The following is a repost of my comments on the article from Bloomsberg Businessweek. As I have serious doubts that the post will remain due to it exposing the highly inaccurate nature of the article, I am reposting it here as a refutation of that article. The original article is linked below:
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-11-26/anita-sarkeesian-battles-sexism-in-games-gamergate-harassment?hootPostID=e61f286d3f9fe1869809de3bda829add
And now the response:
Wow, I stopped reading at "each episode takes hundreds of hours of gameplay which she does herself or with McIntosh."
It's already been proven that she lifted the bulk of her footage off other people's YouTube channels. She didn't play any of those games, and outright misrepresents many.
http://victorsopinion.blogspot.be/2013/07/anitas-sources.html
And she says she played first person shooters and could find women's butts to stare at? Really? Do I need to break out my CoD discs and show you how stupid that is? I stared at several hours of men's fronts and back sides. Don't remember even seeing a female butt. What games did she play in those hours of research? Likely not many, if she played at all. Because, by her own admission, she hates violent games. Here, in her own words!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FW-69xXD734
This article is terribly researched. Both of those took me exactly 30 seconds each to google. In 60 seconds of research I've torn a hole in your narrative.
And that person who comes back with each new video? We in #GamerGate found him. He's also the likely source of Anita's USU death threat.
http://kotaku.com/the-anita-sarkeesian-hater-that-everyone-hates-1658494441
And that's from a site that is ANTI-GAMERGATE! We know who her harasser is. We wanted her to press charges. She didn't and hasn't. Ask yourself why. Why is it that we, in #GamerGate, are trying to bring this man to justice, and she is not involving herself.
Tack on 30 more seconds of research there. 90 seconds of Google searches.
And where is the fact that #GamerGate has an active anti-harassment group going after those same threats you talk about. You see, instead of laying back and lamenting attacks, we're trying to do something about them. Instead of writing an article online to get ad revenue, we're out there finding, reporting, and removing these elements. Your subject won't even press charges against a known harasser!
Also, do you realize how sexist your article is? Let me grab a couple quotes quickly:
"Petite and fair, with long, shiny hair the color of merlot, chunky boots, and nails painted gold,"
Why are you objectifying her based on her appearance? It shouldn't matter if she showed up with her hair in a pony tail wearing decades old sneakers, no makeup or nail polish. And who cares about her weight? You've reduced her to a label in saying:
"Sarkeesian, 31, telegraphs an earnest grad student."
So are you saying all grad students are petite and fair? With long hair and chunky boots? That's sexist as hell.
And then you say this near your conclusion:
"A blond woman sitting at the next table before an array of New York City street"
What does her hair colour matter? Why is this essential to your story? Is it so you can say blonds like her too? It's an irrelevant detail, again summarizing the appearance of a woman based on one trait.
And finally, by way of bias, how long have you and Anita been in communication? I went by both of your Twitter accounts. Now, what you may not realize is that they are sorted by most recent follower to least recent. You appear fairly far down the list. So how long have you two known each other? Could this be why your article is so biased? Could that be why you never mention any of items I put herein?
Remember, #GamerGate is about ethics. Maybe that subject makes people in journalism far too uncomfortable these days.
No comments:
Post a Comment