I never like mentioning this woman's name. It is what she wants, it is what she craves, and it's the driving force behind her so-called activism. But silence of a single person means little. However, adding to the voices of dissent might do much more.
Feminist Frequency founder Anita Sarkeesian has, through some horrid little loophole, turned her video-making enterprise into a non-profit organization. Rather hilariously, it falls in into class 501(c)3, where you will also find religious and anti-animal cruelty groups. Yup, her little webisode series soapbox for the evils of chauvinism in the media now groups in with PETA and the Roman Catholic Church.
This turns my stomach. Not because of the existence of her ridiculous, pointless drivel that passes as some form of revolutionary, thought-provoking series of insightful videos, but because now she has a legitimate way to pay herself a salary while at the same time hiding in a tax shelter that doubles as a criticism shield.
"Oh, you can't say that I am doing this for money. I am a non-profit, so I am not seeking money for me! It's for the project!"
The reality is that Sarkeesian exists in an echo chamber of her own creation. She repeats what she finds to be popular feminazi dogma (and before you say I am exaggerating, remember, she is in the same camp as those who see disagreement as being worse than rape threats, where men are incapable of any form of understanding of women's rights issues, and where women can get PTSD from Twitter), then makes a passively decent video to try to prove how the media pushes those ideals.
This helps no one. It's the ultimate first world problem. Women in the developed world are forced to see how sex still sells, and how some genres still have lazy tropes tossed in for the sake of justifying a character's motivations. Oh dear god, nothing worse exists in the world for women, right?
I mean, it's not like there isn't a country where there is widespread rape and murder of women, right? I mean, it's not like there is someplace where women are so marginalized by the legal system that their rape and murder isn't even really a huge crime, right? Um, have you looked at this story from India? Or, what about the Sharia, laws still enforced in some countries. I mean, that's not really important, even though it allows for honour killing of women without punishment, right?
You see, it's hard to take any of these feminazis seriously when real feminists like Margaret Atwood exist. In fact, these feminazis have poisoned the well badly enough that even she has backed off on calling herself a feminist. See, that's the problem, this over-privileged, myopic and ultimately pointless people are becoming the face people think of when the word feminist pops up. They are seen as these crazy, irrational women who want to stomp men into the turf and take control, when the reality of feminism is simply the desire that women should be seen as equals as far as human rights, pay and opportunity for advancement.
I will definitely not say that even the US is there yet. We still have a baffling pay inequity. women are still routinely seen as a second-best choice, and there are fields that could use more balance of the sexes, mainly because having another viewpoint, regardless of sex, is better than an old boy's club of people who all agree.
Validating Sarkeesian's pointless video diatribes with the self-righteous stamp of non-profit is a step in the wrong direction. It gives her a pseudo-credibility with anyone who does not think hard enough on the fact that the company, not herself, is non-profit, and that non-profits are fully able to pay staff so long as the net gain for the business is 0. The only advantage I can see is that as a non-profit, she will be required to file her income, and that will be information we, the public, have a legal right to.
Thursday, June 26, 2014
Saturday, June 14, 2014
Avoid Spacial, get RadioDJ instead
And now for something completely different...
Almost no one knows about this, but on the weekends I do some hobbyist level radio streaming. Nothing major, and no, no links to it will be posted. It's not that I am not proud of it, it's mainly because the stream I rent is very, very tiny from a listener limit standpoint, and posting a random link online might end in me being overloaded. Maybe someday I will do a large-scale broadcast. You know, when the lotto money comes in...
But more seriously, when I started, I wanted a premiere software to do this with. I tried out Winamp as a solution for free, but it was atrocious, and very difficult to set up. After asking around and a few searches, I found Spacial's SAM Broadcaster. The software looked great, complex for me at the time, but great. I downloaded the trial, found it met my needs, and went to for it.
The software, at the time, cost $300 and change.
Now, to ease the pain, I did it in payments. It was no worse than buying some games or any other hobby at that point. My first misgivings happened at the third payment. For some reason, they didn't attempt to pass it, and at one of my attempted streams, with people waiting on me to stream, my software stopped working due to an expired licence. I had to call it off, and contact Spacial. It's then that I found out $300 doesn't buy you shit these days.
Their support, what little of it there was, utterly sucked. They were unresponsive, took forever to actually fix the issue, and in general it was a pain even finding how to get support in the first place. It should also be noted that, at this time, they announced that their software was getting a new version... which I could get for $50 for a limited time!
Given that I was already having issues, and the only bonus I saw was Windows 8 compatibility, I passed. I was not about to get suckered in for more cash when they had shown a blatantly bad amount of service thus far.
Flash forward to present day.
I just bought myself a fancy new rig... with Windows 8. Now, I had thought that they would at least patch or give a work around for their software to run under Windows 8. I tried contacting their support to see what, if anything, they would do. Shockingly, their support had gotten WORSE. Before, you could chat live with them. Now, it just drops you into creating a service ticket. However, nowhere on their site can you view the ticket. It just goes off into the ether, never to be seen again... until they email you a survey about how you liked the service you didn't receive.
On top of this, that $50 offer was gone like smoke. Instead, now they ask a whopping $179 for the same patch to Windows 8. Not anywhere have I seen it have a single new feature that is not already in the software, this is strictly compatibility.
Fed up, I tweeted at a DJ resource twitter account if they had heard good things about Virtual DJ. VDJ is a far more complex remix software. It is software I'd love to know how to use someday, but it vastly outstrips my basic knowledge today. It, like SAM, costs $300 In way of reply, a follower of the same account, Gary, tweeted that I should check out RadioDJ instead.
It was uncertain of this, some random twitter person linking me to some odd domain, but I went anyway. I am so glad I did. What I found is a software I wish I had found 2 years ago. RadioDJ is, in essence, SAM 2.0. It has more powerful automation features, a much more reliable stream management software that allows for dead air (something SAM most assuredly does not), it's light, fast, powerful... All the things SAM is not. The best news: It's free. That's right, 100% no charge, zip, zero, nada. There is a donate button (which I happily used once I had full knowledge the software worked), but aside from that, no money is required at all.
And the support, my word the support. This is a one-man operation, but he is surrounded by fans (for obvious reasons). He still does support as much as he can, and all his user support one another.
There are downsides, small ones. There's no installer, so you need to be used to dealing with software like that. You need to install the database yourself (SAM does use a database, but installs one for you), and you have to install your own streaming software. However, all these steps, with links and videos and so many supportive users, are provided right there on the website.
Spacial's homepage says you can be up and running in minutes. The same goes for RadioDJ, except you will still have money in your wallet! The learning curve may be more steep with RDJ, but for a free piece of software, it's worth the invested time. I only wish I had that $300 to give to Marius, the developer of RDJ. He deserves it far more than Spacial
Almost no one knows about this, but on the weekends I do some hobbyist level radio streaming. Nothing major, and no, no links to it will be posted. It's not that I am not proud of it, it's mainly because the stream I rent is very, very tiny from a listener limit standpoint, and posting a random link online might end in me being overloaded. Maybe someday I will do a large-scale broadcast. You know, when the lotto money comes in...
But more seriously, when I started, I wanted a premiere software to do this with. I tried out Winamp as a solution for free, but it was atrocious, and very difficult to set up. After asking around and a few searches, I found Spacial's SAM Broadcaster. The software looked great, complex for me at the time, but great. I downloaded the trial, found it met my needs, and went to for it.
The software, at the time, cost $300 and change.
Now, to ease the pain, I did it in payments. It was no worse than buying some games or any other hobby at that point. My first misgivings happened at the third payment. For some reason, they didn't attempt to pass it, and at one of my attempted streams, with people waiting on me to stream, my software stopped working due to an expired licence. I had to call it off, and contact Spacial. It's then that I found out $300 doesn't buy you shit these days.
Their support, what little of it there was, utterly sucked. They were unresponsive, took forever to actually fix the issue, and in general it was a pain even finding how to get support in the first place. It should also be noted that, at this time, they announced that their software was getting a new version... which I could get for $50 for a limited time!
Given that I was already having issues, and the only bonus I saw was Windows 8 compatibility, I passed. I was not about to get suckered in for more cash when they had shown a blatantly bad amount of service thus far.
Flash forward to present day.
I just bought myself a fancy new rig... with Windows 8. Now, I had thought that they would at least patch or give a work around for their software to run under Windows 8. I tried contacting their support to see what, if anything, they would do. Shockingly, their support had gotten WORSE. Before, you could chat live with them. Now, it just drops you into creating a service ticket. However, nowhere on their site can you view the ticket. It just goes off into the ether, never to be seen again... until they email you a survey about how you liked the service you didn't receive.
On top of this, that $50 offer was gone like smoke. Instead, now they ask a whopping $179 for the same patch to Windows 8. Not anywhere have I seen it have a single new feature that is not already in the software, this is strictly compatibility.
Fed up, I tweeted at a DJ resource twitter account if they had heard good things about Virtual DJ. VDJ is a far more complex remix software. It is software I'd love to know how to use someday, but it vastly outstrips my basic knowledge today. It, like SAM, costs $300 In way of reply, a follower of the same account, Gary, tweeted that I should check out RadioDJ instead.
It was uncertain of this, some random twitter person linking me to some odd domain, but I went anyway. I am so glad I did. What I found is a software I wish I had found 2 years ago. RadioDJ is, in essence, SAM 2.0. It has more powerful automation features, a much more reliable stream management software that allows for dead air (something SAM most assuredly does not), it's light, fast, powerful... All the things SAM is not. The best news: It's free. That's right, 100% no charge, zip, zero, nada. There is a donate button (which I happily used once I had full knowledge the software worked), but aside from that, no money is required at all.
And the support, my word the support. This is a one-man operation, but he is surrounded by fans (for obvious reasons). He still does support as much as he can, and all his user support one another.
There are downsides, small ones. There's no installer, so you need to be used to dealing with software like that. You need to install the database yourself (SAM does use a database, but installs one for you), and you have to install your own streaming software. However, all these steps, with links and videos and so many supportive users, are provided right there on the website.
Spacial's homepage says you can be up and running in minutes. The same goes for RadioDJ, except you will still have money in your wallet! The learning curve may be more steep with RDJ, but for a free piece of software, it's worth the invested time. I only wish I had that $300 to give to Marius, the developer of RDJ. He deserves it far more than Spacial
Why it is wrong to not have female assassins in Assassin's Creed: Unity
First, let me start this off by saying that no, I'm not going to cry sexism. It's the low hanging fruit of this discussion, and really it isn't the reason why there are no women in Assassin's Creed: Unity. I know, many blogs and commentary pieces are going to beat that horse until the meat is mashed into the turf.
No, the real issue here is that it showcases UbiSoft's slide back from creative and diverse developer to shovelware distribution house. Assassin's Creed, as a franchise, has been bent over the table and thoroughly used in the most foul of ways to make a buck. And while there have been shining moments, overall each new entry has gone further from the original concept of the game in order to include other elements to be more "popular", or to have "broader appeal."
It's the same road that led them to turn Deux Ex into an app, rather than producing a sequel worthy of the series. It's the concept that the game would do better if we do what everyone else is doing. It's the creative void that has sucked the innovation and fun out of gaming, and leading us to have cloned franchises that run concurrent sequels year after bloody year.
So why would women be excluded? Because, quite literally, they were too busy tweaking the male characters in order to cater to whom they see the game appealing. They wanted to allow customization, which is shorthand for "We need a way to squeeze micro-transactions in here". Rest assured, there will be a customizable appearance system where part will be unlocks, and the rest either incentives for pre-order or purchasable content.
I am willing to bet that you will have every race of man available, with tons of different outfits, paperdoll style, to pick from. And during this process, they either considered the frat boy survey that was used build buzz around the time games like Remember Me and The Last of Us came us, or, more likely, simply decided to invest in a bankable idea.
Everyone likes the Assassin's Creed visual style. Cosplayers the world over do it up. Hoodies are sold by the dozen bearing the look. It's marketable, and gives you a great way to give all your distributors exclusive content without a ton of effort. However, doing double duty for the art department wasn't priority, it would lower the margins some, and not gain much money.
It's games as a business trumping games as a medium. That's the true evil. It's the same reason a gay lead won't do for an UbiSoft games. In an interview, Lucien Soulban, an openly gay writer for UbiSoft Montreal, stated that we won't see gay heroes "... for a while, I suspect, because of fears that it'll impact sales." There it is. Not a bias because gay heroes are icky. Because it could cost them dollars and cents at the cash.
That's what this is. Not sexism, it's that good old bugbear of packaged goods guys running the show, rather than a creative, open mind wanting to experiment and risk in the medium. So the next time a feminist says that gaming is sexist and mentions UbiSoft, correct them. This isn't about women, it's about money.
No, the real issue here is that it showcases UbiSoft's slide back from creative and diverse developer to shovelware distribution house. Assassin's Creed, as a franchise, has been bent over the table and thoroughly used in the most foul of ways to make a buck. And while there have been shining moments, overall each new entry has gone further from the original concept of the game in order to include other elements to be more "popular", or to have "broader appeal."
It's the same road that led them to turn Deux Ex into an app, rather than producing a sequel worthy of the series. It's the concept that the game would do better if we do what everyone else is doing. It's the creative void that has sucked the innovation and fun out of gaming, and leading us to have cloned franchises that run concurrent sequels year after bloody year.
So why would women be excluded? Because, quite literally, they were too busy tweaking the male characters in order to cater to whom they see the game appealing. They wanted to allow customization, which is shorthand for "We need a way to squeeze micro-transactions in here". Rest assured, there will be a customizable appearance system where part will be unlocks, and the rest either incentives for pre-order or purchasable content.
I am willing to bet that you will have every race of man available, with tons of different outfits, paperdoll style, to pick from. And during this process, they either considered the frat boy survey that was used build buzz around the time games like Remember Me and The Last of Us came us, or, more likely, simply decided to invest in a bankable idea.
Everyone likes the Assassin's Creed visual style. Cosplayers the world over do it up. Hoodies are sold by the dozen bearing the look. It's marketable, and gives you a great way to give all your distributors exclusive content without a ton of effort. However, doing double duty for the art department wasn't priority, it would lower the margins some, and not gain much money.
It's games as a business trumping games as a medium. That's the true evil. It's the same reason a gay lead won't do for an UbiSoft games. In an interview, Lucien Soulban, an openly gay writer for UbiSoft Montreal, stated that we won't see gay heroes "... for a while, I suspect, because of fears that it'll impact sales." There it is. Not a bias because gay heroes are icky. Because it could cost them dollars and cents at the cash.
That's what this is. Not sexism, it's that good old bugbear of packaged goods guys running the show, rather than a creative, open mind wanting to experiment and risk in the medium. So the next time a feminist says that gaming is sexist and mentions UbiSoft, correct them. This isn't about women, it's about money.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)