall point she’s attempting to make – which is that games are tailored towards men, and often sexually violent towards women. The second failure, is that although “there are plenty of games with female protaganists”, Mr. Repzion is stating it as a rebuttal to essentially suggest that there’s an equal number of male and female protagonists, or at the very least, that the balance isn’t so off that it warrants three videos.

Never mind the fact that Sarkeesian used 183 games in her 3 videos, but since the 1980’s, various papers have been published on the topic of female representation in games. To quote from one researcher:

“Findings for gender representation in video games generally support past findings in that males are significantly more represented than females (Williams et al., 2009; Robinson et al., 2008; Miller & Summers, 2007; Burgess et al., 2007; Ivory, 2006). Ivory’s (2006) research on video game reviews found that, while “75%…of the reviews mentioned male characters, only 42%…mentioned female characters in any capacity” (p. 109). Miller and Summers (2007) found that, “Of the 49 games included in the analysis, 282 male humans and 53 female human characters appeared, indicating 1 female for every 5.3 male characters” (p. 737). Along the same lines, Burgess et al. (2007) found that “[m]ales were twice as likely to appear on covers as females were” (p. 423); following that, their sample examined 381 male characters compared to only 104 female characters. Robinson et al.’s (2008) study on video game websites also supported this trend, finding that “male characters outnumbered female characters 3 to 1 (577 male characters to 196 female characters).” More recently, Williams et al. (2009) found that “male characters are vastly more likely to appear than female character [sic] in general. The overall difference of 85.23/14.77 percent is also a large contrast with the 50.9/49.1 percent distribution in the actual population” (p. 824). While the trend seems that men are continuing to outnumber women in character representation in game, Jansz and Martis’ (2007) results “seem to indicate that the number of female characters in recent games is far larger than it was in earlier games” (p. 146). Their results may have been biased “toward a higher prevalence of female characters”, however, “because [they] did not draw a random sample but deliberately selected popular games with a diverse cast of characters” (p. 146).

For other sources that support this, as well as the fact that while also being portrayed less, they’re portrayed more sexually, you can read this, this, this, and this. The EEDAR also did a study back in 2013. Out of 669 games, only 24 had an exclusively female protagonist, or 3.5%. 300 games gave the option of choosing male or female. I hardly call that “plenty of games” with a strictly female lead.

Mr. Repzion’s two failures though are the best example I can give among the many more popular critics of Sarkeesian. They resort to straw man arguments, which is a logical fallacy in which the person rebutting misunderstands, or misconstrues the original argument, therefore not actually rebutting the main point. And that’s what’s happening in this facade.

Thunderf00t for example, just calls her “dishonest” and suggests that many people have been “duped.” In fact, in one video, he makes a strawman argument (1:57-2:30). Many people seem to have thrown a fit over two particular missions in two games that Sarkeesian references: Hitman Absolution, and Watch Dogs.

In Sarkeesian’s video, Women as Background Decoration: Part 1 – Tropes vs Women in Video Games, Sarkeesian states:

“However, for the purposes of this trope we’re only concerned with one very particular type of non-essential female NPC. Those specifically designed as a decorative virtual “sex class” who exist to service straight male desire. I classify this subset of characters as Non-Playable Sex Objects.

Non-Playable Sex Objects can usually be found on the sidelines of role playing or open world style games,populating the many virtual strip clubs, red light districts or brothel locations that have become almost obligatory in many so-called “mature” titles.

Such characters are programmed with crude looping sexualized behaviors or dialogue as a way of adding an extra layer of “seedy” flavoring to game universes.

Unlike other NPCs that exist for purposes outside of their sexuality, Non-Playable Sex Objects have little to no individual personality or identity to speak of, and almost never get to be anything other than set dressing or props in someone else’s narrative.

This is the essence of what sexual objectification means. And since that concept is at the heart of the Women as Background Decoration trope, let’s take a moment to define it.

As the term implies, sexual objectification is the practice of treating or representing a human being as a thing or mere instrument to be used for another’s sexual purposes. Sexually objectified women are valued primarily for their bodies, or body parts, which are presented as existing for the pleasure and gratification of others.

In some games sexual objectification is fused with the exotification of impoverished women of color. In Far Cry 3 and Max Payne 3, for example, straight white protagonists explore shantytowns located in the global south populated by prostituted women.”

Thunderf00t seems to think that Sarkeesian’s use of a mission in Watch Dogs, in which you have to close down a sex trafficking ring, as being sexist. Sarkeesian, though, doesn’t refer to it as sexist, and instead is defining the use of female non-playable characters, as background decoration. It cannot be argued that those women, in that mission, are anything more than how Sarkeesian defines them: non-playable sex objects. Especially given the previous definitions that Sarkeesian gave on the matter of objects and subjects. In that mission, you, the playable character, act out to save the women. Even more interesting about this mission, and likely the reason that Sarkeesian used it, is because the whole mission revolves around an environment in which women are meant to be objectified. But these concepts, and applications of sociological theory, are not novel. Sarkeesian is applying the same approach that many researchers and media critics have used with popular movies and television shows. Although Sarkeesian would likely agree with the idea that the mission is inherently sexist, that’s not what she said. She’s defining a situation, very clearly. More importantly, she’s saying that games that rely on these kinds of missions (and there are a lot of them), are reinforcing the idea that women are objects, or meant to be objectified, or meant to be acted upon (in this instance, to be saved).

It is amazing to me how an individual with a PhD could be so dishonest, either academically or otherwise, in such a way that Thunderf00t manages,  it is indeed disturbing.

In the examples that Sarkeesian uses, be it Hitman, Watch Dogs, Dishonored, Grand Theft Auto, you name it, Sarkeesian is specifically discussing the violence aimed towards women, the lack of female playable roles, and the over abundance of sexual violence, or sexual objectification towards all female characters in games. That’s her point. It is not a valid argument to say “but men in games suffer violence.” That is not a valid argument, in part, because the role of many male characters indeed revolves around violence. Hitting another character who is attacking you is not the same as stealthy stabbing a prostitute, indeed the intent is different. It is not a valid argument, also, because that’s not Sarkeesian’s point. If her intention had been to tackle all video game character tropes, I imagine that would have been the title of her series, if not similar to it. But that isn’t the case. Her project is geared specifically towards a very sociological review of a particular trope on one small set of game characters. To rebut her arguments using any examples that have little or nothing to do with her points makes your argument a strawman argument.

Lastly, many other videos aim to discredit her either by saying that she can’t keep her promises, or that she lied in college about her liking to play video games. Frankly, none of those things have anything to do with the points that she’s making, and are therefore invalid arguments. Are we to say that all people who may tell a lie, or not meet an expectation, are therefore entirely incapable of relaying sociological perceptions juxtaposed on a form of art, and media? Hardly. Yet, that’s what Thunderf00t, along with the others, readily do. So what if she did, or did not, play video games in her youth? So what, even, if she lied about that. The fact of the matter is, she has now played, at the very least, 183 video games, and applied a sociological lens, tinted in part by feminist thought, onto the video games, and she’s hardly the first person to do it.

If you wish to call Sarkeesian a liar, no one is stopping you, certainly you can. But calling her a liar has no impact on the validity of her overall arguments that she’s proposed in Tropes vs. Women. It is my overall perception that those most loudly calling her a liar, are indeed, doing so much for the same reason that Galileo was labled a liar by the church – not because he was a liar, but because he was inconvenient. Inconvenient towards strongly held ideas based on little more than perception, and years of conditioning to believe as such.

In Defense of Anita Sarkeesian, Pt. 1: A Response to Lucien Maverick, and a Lesson on Feminism

I recently came across Lucien Maverick’s Blog, particularly his post titled Your “Feminism” is Against Women (A response to Anita Sarkeesian). The thing about Maverick’s posts, though, is that this isn’t the first time he’s written about Sarkeesian and feminism, and this is definitely not the first time he’s written about this material in the manner that he does. This will be the first part of a multi-part series in which I offer a rebuttal to Lucien Maverick, discuss Anita Sarkeesian’s points on Feminism in more recent public speaking engagements, discuss Tropes vs. Women, and finally I will end with a rebuttal to the various other critics of Sarkeesian in which I will primarily focus on the many logical fallacies used to suggest that she’s wrong.

So that everything is in context, I will quote from the blog post exactly as is, the italicized comments are the things that Anita Sarkeesian stated at the AllAboutWomen conference in Sydney Austrailia:

More and more, I hear variations on this idea that anything that any woman personally chooses to do is a feminist act.  This attitude is often referred to as ‘choice feminism.’

By definition, feminism is about empowering women.  If women choose to exercise that empowerment, then yes, it is a “feminist act.”  But I’m sure that that doesn’t jive with your hive-mind approach to feminism, does it?

‘Choice feminism’ posets that each individual woman choose what is empowering for herself, which might sound good on the surface, but this concept risks obscuring the bigger picture and larger fundamental goals of the movement.

You hear that, ladies?  Your choices are wrong!  This woman is going to tell you why they’re wrong!  It seems that your choices aren’t helping her movement enough!  Well that’s just awful!  Your freedom to choose should come secondary to Anita’s ideals!  Bow to the hive mentality!

By focusing on individual women, with a very narrow individual notion of empowerment.  It erases that reality that some choices that women make have enormous negative impact on other women’s lives.

Serious moment – Anita, who the HELL are you to be able to determine what is the best way for women to be?  Straight from the horse’s mouth, Anita Sarkeesian has just said that she knows how women should act, and any women who don’t act a certain way are wrong and need fixing.  Am I the only one who sees how unbelievably sexist that is?!  I can’t be.  I cannot be the only person who gets this!  Wow.  I just, don’t even know what to say to that.  It’s like, how do you respond to a person who has made an argument that they can tell other women what the right way to live and be is?  What an ego on this one!

So it’s not enough to feel personally empowered or be personally successful within the oppressive framework of the current system.  Even if an individual woman can make patriarchy work for her, it’s still a losing game for the rest of the women on the planet.

The arrogance of this woman is astounding.  She just said that if you don’t act in a certain way that she and her ilk approve of, you are wrong and need to change your behavior for their group.  They are basically toting the line – if you don’t obey the group-think, then you must be changed.  Orwellian doesn’t even come close to how insane that is.  Hey White Knights of Sarkeesian-senpai, please tell me how this sits right with you.

The fact of the matter is that some choices have ramifications beyond ourselves, and reinforce harmful patriarch-like of women as a group, and about women’s bodies in our wider shared culture.  And because of how systems of oppression intersect and compound one-another, it’s women of color, indigenous women, women living in the global south, women with disabilities, queer women and trans women who bear the brunt of these ramifications.

Here we go!  The point where she buried herself beneath her own bullshit.  Anita, you have used lesbian and bisexual women as a shield for yourself for years.  All the while, you make argument about video games and how they only appeal to straight men.  In effect, you cut lesbian and bisexual women out of the conversation about their sexual desires, and you don’t find it at ALL hypocritical that you are now saying that the choices of other women are hurting “queer women”?!  The cognitive dissonance is astronomical!  You take a shit on the sexual attractions of women, and now claim that OTHER women are working against LB women community.  You are scum!  You are total and complete scum!  It’s not enough for you to exploit them.  You are exploiting them and saying that is for their own good. Fuck EVERYTHING about that thought process!  And fuck you too!  It blows my mind that a bisexual man is the one arguing for the opinions of lesbian and bisexual women, while the straight feminist is pushing them down.

Choice feminism also obscures the fact that women don’t have a real choice!

Bull-shit!  That is bullshit!  Let me know a choice that men have that women don’t, other than to use the urinal.

We have a very narrow set of predetermined choices within the set of patriarchy.

Let me get this straight – women are both making wrong choices, but have no choice at all.  It’s almost like this is total bullshit and you are pulling this straight out of your ass!

Women can choose from a pre-approved palate, but we cannot meaningfully choose liberation.

You know, I’m getting really sick of this kind of rhetoric.  It basically says that women in the Western World are some oppressed victim of some vague “patriarchy” that controls everything they do.  Do you realize how insulting that it is to the women who have fought for the rights you do have?  I guarantee that if the suffragettes of the early-1900s saw the rights that you have now, and the choices that you have now, they would bitch-slap you for this kind of stupidity.  Name me a right, any right, that a man has in the Western World, and a woman does not.  For real, name me one.  Don’t bring up that wage gap.  When you correct for things like education and specialty job fields within careers, it all but vanishes.  Name one right that man in this country has that a woman does not.  If I were to say, “alright, fellow men!  I’ve removed social justice feminism from their palate of pre-approved things!” would that suddenly make it go away?  No?  Then maybe this “patriarchy” that you so cavalierly talk about isn’t a real thing!  Maybe it’s just a term that you decided to put up so that you can make excuses for why you suck as a person or are doing poorly in the world.  There’s a thought.  Here’s another – grow the fuck up!

We cannot choose a way out of our constraints.  At least, without eliminating these oppressive systems that limit our options.

The only system that I see here that is limiting women’s options is what you’re talking about, Anita.  After all, you are telling women that if they don’t act the way your approve of, they are wrong.  But hey, you want a way out?  I, as a member of your mythical patriarchy, approve you to leave the Land of Men, to go and establish the feminist utopia.  Good luck, skipper.

So when we talk about free choice in today’s world, we’re really talking about a very narrow set of choice that are amenable to patriarchy.

That you can dictate which is right and wrong.  Your ego is over 9000!

So, when we talk about how to be a feminist, for me, that means being committed to something much larger than ourselves.

The Hive Mind, with it’s collective un-intelligence.

Cited above is directly taken from Maverick’s post, although I encourage you to listen to the entirety of Sarkeesian’s talk. She goes on to elaborate more on her points that are otherwise left out of Maverick’s post, as well as this one (there’s simply not enough space).

My first point of contention is that much of Maverick’s responses are ad hominem, i.e., attacking Sarkeesian’s personality, rather than her ideas. An example of this would be:

Sarkeesian: “I had to learn how systems of oppression are maintained by our participation in them. But they’re also self-perpetuating by the paths of least resistance. And, as such are larger than any one person’s choices.”

Maverick: “I’m sure that Johnny McIntosh wrote this for you.”

Maverick’s conclusion, therefore, is that Sarkeesian’s argument is wrong because she’s borrowing someone else’s idea. Or, following from another statement that he said, “You mean Johnny McIntosh wrote them (in context of the things Sarkeesian wrote). If you had original thoughts then that would be frightening.”

Maverick is asserting that she’s incapable of coming up with her own thoughts, and/or that she’s stealing from someone else’s own words. Ad hominem logical fallacies are also know as damning the source, refutation by character, or personal attacks. He’s attempting to discredit her through character assassination (ex., she can’t think for herself), as opposed to attacking the theory and argument that she made.

Of the times that Maverick criticizes Sarkeesian’s ideas/theory is simply by calling it ‘bullshit.’ Hardly a legitimate rebuttal, and certainly devoid of any logical or rational reasoning that would otherwise show Sarkeesian’s argument as being factually, or even philosophically wrong, never mind then the sociological, psychological, and political roots that she’s pulling from.

My second point of contention is that Maverick doesn’t seem to get what she’s saying, the cause of which I make no assumptions. Indeed, Maverick seems to make a lot of straw-man arguments (changing, altering, or exaggerating the original argument). Take for example his response(s) to Sarkeesian’s point(s) on choice feminism, and how some choices are just not good for the collective. He states:

“You hear that, ladies?  Your choices are wrong!  This woman is going to tell you why they’re wrong!  It seems that your choices aren’t helping her movement enough!…Serious moment – Anita, who the HELL are you to be able to determine what is the best way for women to be?  Straight from the horse’s mouth, Anita Sarkeesian has just said that she knows how women should act, and any women who don’t act a certain way are wrong and need fixing.  Am I the only one who sees how unbelievably sexist that is?!…That you can dictate which is right and wrong.”

The problem with these responses (three of which) is that Sarkeesian’s overall comment does not insinuate that she knows what’s best, what’s right, what’s wrong, or what’s ultimately feminist. She’s echoing many shared critiques about Choice Feminism. Chief among those critiques is that choices aren’t made in a vacuum. Among other critiques, for one, is that not all choices are made equally, and that choice feminism, unfortunately, makes the very complex nature of “choice” into something rather trivial.

For example, if one woman wears a burka in Iraq, her choice is not equal to a woman choosing to wear a burka in the United States. In one social context, she is required to do so or face punishment (usually death), whereas in the other, the woman may have chosen to wear it for personal reasons not tied to social, or even religious expectations. This may be a shoddy example, but it is one nonetheless that shows the inequality between the two decisions. In one case, choice was an illusion, and in the other, there was a greater amount of freedom to choose due to a lack of social punishment. (Although, to be fair, there are social punishments in the West for wearing a burka. Those punishments, however, are not as severe, therefore the analogy holds.)

Sarkeesian’s point, along with others who have made similar rejections to choice feminism long before Sarkeesian did, are simply pointing out that there’s more to choice than the simple act of choosing, and that much of that complexity is grounded in social expectations, values, conditioning, environment, and a great many other things. To say that all choices are therefore feminist choices really escapes the fact that some choices simply aren’t. Later in Sarkeesian’s talk, she goes on to point out that many individuals in marginalized groups lack the social ability to make free choices.

Let’s create a thought experiment using another of Maverick’s posts rejecting mandatory voting as supported by President Obama. We’ll call it choice democratism, and it can be simply defined as “every political act is a democratic one.” Therefore, every person that votes, by virtue of voting, is democratic, and believes in democracy. But is that necessarily true? Hardly. Not every vote in this thought experiment would be equal, and certainly not equal today. The very act of forcing someone to vote in a democratic election is anti-democratic. Even if some individuals, or even most, were to at some point come to terms with the fact that they are required to vote (or be punished), that doesn’t make them empowered, and it certainly doesn’t increase the strength of their choice because nothing has changed. Their freedom to choose not to vote hasn’t been reinstated, or to escape being punished – their choice remains the same: vote, or be punished. Those that argue against choice feminism make similar points in as much as, some decisions simply can’t be feminist, or empowering, when there’s a subsequent lack of freedom to make a choice.

In context, not every decision is made equally, which means that some choices are inherently anti-feminist, even if that’s not reason behind making that choice. Sure, we could force people to be more democratic, for the greater good. But that doesn’t make it good, or democratic, indeed it’s contrary to both notions. Sarkeesian isn’t suggesting that we force people to make choices for the greater good. She’s calling for a discussion on what choice does, and or should, look like. More importantly, this conversation is context of the fact that some groups, the marginalized groups, lack the kind of freedom necessary to make real choices. Far be it from Maverick, or anyone else, to step in the way of that kind of progress, or to lambaste discussions, much less academic ones, as being socialist and ‘bullshit’ propaganda.

The essence of the analogy above serves as an example to show that many choices are made due to a lack of choice in the first place. Some may call it the easy choice, and the easy choice isn’t necessarily anti-feminist. But to say that all choices are feminist, therefore all choices are empowering, is far too broad a generalization to be true.

Maverick’s misunderstanding of Sarkeesian’s points are further shown when he says in response to a reply:

“She argues that women are making the wrong choices, but then argues that they have no real choice at all.”

To reiterate, Sarkeesian isn’t saying that women are making the wrong choices, she’s saying that not all choices are feminist in nature or context, and that some choices that women make don’t do anything to help women who lack the ability to even make those same choices, i.e., marginalized groups. Many young women working in the sex industry, indeed, many prostitutes lack the autonomy (economically or socially) to remove themselves, or to be removed, from the environment that they are in. Sarkeesian is saying that just because some (maybe even many) of those women in those enviromnments may have chosen to be there, that doesn’t make it feminist, and even more importantly, was it really a choice? A sex worker may say that she’s come grip with the industry, and that she’s comfortable with it – but to juxtapose that onto the rest of society, and then label it feminist, trivializes the fact that many sex workers may not feel that they had a choice to begin with. Again, prostitutes, of which their average age is between 12 and 14, are a great example of how a marganilized group will be seen as a group of empowered feminists because they ‘chose’ prostitution – when in the great many instances, they didn’t really choose prostitution.

Another example would be this: say one woman votes for a constitutional amendment to ban abortion, and another votes against it. Both women are making a choice, that to them, is personally empowering. They’re both feminists. Say the constitutional amendment passes. One woman’s empowerment just stripped all women of the ability to make a reproductive choice. Ironic, because one of the more important aspects of any feminist movement to date was having the ability to choose. This is a great example of how some decisions are disastrous for the greater whole, and indeed, marginalized groups. The poor are considered a marginalized group, and indeed the political interests of the rich have always been taken into consideration both in ferocity and frequency than the poor. But abortion is something that many poor, and many abused women seek (one particular study found that upwards of 39.5% of women seeking abortions had a history of domestic abuse). This is also an example of how some choices are inherently anti-feminist, anti-choice, and also showing of how some choices are simply not equal. After all, money equals speech. This real-life western example is likely one of those patriarchal contexts that Sarkeesian is discussing when she says:

The fact of the matter is that some choices have ramifications beyond ourselves, and reinforce harmful patriarch-like of women as a group, and about women’s bodies in our wider shared culture.  And because of how systems of oppression intersect and compound one-another, it’s women of color, indigenous women, women living in the global south, women with disabilities, queer women and trans women who bear the brunt of these ramifications.

Whatever your stance on abortion, the history of it speaks for itself, and is very much about reproductive rights. Many of the first laws that made it illegal were sponsored by doctors, in part because they wanted full say in decisions. But the other part of the motivation behind making abortion illegal was because it was seen as a tactic that might destroy the women’s rights movements. The logic went like this: force women to have children, and they wont be able to leave – take away their choices.

As I said before, Sarkeesian isn’t the first to make these arguments, of which she does so mildly. Meghan Murphy is well known for criticizing the tenets of choice feminism, as well as slutwalks. You can read such an example here, that really vibes well with what Sarkeesian is saying in her talks. Essentially, that choices may be an illusion, not all choices are equal, and not all choices are empowering, or feminist.

It’s all too easy to cite Liana K, or the Factual Feminist (Christina Hoff Sommers) as stellar examples of what feminism should look like. For one, Maverick’s post comes across as leaning conservatively. That is to say, he believes strongly in the neo-liberal notion of individualism, and the “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” mantra. Second, Sommers, who works for the American Enterprise Institute (a conservative think tank), is not new to the realm of controversy. Sommers has made videos that are critical of Sarkeesian’s message, something that I believe Maverick could learn from. But that doesn’t make Sommers’ critiques correct, or even Maverick’s perspective correct. Indeed, all of the criticisms made so far, against Sarkeesian, are straw-man arguments, and lacking of any intellectual prowess, and instead are steeped in ad hominem attacks but pitched as strong philosophical objections. Sarkeesian’s speech didn’t offer any new ideas, but recited many ideas from Meghan Murphey, bell hooks, and a great many other second wave, and contemporary feminists. What distinguishes her from many of the others is that rather than stay in the academic realm, she attempted to bring the academic intrigue and insight into a more paletable medium, only to be labeled stupid by a bunch of individuals upset that she included their favorite game in her analysis.

I would like to end by saying a few things:

1. None of these posts should be construed to suggest that I agree or disagree with Sarkeesian (unless otherwise stated),
2. These posts are meant to be educational as opposed to supportive,
3. I make no judgments as the rightness or wrongness of Sarkeesian’s overall points.

Please feel free to comment, like, and share.

A Note on Morality, and Moral Facts

I’ve been reading a lot about morality, ethics, and whether or not there’s a universal moral code. Another way of stating this, I have been delving deep into the philosophical approaches concerning morality, most specifically, moral realism, skepticism, nihilism, and existentialism. While I have always been interested in philosophy, especially moral philosophy and ethics, this new spark of interest grew from an article that I recently read, which led me to Sam Harris’ Moral Landscape, and essentially his assertion that neuroscience can – and indeed, should – prove the existence of moral facts. I’m of the opinion that moral facts don’t exist. Given the arguments in support of their existence – being “facts” that aren’t the same as other “facts” – I find myself on the side of the fence that says, “maybe they aren’t really facts to begin with.”

In any case, I have been reading a neat little book called The Three Failures of Creationism: Logic, Rhetoric, and Science by Walter M. Fitch. As I learn more about the concept of morality, as well as evolution, I have indeed grown more skeptical of the notion that there’s a universal moral directive. Sam Harris suggests that as humans (or other species for that matter) evolve, they become more in tune with moral facts.

I’m at the precipice in which I want to make two arguments: 1) Moral Relativism is the more accurate assertion on the concept of morality, although it could use some fine tuning. What moral realists, cognitvists, or moral universalists perceive as universality may simply be a result of cooperation, which is an evolutionary trait among many other species. Humans have had a long time to determine what’s best for themselves individually and in a greater societal sense, and as such it may be error to suggest that there’s a universal moral fabric because of a perceived universality. Morality, as a construct, be the inevitability of consciousness, but that doesn’t necessarily prove the existence of a “moral fabric”. 2) Moral Facts don’t exist as some universal directive that can be “proven” with science, but suggesting that moral facts exist, however impossible it may be to imperially prove the existence of, is a benefit to society in a great many ways, but may also be a detriment (Social Darwinism).

Although these thoughts are not as well constructed on this post, it is an endeavor for which I am continually pursuing. Regardless of all of that, there is an excerpt I would like to share from the aforementioned book:

“There is no evidence that nature or the theory of evolution demands any specific moral code. Evolution requires only that species survive long enough to reproduce. Nature should not be personified as someone who is anxiously wringing her hands, watching events unfold, hoping that the “good” side will win, that the “bad” side will be defeated, and that “progress” will be made. Nature has no grand teleology: it is not working toward any ultimate goal. Nature makes no judgments as to the particular method of survival that species employ. Many strategies are employed by various species, and no particular strategy can be considered paramount in the attempt of species to survive. Many social Darwinists (e.g., Herbert Spencer) emphasize the competitive aspect of nature, but such writers as Peter Kropotkin have noted that many species survive by means of cooperation. … It is pointless to arbitrarily select one trait from nature to be used as a guide for society’s oath, because it is impossible to know which particular trait will ultimately be most important in the game of survival – to say nothing of the injustice of imposing such a questionable decision upon others.” (Fitch, W., pages 35-36).

The quote above, in many ways, expresses my thoughts on morality. All of this is, of course, food for thought. Although I express no authority on this matter, I believe it to be wise that individuals such as Sam Harris, and other moral realists, refrain from doing so as well. It may be possible to say that something is good, but that doesn’t mean that because it is “good” it must also be “factual” in some grand universal sense, akin but also not-akin to other facts, like gravity (if you jump off of a building, you will eventually hit the ground).

Feel free to comment.