I recently stumbled upon this girl, Anita Sarkeesian, who is trying to raise more awareness to how the media and entertainment is still portraying women as helpless and 'weaker' than men. While I agree with what she's doing and her overall message. I think some of her criticisms are rather ignorant and poorly researched.
One of Anita's first videos that I saw was about the video game industry and how women are portrayed. In her video, she gives a few examples of the classic 'damsel in distress' motif and goes on to talk about other topics of feminism like voluptuous women characters dressed in skimpy outfits in the series of videos. First, I have to say that the videos are very well made. The editing it top notch, organized, has cut scenes from various games, and the information is presented in a very clear and precise manner. I completely agree with her that very rarely, women are the main protagonist of the game and often get portrayed as sex objects (check out Mortal Kombat, Street Fighter, Soul Caliber, Tekken and King of Fighters).
Luckily, more and more women are being portrayed as the main protagonist these days, for example Claire and Jill from the Resident Evil series, Lightning and Terra from the Final Fantasy series, and Lara Croft from the Tomb Raider series to just name a few. However, the majority of video protagonists are male. That list could go on forever. The scantily clad women is absolutely unnecessary. Like any guy, I like to see sexy women but in a video game, it just doesn't make sense. The latest Mortal Kombat video game has ALL of it's female characters with curves and wearing clothing that might as well be lingerie. With MK being a fighting game, who fights wearing a g-string? The males are upgraded to look more masculine and 'bad ass' if you will, with new outfits. The women however, look they belong in an X-rated film.
My only criticisms to her is that when you look at the history of video games, you have to realize the culture that has been established behind it. When games were first invented, they were made by men and majority played by men as well. Over the course of 30+ years, this stayed the same in the industry. First, as a video game company, when a majority of your costumers are male, you make the product appeal to your target market. That's just a no-brainer business practice. Second, men play these games because they want to be the protagonist. They are in a way living vicariously through the male protagonists who want to save the world and get the girl at the same time. Same concept how many women read romance novels and read into those characters. And third, the video game industry is changing everyday. As we progress as a society, the industry is beginning to progress with it. Like I pointed out earlier, there are many more female protagonists being introduced. Is it perfect? Definitely not. A majority of gamers are still male and therefore many of the major titles publishers will make, will obviously be male centered. At the end of the day, this is a business and the publishers are out to make one thing and one thing only. Money. They are not out to make difference, change our own views on society or make the world a better place. They are capitalists. By no means am I justifying the current trend to be acceptable but just stating the reasons behind the trend. There is a history here that we must understand before we start making judgments on it.
The second video I watched was her critique of the Hunger Games. This video is less of a critique of the feminism as it is to a critique of the novel itself. I have to say that I completely disagree with all of her negatives on the book and what she considers 'unbelievable' or 'inconsistent'. First, she talks about how the world Collins has set up is unbelievable. In case you haven't read the Hunger Games, the Hunger Games is a yearly competition where 24 children are randomly chosen against their will to compete in a death match that is televised in all twelve districts and the capital city. The games doesn't end until there is only survivor. Anita claims that this scenario is unbelievable because she feels that a society where parents willingly give up their children to the government to be slaughtered is ridiculous. Well Anita, I'm going to be kind of blunt but did you not read this book? The book clearly states that the Hunger Games were originally created AFTER there was civil war where all of the districts revolted against the Capital. The games are a reminder to the people who lost the war, that the government has absolute power over them. If that doesn't make it realistic enough for you, let's put it in modern terms. Have you ever heard child soldiers? In countries like Uganda, Chad, Thailand and Myanmar, children are being taken from their parents to fight wars. Why don't the parent do anything? Well it's hard to do something when you have nothing to defend your children with. The armies hold all of the power (including fire power) and you have nothing. It is pretty hard to resist when you have nothing. That is the same thing in the Hunger Games. The Capital has ALL of the power and guns. The people have NOTHING. This isn't just a criticism but a portrayal of what is happening right now in other countries. This leads me to think she is a bit naive and ignorant in her own thinking.
She goes on to say how Katniss's reaction to violence is consistent by using the example of the death of Rue and Katniss's reaction to other people's deaths. Anita says that Rue's death deeply affected Katniss (which it did) yet the death of other tributes do not phase Katniss and therefore is not consistent. Again, did you not read the book? First let me address why Katniss's reaction to Rue's death was so strong. First let's remember why Katniss was first in the Hunger Games. She volunteered to be in it so that her younger sister would not. She took her sister's place because she loves her sister so dearly that she is willing to die for her. Later, Katniss meets Rue who reminds Katniss of her sister. They are about the same age and have the same look of innocence in their face. Katniss quickly builds a relationship with Rue due to these factors. When Rue died, Katniss couldn't help but react the way she did. The reason she doesn't care about the other tributes deaths is simply because she doesn't have the same relationship she has with them as she did with Rue. Rue's character really hit the core of Katniss's character and to see that is very traumatic. Katniss's character is also very cold. At a very young age, she experienced the death of her father and let's not forget, she's been watch the games her entire life. Seeing kids die is not something new to her. Asking her to have the same reaction to the other tribute's deaths as Rue death is like asking someone why do they only cry when someone in their family dies but not when anyone else dies. It simply doesn't make sense.
So Ms Anita Sarkeesian. After watching a few of your videos, I really wonder how much thought and research you really put into your videos because it seems like you don't really think it all through. I know it's your opinion but opinions can be educated and I just don't feel like yours are.
