DISCLAIMER This is a neutral and objective verbatim critical analysis of Feminist Frequency’s Tropes vs. Women in Video Games video series on YouTube. The purpose of this thesis is to show the accuracy of the facts and the strength of the arguments presented in the given video. The wording of the content presented in the video being critiqued has not been altered in any way, and is as originally intended. Conflicting evidence that has been released after the date of the given video (August 25, 2014) has not been included to debunk any arguments or facts presented, as that would be unfair. Sources and overall statistics are included at the end of this thesis. This is not a personal attack or libelous attempt towards Anita Sarkeesian, her team, her supporters, or feminism in general, nor is it condoned. Everyone has the right to voice their thoughts, opinions, and feelings on any given subject matter, regardless of how true or popular it may be. Words, sentences, statements, or video footage EXAMPLE Statements that precede a green check with red outlines involve criticisms. Each one mark are factually correct and supported with All criticisms in this thesis about the video being critiqued are given will be debunked and explained in a separate evidence in the video and/or in the description. as fair, neutral, and objective as possible. Any criticisms or corrections section, following a solid red line. Writings Note that while a statement may be factually towards this presentation is both welcome and encouraged. However, and criticisms that continue elsewhere are correct, it may also be biased or faulty informa- I ask that it be constructive and respectful, without the use of any followed by a dashed line. tion or contain logical fallacies. disrespectful, degrading, or objectionable comments and language. Thank you, EXAMPLE1,2,3 Any criticisms that have a numerical annotation EXAMPLE O Statements that precede a green O are ob- are backed up with the source(s) to the corre- jective. Note that while a statement may be sponding number(s). Click on the annotation objective, it may also be a research error or number to go to the source. contain logical fallacies. Brent Cherry THE CRITICISMS EXPLAINED The criticisms and recognitions in this presenta- an absurd one, by taking them to extremes. FALSE CAUSALITY: A citation or conclusion that PREJUDICIAL LANGUAGE: The use of loaded which a new or currently-existing term is given tion fall under 4 categories: Honesty, research, ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE: The assump- sequential events is clear evidence that the first or emotive terms to emphasize value or morali- a specific meaning for the purposes of the logic, and objectivity. The following criticisms tion of a conclusion or fact based on either caused the second or more. ty to a subjective statement. argument or discussion in a given context. are what is found in this specific analysis. The lack of evidence to the contrary or when such INCOMPLETE ARGUMENT: An argument that REIFICATION: When an abstract belief or subcategories of each one follows afterward. is arbitrarily deemed inadequate. is introduced without some sort of resolution or hypothetical construct is treated as if it were a HONESTY BIASED SAMPLE FALLACY: Drawing a con- conclusion. Also known as an enthymeme. concrete, real event or physical entity. Dishonesty occurs when a statement or evidence LOGIC clusion based on a sample that is biased, or LOADED QUESTION: A question that contains REPETITION: Repeating an argument, state- is intentionally given with only part or none of A logical fallacy is an incorrect argument in chosen in order to make something appear on a controversial, unjustified assumption, or an ment, or premise over and over again in place the whole truth. The context of any evidence logic and rhetoric which results in a lack of average different than it actually is. unproven basis. of better supporting evidence. displayed or references provided are assumed validity, or more generally, a lack of soundness. CONFIRMATION BIAS: The tendency to search MIND PROJECTION: A belief with certainty SELF-CONTRADICTION: A statement that direct- to be fully acknowledged before presented. While a fallacy may have multiple names for, interpret, prefer, or recall information in a that one perception is the one objective truth, ly or indirectly opposes a previous statement. and belong in certain subcategories, such as way that confirms one’s beliefs or hypotheses regardless of other possible points of view. SHOEHORNING: The process of forcing an MISREPRESENTATION: Evidence that has been formal and informal, with even more subcate- while giving less attention to information or MOVING THE GOALPOST: An argument in irrelevant topic into the discussion at hand. altered and/or presented to intentionally give a gories within those, the focus is to describe the possibilities that can or does contradict such. which a standard is arbitrarily changed once a SLIPPERY SLOPE: An assertion that some event false or misleading idea of the original material. properties of a specific one. DISTINCTION WITHOUT A DIFFERENCE: An previously introduced problem or argument has must inevitably follow from another without any MISSING CONTEXT: A statement or argument attempt to describe a distinction between two been resolved completely or in some major way. rational argument or demonstrable mechanism that intentionally leaves out conflicting informa- AD HOMINEM: A dismissal or attack on an ar- things where no difference exists. NON SEQUITUR: A conclusion that does not for the inevitability of the event in question. tion in order to seem valid or true. gument, individual, or subject presented based DOUBLE STANDARD: A set of principles that ap- follow from the premises established. SPECIAL PLEADING: An application of stan- WILLFUL LIE: Reporting that intentionally contra- on personal bias on the matter or a completely plies differently and sometimes more rigorously OPINION: A personal view, attitude, or apprais- dards, principles, and/or rules to other people or dicts evidence provided or autobiographical irrelevant point, rather than objectively or fairly to one group or circumstances than to another. al that is presented as fact. circumstances, while making oneself or certain accounts that observable and concrete criticizing the argument or subject matter itself. FALSE ANALOGY: A supposed similarity that is OVERGENERALIZATION: A statement which is circumstances exempt from the same critical means can prove otherwise. APPEAL TO EXTREMES: An erroneous attempt used to prove or disprove an argument, but is too general to support a single, solid conclu- criteria, without providing adequate justification. to turn a reasonable argument or situation into too different to be effective. sion about the subject. STIPULATIVE DEFINITION: A type of definition in Continued on next page THE CRITICISMS (CONTINUED) RESEARCH ered and presented to support only the given Research errors are mistakes made in gather- argument or statement when conflicting ing evidence to support a given argument or evidence exists. statement. What separates these from dishon- FACTUAL ERROR: Presented information that is est statements is that the integrity is not clear, not factually correct. and could possibly be due to unawareness FAULTY SOURCE: Using irrelevant, unqualified, or assumptions. Either way, this is a great hin- unidentified, biased, or fabricated source in drance to the overall credibility towards being support of an argument. a reliable source of information. The responsibil- ity to provide concrete and observable evi- OBJECTIVITY dence supporting a claim or statement always Objective analyses are arguments and state- relies on the individual making such, regardless ments that are fueled by solid facts and logic, of how common knowledge may be on any as opposed to personal belief or bias. This is the given topic. absolute cornerstone to the overall credibility towards being a reliable source of information. ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE: An assertion or information that is passed along either without CORRECT FACT: Information that is factually or not based upon observable confirmation. correct and supported with evidence in the ASSUMPTION: A statement or claim that is video and/or in the description. made without providing concrete and observ- OBJECTIVE STATEMENT: Statements or argu- able evidence either within the video or links to ments that do not stem from bias or personal external resources. belief on a certain subject matter. CHERRY-PICKING: Information that is gath- “Grab a whore and have a good time. [Laughs]” In our last video, we discussed the concept of sexual Welcome to the second part of our mini-series exam- objectification, and looked at a specific subset of ining the women as background decoration trope in non-essential female characters which I classify as video games. “non-playable sex objects”. In this episode, we will expand our discussion of the women as background decoration trope to examine how sexualized female bodies often occupy a dual role as both sexual playthings and the perpetual victims of male violence. I need to stress that this video comes with a content warning and is not recommended for children. The game footage I’ll be showcasing will be particularly graphic, and include scenes of extreme violence against women. I define the women as background decoration trope as… FALSE CAUSALITY “the subset of largely “Are you here for the whore?” Just because a particular method is used does not automatically mean it is insignificant non-play- targeted for a specific demographic. able female charac- ters whose sexuality or OPINION x4 victimhood is exploited What is considered to be 1. “insignificant”, 2. “edgy”, 3. “gritty”, or 4. “racy” is as a way to infuse subjective and debatable. edgy, gritty, or racy flavoring into game STIPULATIVE DEFINITION x8 worlds. These sexually Limiting the definition of “women as background decoration” to 1. insignificant objectified female characters, 2. sexual exploitation, 3. victimhood exploitation, 4.