The Game Has Just Begun for Gamers

In Anita Sarkeesian’s article, “Game over for Gamers”, she insists that sexism is a large factor that holds back gaming. She provides anecdotes about her life explaining how hard it was for her to identify as a “gamer” due to blatant misogyny in the industry and throughout the fandom (par. 6). These “Hardcore Gamers” hold their titles as an exclusionary elite that passes down judgement by berating more creative games as “too easy” or “not real games”. Her opinion is that in order for gaming to improve as a whole, it is important not to give the term “gamer” any sort of power. She is correct that gaming culture has some major flaws. However, sexism is not the cancer spreading throughout gaming, her ideological philosophies are.

The author needs to work on her proof that gaming has always been a “Boys Club”. The bulk of the article isn’t really something with which one can agree or disagree, considering the vast majority of it is nothing more than empirical evidence. Speaking as a male gamer, I relish the idea that someone would play a game with me, be it my sister, my friends, or even my parents. Gender plays no role in whom I want to game with. Many of my friends that play videogames have never had a problem with women playing videogames with them or by themselves. I find the general idea that gamers have been extremely exclusionary is in itself fairly sexist toward both boy gamers and girls as a whole. By claiming that gaming is a boys club, Sarkeesian immediately casts a blaming light on boys who game as exclusionary and sexist. This concept is also sexist to women because it assumes that women don’t have the agency to decide for themselves what it is that they want. Who is to say that a woman can’t enjoy a sexualized and empowered female character in a game?

Sarkeesian has a rather questionable past for someone who continually claims to be a moral authority over an entire medium. The merits of her alleged history with videogames easily comes into question when you watch a video she is in saying she “doesn’t play videogames and doesn’t like videogames”, though there is an easy amount of backtracking one can (and did) do in order to cover those tracks thoroughly (RicanGamerr, Anita Sarkeesian admitted she was not a gamer). Before her hit with Feminist Frequency, she was essentially taking classes to learn how to be a better snake oil salesman, being taught by Alex Mandossian, a famous get-rich-quick con man. She then graduated to running fraudulent teleseminars for Mandossian for three years, which was repeatedly accused of fraud (PariahDark, Anita Sarkeesian Testimonial on Marketing Guru Alex Mandossian). This might help explain why she received over $160,000 in donations for a project she started three years ago and still has yet to finish despite claiming to be moving on from that project (Kickstarter, Tropes Vs. Women in Videogames). A huge point of contention I have with Sarkeesian comes from how invested she was in a man named Bart Bagget; whom one can find writing pick-up tips for men to seduce women in the absence of meaningful consent using Neuro-Linguistic programming. They were both taught under Mandossian, her name appears on the contact list for his press release in 2005, her phone number showed up on multiple business sites set up by him, and writing by him has been listed as part of her experience in event planning for her teleseminars (The Guardian, Anita Sarkeesian: Feminist Icon or Con Artist?). Strange that one so concerned about fictionalized characters having breasts that are too large would choose to associate with a man known for pick-up artistry.

Her methods in dealing with criticism are extremely suspect. She is always under watchful scrutiny, but only cherry picks the most colorful responses when informing people of the reactions she gets. I am reminded of a story called “The Trial” by Franz Kafka. In it, there is a man that goes to trial over crimes that are never specified, and he becomes blamed as guilty regardless of whether or not he actually is guilty. The only way for him to get out of the trial is to admit that he is guilty, but to admit that he is guilty would seal his fate. It is a form of torture; you’ve done something wrong, and claiming you haven’t is proof that you’ve done something wrong. You see, all you need to do to become as successful as Anita Sarkeesian is clear: make an outlandish statement with little research, wait for the criticism to inevitably ensue, use said criticism to further your outlandish claim, repeat. Eventually you will become virtually irreproachable and will garner large amounts of followers.

The ideologues Sarkeesian amasses with her rhetoric are the most harmful part about her influence in the videogame world. While Sarkeesian seems to be in this for money, her followers are people who actually believe her ideals to the point where they border on cult-like reverence (#fullmcchu, I purge myself of dangerous “unthinkable” thoughts). In their world, they would be creative bouncers standing outside publishing houses and keeping aspiring developers and creative thinkers out. Unless certain arbitrary guidelines are met, creators will not be given the voice to be heard. All of these non-creatives put stress on others to accomplish what they and Sarkeesian want; as if it is a creator’s job to create pre-approved content.

Ultimately, creative freedom is at stake here. Sarkeesian is doing more than suggesting the term “Gamer” is no longer useful. She is suggesting that gaming the way it is today must be destroyed and rebuilt with her guidelines in place. Guidelines built for someone who confessed (and later retracted) to not be a fan of videogames. Guidelines for one who has repeatedly been under the accusation of fraud. Guidelines built for someone who purposefully baits abuse in order to line her own pockets. In order to take away the problems that are prevalent in gaming, we must learn to not give so much power to ill-intentioned crusaders.