On Ian Danskin’s Theory Part 1: Why We’re All So Angry

Recently, Ian Danskin of Innuendo Studios released a lovely, easily digestible video series about cultural criticism, harassment, and privilege. It was super thought-provoking, so I want to showcase and engage with his argument here. In this first piece, we’ll look at his first three videos and talk about what I think he gets wrong.

On the ‘About’ page of this blog, I talk a little bit about my tongue-in-cheek url and my drive to analyze the pieces of pop culture I love. I started this project because media we consume both shapes us and is shaped by us. The people I promote on this blog and my YouTube channel share these beliefs, and one of those people is Anita Sarkeesian.

If you haven’t yet heard of her, I’m a little concerned that you haven’t been on the internet in five years, but don’t worry–Danskin gives a great summary of her work and the backlash to it in his new videos.

Danskin’s central question is why do cultural critics like Sarkeesian receive not just floods of counter-arguments but also personal attacks against them ranging from ridiculous to terrifying? And why do some of those attackers join together to form movements like Gamergate? In essence, why are people so angry?

As a shorthand, he calls the people attacking Sarkeesian ‘Angry Jack’ or as I’ll call him ‘AJ.’ AJ is typically one or more of the following: white, male, straight, cis, and middle/upper class. This allows him to see the world at its most ideal: a world where he is not judged based on his gender, the color of his skin, his sexuality, the abilities of his body, the state of his mental health, or his wealth or class status. A world where he is an individual and defined by his individual actions.

credit: Amanda Watkins

Angry Jack, credit: Amanda Watkins

When someone says something like “I’m vegan,” or “I don’t drink,” or “that game is sexist,” it forces AJ to look at the world in a different way, to wonder whether doing or liking the things this person doesn’t do/like makes HIM a bad person. As Danskin points out, this is a complex question, but I’ll do my best to outline what we have to consider.

First things first, the value of a human being is inherent and does not come from their accomplishments or even their individual choices in isolation. Second things second, of course, we are all responsible for our own behaviors and accountable for the consequences of those behaviors. Behaviors can affect others and society at large.

Growing up, most of us believed what we saw and what we were told without questioning it. It would be exhausting to debate every single decision we made or belief we adopted, and the beliefs our society extolled are already long-established, so we accepted them as fact upon hearing of them and moved on.

source: Wikipedia

source: Wikipedia

That means that if/when we’re forced to question them, we’re questioning not just our beliefs at that moment, but an entire lifetime of attitudes and actions. And if we forget for a moment that what is up for debate is not our character as an individual, not our intentions, but the society we live in and how our attitudes and actions affect everyone, then that means we could believe we’ve been not just wrong but ‘bad’ for a long time. And that might make us feel judged for the groups we belong to or the things we enjoy rather than our character.

On all of this, Danskin and I agree, but I do think he gets one thing wrong in his argument; he posits that the AJs of the world feel this way but are hangers-on who go along with the real ‘bad guys.’ He contrasts them with ‘psychopaths’ who threaten and dox people they disagree with for no good reason. I don’t think that’s the case. First of all, as one of his viewers/followers pointed out, it is ableist to blame harmful behavior on mental illness or say that all psychopathic or sociopathic people will behave harmfully. But it’s also just plain not true.

The sad fact of the matter is, the abusers and rapists he uses as foils to online harassers in his videos are not the exceptions. They are parents and siblings and friends. They are humans. As are online harassers in communities like GG. That’s why things like rape culture and toxic gaming culture exist–those acts have the power of social norms and hierarchies behind them.

Credit: Chase Carter

Credit: Chase Carter

In the most benign of forms, AJ dismisses rather than engages with privilege. He resorts to derailment in the name of things like ‘journalism ethics.’ He posits that he and his fellow AJs are a ‘minority’ who deserves to speak, or that he is engaging in an ‘intellectual debate’ with two equally valid sides. He is Taylor Swift tweeting to Nicki Minaj about the VMAs.

At his most dangerous, the same AJ is violent and abusive. He uses hate speech to scare people who speak up about issues they care about. He makes an online game where people can punch Sarkeesian in the face. He is Redditors sending death threats to former CEO Ellen Pao.

Danskin points out that many people believe that harassers are gonna harass no matter what. But that isn’t exactly true. Harassment is a choice, a reaction to discomfort, to anger and disappointment and doubt that previously didn’t exist, that makes it harder to continue living the way we always had until someone like Sarkeesian spoke up. Those who bring social issues to AJ’s attention and spark this discomfort become symbols of the destruction of ease and innocence in AJ’s life, so to cope he chooses to lash out at them.

source: City of Renton website

source: City of Renton website

Many AJs have most grown up seeing gaming as a safe space for them, an area of culture where they can go to escape their personal disappointments. This helps explain, but not excuse, why someone like AJ might attack someone like Sarkeesian, who asks him to examine games and how they affect others. To him, this means he has to question himself, which is a scary, difficult, and – if we’re honest – life-long process.

It’s much easier to deflect. Danskin says that AJ is less a type of person and more the mindset we enter when we are faced with our privilege and enter defend-and-attack mode. I agree that every person with privilege, at one point in another in their lives, feels uncomfortable about taking advantage of privilege or having it at all says about their character. We privileged few each have the ability to become an AJ.

But that reaction is a choice. To avoid becoming one, we have to develop alternative reactions, new coping mechanisms. We have to recognize that a) it’s okay to feel discomfort but b) the social issues being exposed are bigger than our individual discomfort and therefore c) the debate at hand isn’t actually about our morality at all.

Thanks for reading! On Saturday we’ll talk about how we can create just online spaces and hold ourselves and others accountable. In the meantime, let me know your thoughts, like what do you think of Danskin’s videos? Where does harassment come from? Why do I get so defensive when someone says they don’t drink soda?

Advertisements

What’s In a Name? Part 3: Conclusion – Thematic Analysis of Her Story

SPOILER ALERT: this series contains plot details for the game.

If you haven’t seen them yet, check out Part 1 and Part 2 of this series now.

In case you have no idea what’s going on, this is the third and final installment of WIAN, my analysis of the game Her Story. So far, we’ve talked about the title of the game, the names of the main characters, and their sisterly relationship. In addition to Hannah and Eve, many other characters in the game share names with figures from history or mythology, which is what I want to look as we wrap up today. Watch the video below or keep reading for more.

Florence, the midwife who steals and raises Eve, shows similarities to Florence Nightingale, a nurse during the Crimean War who also had an interest in writing.

Simon is the name of the apostle later called Peter in the New Testament.The name Simon means “he has heard,” and in the end his character doesn’t just bear witness to Hannah and Eve’s story, his death allows it to be shared.

When Hannah gets pregnant, Simon wants to name the baby ‘Ava,’ but Hannah refuses. She doesn’t want her daughter to have a symmetrical name and be plagued by the same issues of identity and reflection as she and her sister were. She wants to name the baby Sarah, another biblical name.

source: Good Reads

source: Good Reads

The Orson Scott Card novel Sarah describes the events that befall Abraham and Sarah in Genesis from Sarah’s point of view, expanding the few sentences they get in the bible to 300 pages. Eve’s interviews do a similar thing for her life and that of her sister.

After the events of the game, Eve’s child is named Sarah, as we know from the chat messages that appear on the database computer. The player watches the videos alongside Sarah, to learn ‘why her mother did what she did.’

Reflection, Representation, and Storytelling

In her interviews, Eve often connects her life to fairy tales she read in books growing up. She even calls her final interview ‘a real life fairy tale.’ For her, growing up across the road from Hannah, Hannah’s life was what hers was supposed to look like, what she read about in books. So she cut her hair like Hannah’s, moved like Hannah, and eventually lived not just with Hannah, but as Hannah.

Many women feel compelled to look, dress, and act like the characters they learn about as children, the women they see on television or in movies. They are princesses or evil witches, good or bad seeds, and they provide archetypes after which girls are expected to model their own lives. Girls are set up to compete with their sisters to be the prettier or more likeable one, to perform womanhood more perfectly, because only then can they receive their fairy tale ending or their blessing from God.

source: Wikimedia Commons

source: Wikimedia Commons

These ideas of what makes someone a successful girl, what makes them the hero of their own story, are passed down from generation to generation in stories we tell and books we read. We learn them from such a young age that it can be difficult to remember they’re only stories

As time went on, both Hannah and Eve realized that aspects of living as one person didn’t feel good. That it limited them, made it difficult for each to be her authentic self. When Eve finally lets go of being one with Hannah, she embraces her individuality, getting a tattoo and wearing a wig. And when she is ‘herself,’ the man she’d always fawned over falls in love with her, separately from the character she played, and gives her the baby she’d longed for when her sister was pregnant.

Hannah is understandably angry at this turn of events. She was taught that acting a certain way would deliver her happiness and then found out that wasn’t true. She lashes out, and although she may not have intended to, she kills Simon.

source: Sam Barlow

source: Sam Barlow

But Eve doesn’t condemn Hannah or blame her. She protects her because in the end, neither of them is a ‘villain’ or a ‘damsel,’ and they aren’t in competition with one another. By telling her story, Eve liberates not just herself, but also her sister and her daughter, from these boxes. As Eve is giving her last interview to the detectives, Hannah is escaping the police and her past.

Each of the women in the story sheds the skin of her namesake and embraces her flawed, fully realized self. And as we play the game, we learn to let go of a little bit of our own preconceptions. To question the stories we tell ourselves.

Thanks for reading! If you enjoyed this analysis, you might like my review of GTFO The Movie or my analysis of the Mass Effect Trilogy.

What’s In a Name? Part 1: Herstory and Eve – Thematic Analysis of Her Story

Warning: this series contains HEAVY SPOILERS for the game. If you don’t want to know who killed Simon, get outta here while you still can!

Disclaimer: my interpretation of the game is based on Hannah and Eve being twin sisters, not two personalities in the same body. #sorrynotsorry

You may remember from last week that one of my favorite Let’s Play channels, Geek Remix, recently played Her Story. After watching a few minutes of gameplay, I knew I wanted in on this, and I can tell you the game doesn’t disappoint. A non-linear, story-based game, the player combs through interview footage of Hannah Smith from a police investigation into the death of her husband Simon. The videos are archived based on their transcripts, so searching any keyword will bring up clips where the term is used. (When you begin, the first suggestion is ‘murder.’)

Written by Sam Barlow, the same person who brought us Silent Hill: Shattered Memories, the game conjures a similar mood and aesthetic while doing something that feels very new. It handles theme, allusion, and symbolism so well that I decided to write a three-part analysis of the names used in the game. Woo! Watch the video below, or read on for more.

Let’s start with the title, shall we?

Herstory

‘Herstory’ is history told from the feminist perspective, a reaction to male-dominated accounts of past events, many of which do not acknowledge the differing experiences of women or the patriarchal values society held at that time.

While the term ‘herstory’ has many connotations depending on its context, at its core it refers to a woman’s side of the story, which is a particularly apt way to refer to the game’s account of Simon’s death. By alluding to and then subverting traditional historical and mythological tales, Her Story allows its female characters to speak for themselves and tells a different, more explicit and nuanced story of female persistence, survival, and ultimately freedom.

Eve

Of course, the title is not the only meaningful name in the story. Almost every character’s name is biblically, historically, or mythologically significant in some way. The most obvious connection the game makes to the Hebrew Bible is Eve, Hannah’s twin sister. She has a tattoo of a serpent wrapped around an apple, a clear reference to Adam’s wife and the first woman created by God, who ate fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil and shared it with her husband. Her name means ‘living’ or ‘life source.’

Hannah’s sister Eve is obviously not the first human woman in existence in the universe of Her Story, but she seems to be the first person the detectives interview about Simon (although they believe she is Hannah at the time). As in the Bible, Eve discovers and disseminates knowledge of ‘good and evil,’ or in this case, of the twins lives and who is guilty of Simon’s murder. But the Biblical Eve is commonly perceived as an emblem of female weakness and the evils of temptation and knowledge, and our Eve is not so cut and dry.

It’s never made clear whether Eve was responsible for the deaths around her (Florence, the twins’ parents, and maybe even Hannah’s baby), whether they were prompted by knowledge that Hannah, and then later the detectives, did not have: the knowledge that Eve and Hannah are sisters. But we do know Eve did not murder Simon and is not expelled from her paradise because of her pursuit of knowledge.

In fact her curiosity allows her to escape her physical confinement by Florence and later by Hannah. Telling her story allows her to exist as an individual in a way she never could before, and to be acknowledged not just by the detectives, but by anyone who views her interviews. Her Story subverts the traditional narrative by allowing Eve’s side of the story to be heard and shared.

her story

First time posting in-depth analysis or making a video! What do you think? Would you like more of this? What interested you most about Her Story? Let me know in the comments!

Part 2 of this series is up now! Check it out!