One of the main tenets of a free, liberal
society is pluralism and diversity.
We aspire to create a society where every
group is free to live its own way, and they
all coexist peacefully.
All Western societies are now subscribed to
this vision, and have been quite successful
in achieving it, creating a rich and prolific
mixture of cultures.
But there are still groups that are opposed
to diversity, and are actively working against
it.
One of these groups, unfortunately, is contemporary
feminism, at least a significant part of it.
Anita Sarkeesian is one of those anti-pluralist
feminists, and the fourth video of our series
will therefore be dedicated to this aspect
of her work.
At the heart of pluralism is the understanding
that human beings are different from one another.
Every individual is a unique blend of biological
traits, cultural backgrounds, personal experiences
and subjective preferences, and they form
communities with others that share some of
these individual characteristics.
The pluralistic mind loves this diversity,
and wants everyone to be able to pursue their
different group identities.
We do not believe that any identity is objectively
better than the other – as long as they
don't impinge on the rights of other people,
they are all fine.
We must, however, differentiate between pluralism
and tribalism.
Tribalism is the belief that people are inherently
bound to the group they belong to, and is
usually also characterize by the belief that
my group is better than yours.
Pluralism, on the other hand, believes that
every individual has the right to choose which
groups you want to belong to, and you have
the right to leave any group at any time.
Up until the 20th century, humanity was very
tribalist.
People believed that there are absolute differences
between groups, and every group has its essential
characteristics.
For instance, it was believed that there are
absolute differences between men and women,
so if a woman exhibited characteristics that
were considered masculine, or if a man exhibited
characteristics that were considered feminine,
they were seen as suffering from a problem
that needs to be cured.
On the basis of that, it was determined that
there are certain things that you cannot do
based on your gender, for instance, that there
are certain jobs that a woman is not allowed
to do.
By now, thankfully, we have learned that the
differences between men and women are not
absolute but statistical.
It is statistically true to say that the man
is taller than the woman, but that doesn't
mean that a specific man would be taller than
a specific woman.
Therefore, you can't say that a certain type
of job is not for women because it requires
height.
The same thing goes for all other differences
between men and women.
So we still believe that there are traits
that are more masculine or more feminine,
but we are not bound by them.
And we do not rule out someone's ability to
do something based on their gender, or any
other group identity for that matter.
That is how we, as a society, have progressed.
Now let's see if Anita Sarkeesian is part of that progress.
So the game allows you to play as a man or
as a woman, acknowledging that women can be
badass warriors too.
However, it doesn't want them to lose their
femininity altogether, so they still display
some feminine characteristics.
That isn't good enough for Anita.
She wants all differences between the genders
to be erased.
Basically, she wants to erase the concepts
of femininity and masculinity altogether.
Why does Anita hate diversity so much?
Well, let's take another example.
Not likely, due to the difference between
menswear and womenswear.
A man looks good in clothes that are more
casual, clothes that you can also do battle
in.
Women look their best in clothes that are
more elegant.
The ad wants to show us that agent Dark is
so badass that even when she saves the world
she still has the time to look good.
But Anita doesn't see it that way.
For her, it is all some sort of plot against
women.
Why does she believe that?
Because, as we shall soon learn, Anita denies
the differences between men and women.
Therefore, she does not see the difference
in their sense of style as something that
stems from their different nature.
In Anita's mind, society artificially invented
the categories of masculine and feminine,
and imposed them on a human race in which
there is actually no natural difference between
men and women.
Furthermore, she believes that the feminine
was designed specifically to pleasure the
masculine.
So when a woman dresses and moves in feminine
ways, in Anita's mind it is done solely for
the enjoyment of men, and is therefore an
expression of sexism.
Anita's prejudice is of course revealed best
of all when she discusses the issue of nudity
in video games.
Anita is implying that the fact that the male
character doesn't wear a revealing costume
is a sort of discrimination against women.
Her theory seems to be that female characters
wear revealing clothes and men don't because
of sexism.
But you see, Anita, I can't believe I have
to tell you this, but if being naked or partially
naked would have made us popular with the
ladies, there would not be one guy who would
keep his pants on.
But the fact is, we know that a lot of women
are repelled by male nudity, so we go for
looks that we know are popular with the large
majority of the female population.
A nice suit, for instance, is a perennial
winner.
Uniforms are known to get the ladies hearts
pumping.
The wild, dangerous and rebellious look, if
you can pull it off, will score big points.
The shirtless look also works, in some situations.
But if you go naked, or some partial nudity,
yeah, some chicks are gonna like it, but chances
are you'll get this reaction.
Everybody knows this, including game developers,
so they will put female characters in revealing
costumes that make them look good and male
characters in the kind of costumes that make
them look good.
How is it that you don't know this, Anita?
Could it be that feminism has distorted your
perception of reality to such an extent?
Or is it that you do know this, but are deceitfully
ignoring it to create the semblance of sexism
that is not there?
As we can see, this is all just part of Anita's
agenda.
Her theory is that womenswear is more revealing
because society is sexist, and is constructing
us to view women as sexual objects.
According to Anita, it is not our nature that
dictates that we enjoy gazing upon the woman's
body more than the man's body, but it is society
that has conditioned us to be like that.
Video games are just part of this process.
She goes on to blame the game developers that
they are making the games specifically for
the enjoyment of men.
Most of us would see it differently.
We would say that since the games Anita criticizes
are all action games, it is perfectly logical
for game developers to presume that more boys
would play them than girls.
There are types of video games that are aimed
at girls, such as dating sims, and I assume
the male characters in them are more compatible
with female fantasies.
But since Anita does not recognize that there
is a difference between boys and girls, she
sees it as an expression of misogyny.
She seems to believe that girls would play
action games just as much as boys do, if only
they weren't turned off by the sexualized
depictions of women.
Anita, of course, is entitled to her theory,
regardless of how ridiculous it may seem to
most of us.
But when she treats her theory as if it is
the one and only truth, and then blames the
rest of us for being misogynists because we
disagree with that theory, that's when she
becomes an anti-pluralist.
Basically, Anita's brand of feminism represents
liberal thought that has gone too far, until
it became anti-liberal.
The liberal view freed us from the tribal
tradition that believed that every individual
is defined by the group identity, that there
are absolute differences between tribes and
that our tribe represents authentic humanity
while yours represents a corruption of it.
Today we realize that we should not stereotype
individuals by their group identity, that
differences between groups are merely statistical
and that we are all humans.
But liberalism does acknowledge that there
are differences between humans, and that is
why we advocate a pluralist society in which
they can form groups.
We try not to stereotype individuals by assuming
that they possess their group characteristics,
but we still recognize that groups have characteristics.
Anita, on the other hand, represents a worldview
that has taken this to the extreme, and in
its zeal to not stereotype anyone it ended
up denying the differences between groups.
So basically, her feminism denies any difference
between humans, and sees all differences as
artificially imposed.
And so, ironically, she is taking us back
to the tribal way of thinking: for her, there
is only one true worldview, the one that denies
the diversity of human nature, and any diversion
from it is a corruption.
At this point, you may be wondering just how
deep does Anita's denial of the statistical
difference between men and women go.
Well, unless you are familiar with the depths
today's feminism has sunk into, you would
never guess it.
Yes, you heard that right.
Anita claims that there is no biological difference
in the physical strength of men and women,
and the belief that there is one is also nothing
more than a socially constructed myth.
Why are we led to believe that men are physically
stronger?
Anita explains.
So Anita's argument is that it is all part
of a system that disenfranchises women by
claiming that they are too weak to be independent
in today's world.
She seems to suggest that by viewing women
as physically weaker, we are automatically
led to believe that they are weak in every
other aspect as well, and need to be sheltered
and restricted for their own safety.
I know what you're thinking: are there really
people in Western society today who still
think along these backwards, regressive notions,
and believe women are delicate flowers that
need constant protection?
Well, to be fair to Anita, I did manage to
find one case of someone who still thinks
along these lines, and yet is still a powerful
figure in our society, powerful enough to
be invited to speak in front of the UN.
The speaker here claims that women are incapable
of handling online criticism, that they are
too frail and fragile to contend with being
told that they suck, and that they need society
to step in and protect them.
But she is the only example I could find of
someone who still holds such misogynistic
views.
So you can rest assured, Anita, your fears
are unfounded.
The vast majority of Western people today
believe that while women are physically weaker
than men and need protection in this aspect,
on any other aspect they are strong enough
to stand their own ground.
We are perfectly capable of distinguishing
between physical strength and other kinds
of strength, as evidenced by the fact that
we do not give women any preferential treatment
online, but criticize and attack them as we
would do to men.
GamerGate was a perfect example of this lack
of sexism in Internet culture, and in the
gaming community in particular.
So Anita's claim that showing women as physically
weak leads the gamers to believe that women
are weaker overall may be true for this gamer,
but she is merely an exception that proves
the rule.
As a matter of fact, I think video games and
movies of today are guilty of portraying women
as too physically strong.
A good way in which video games can help battle
the problem of violence against women is to
let the male gamer play a physically weak
female character, and let him sense what it
is like to fear the presence of men.
I would like to see a game developer ballsy
enough to let the female protagonist be sexually
assaulted, and let the gamer experience the
helplessness and horror that she goes through.
Those are ways in which video games can help
men develop more empathy and understanding
towards women.
But as long as critics like Anita Sarkeesian
set the tone of video games criticism, I fear
there is no chance that this will happen.
In summation, we found that Anita Sarkeesian
denies the diversity of human nature.
Her feminist worldview is that we are all
born biologically the same, and it is society
that teaches us that we are different.
This denial of natural diversity leads her
to reject pluralism of opinions as well.
She does not accept that opinions different
from hers are valid: to her, any dissenting
opinion is an expression of sexism, and anyone
who dares present such opinions to her is
guilty of harassment and hate speech.
What she is advocating for is a homogenous,
uniform society, where everyone is conditioned
to think the same way.
When you listen to her criticizing video games,
remember that this is where she wants to lead
us, and ask yourself if this is really the
world that you want to live in.
