Tropes vs. Women Author Driven From Home

[CPA]

She hasn't to my knowledge, but what she concludes which is that gamers are essentially harmful to women for simply playing games they like and that the more they think they're not harming women the more likely they are... it's hard not to infer from that the position the gamers are bad people, that we have something to account for.

Of course none of this is backed by scientific peer reviewed evidence, she's not an intellectually honest person, a real study towards the issues would have look at tropes of PEOPLE not just women, looked at the relative frequency of negative tropes among men and women in gaming, and done a statistical analysis of how many games fit which tropes. Then after that she would need some evidence these tropes do harm to people, preferably cite some peer reviewed published science on the matter.

I agree with cubby1223 on this, it's merely her opinion and if that was simply it then that'd be fine, but we're talking about a person who lectures all around the country, who's work is used as educational material and force fed to students without it being fact checked or found to be sound. It's being parroted by the media and she's being given awards which legitimize her work in the eyes of many, everyone is whipped into a furor over this and we still havn't seen a single shred of evidence that tropes in games lead to real world harm, she's just asserting it.

I could say her stupid hooped earrings are doing harm to people by reflecting and intensifying the background microwave radiation and giving people cancer, but people would demand evidence of that, where as she gets to mouth off constantly all around the world and no one is demanding any evidence of what she claims.

Isn't it funny how the extreme left (this lady) and the extreme right (Jack Thompson) use different means to get to the same end.

 

[futurefields]

There's that certain something about people who constantly surround themselves with the things they hate...

 

[PrincessFrosty]

I'm not sure she's ever concluded that either (unless you like a bit of reducio ad absurdum). AFAIK, she says that the games industry shouldn't consistently fall back on tired sexist stereotypes because a) that lacks creativity and b) she thinks that will have a knock-on effect on society.

She explicitly asserts these things, I believe it's near the end of her 3rd video which is summing up the first trope, I might be wrong.

Agreed (insofar as lacking evidence, I don't know about "no evidence" because I haven't kept up with all of her stuff).

What you would expect the focus of a study to be if someone is passionate about a particular topic? In this case, feminism. That point aside, a study needs focus, otherwise it becomes increasingly difficult to arrive at useful conclusions. Scientific studies tend to be extremely focused for this reason, to determine the truth on a particular point, rather than trying to answer the question to Life, The Universe and Everything.

To anyone skeptical such as myself and many other skeptical and critical thinkers, we'd demand that an approach to the topic be done by investigating the issues from a neutral standpoint, that any such prior affiliations with feminism will bias the results. Essentially she's just looking for examples that best fit her pre-assumed conclusion.

What she ends up presenting and conveying to other people is a bias conclusion, her videos make out men to be the bad guys and for women to be oppressed, used and objectified. We need to be critical of this and demand context and perspective of her work so that we know the whole truth about how PEOPLE are protrayed in games, to what extent and how that matters. It's inherently dishonest and defending her because she's a feminist and she's allowed to bias her results is equally as intellectually dishonest, quite frankly.

Think about what would constitute valid evidence before saying that's what she should do; it's extremely difficult to pick out a large enough sample of people and definitely say "this factor in their lives drove them to do xyz" in the context of the topic she presented.

Yes it's hard. So why is she so sure she's correct when she asserts this? The reason is obvious, she believes it ideologically like most feminists do, and they do searching for evidence that backs their ideology.

And so you think that people would be justified in sending you death threats? Please also note that you agreed with someone who said that she called a load of people bad, then you agreed that she didn't actually say that, yet apparently you believe she still deserves what she got.

I don't think I've ever said she deserves what she got. I'm simply not surprised she got the reaction she did, I don't have any sympathy for people who shake the bee's nest and get stung, then complain they got stung and keep shaking the bee's nest. My sympathy for those people is basically zero.

So you disagree with her, you have every right to. Why don't you demand that she supplies evidence of what she claims? That's what you think should be happening, so why don't you do that? Just don't be a dick about it (like say thunderf00t) if you want her to take you seriously.

I don't disagree with her, I'm saying that what she's asserting has simply not been demonstrated in any kind of way we can verify, replicate or demonstrate. She could be correct, who knows. What we actually need is evidence, she has provided none, she's provided $160,000 of opinion, where as she could have provided us with $160,000 of evidence that would have been infinitely more useful and persuasive to anyone capable of basic critical thinking skills. It's such a waste, or con. Or both.

Just wanted to jump in at this point and agree with the argumentation you put forward here.

A really great post, thanks. Some comments:

We had a discussion about why she is not bothered by this instance/trope, and basically she argued that there is a trope pluralism. Males are represented as hapless, socially inept fools, in many popular television programs - you find the overbearing mother thing (Tony Soprano's mother), the super determined woman (DA2 meredith), the various male characters (GTA V).

Thing is that Anita would have you believe these specific tropes are harmful to women, that seems to imply that you cannot be trusted to play the game and understand that it's not reality. And if you have any intellectual insight by analyzing your own usage of the media and how you're capable of drawing distinctions between fantasy and reality the MORE likely you are to be affected by it.

That's right, you've displayed an obvious interest in the subject, gone through some introspective thought on the subject, and now you're MORE likely to be affected by it, compared to some 11 year old kid who simply enjoys shooting people in the head - it's utter madness.

What we concluded is basically, over a wide enough media exposure, you're exposed to everything. So what is the trope, then? Where is the transgender representation? Why is the black guy the sidekick in Arrow? Why are many 'smart' men on television represented as effeminate? Why are women being represented as having a higher EQ and IQ compared to men?

You're right and this is something the mens rights movement points out a lot, men are represented in a lot of media as the bumbling incompetent fathers who are constantly being set straight by the cool and level headed sassy wife. You and your wife are both dead right here, there is a continuum of media which represent men and women in different ways. This is why I said that what Antia should have done is a meta study on how many games exhibit which tropes in a gender neutral fashion. It's not hard, take a big list of games, randomly select a decent sized subset, analyse them for tropes both positive and negative for both men and women, display the results. Cite your sources and working methodology so other people can replicate and confirm your results. Basic science.

Isn't it funny how the extreme left (this lady) and the extreme right (Jack Thompson) use different means to get to the same end.

There's a lot of parallels between this and Thompson, he went on a crusade of trying to ban games on some notion that they were the cause of violence, but again he had the EXACT same issue, he simply had no published and peer reviewed scientific papers that backed the assertions he made.

In fact in the years after his work was public there was a number of studies done by different institutions which all found that there was no link between violence in video games and violence in real life, that kind of makes sense because millions of people play violent video games and few are persistently or extremely violent.

It's absolutely paramount that feminist do not get a pass on this simply because they're feminists, we need to hold them just as accountable for their assertions as everyone else, demand evidence to back their claims. If Antia think female tropes in games cause harm to women in real life we need to demand evidence for this assertion and not let up until she provides some.

 

[norseamd]

Yes it's hard. So why is she so sure she's correct when she asserts this? The reason is obvious, she believes it ideologically like most feminists do, and they do searching for evidence that backs their ideology.

I am not sure she believes anything she says.

 

[cubby1223]

When did she call someone a bad person?

She's taking a group of people (who by the way many already feel like social outcasts in the world), and is making fame and money by convincing other people what they enjoy on occasion is harmful to society, harmful to her.

You can make the case that she is just being informative of the "sexist game developers". But the next step is, if you choose not to agree with her, and choose to continue enjoying video games, "knowing" that they harm other people. And then she parades around twitter comments saying in not so many words to the larger group who enjoy playing games, "this is who you are."

And there isn't a widely socially accepted voice to provide counter opinions and arguments to those who Sarkeesian is attempting to influence (or, none that I'm aware of, I admit I haven't been following this story much).

 

[QuantumPion]

Thunderf00t's twitter account got banned by Sarkeesian and her followers:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTSQbLt9DS8&index=20&list=WL

When in the history of any argument ever has the side that resorts to shutting up their opponent with force been in the right?

 

[DominionSeraph]

When in the history of any argument ever has the side that resorts to shutting up their opponent with force been in the right?

Why don't you take the side that nonwhites are inferior to whites and see how far that gets you on a site founded by an Indian/Iranian? I guess you'll just use that as proof that your side is right?

Ahhh... children.

 

[master_shake_]

Why don't you take the side that nonwhites are inferior to whites and see how far that gets you on a site founded by an Indian/Iranian? I guess you'll just use that as proof that your side is right?

Ahhh... children.

Without peer reviewed studies and evidence you would be in the same boat Anita is.

To answer his question its exactly what bill O'Reilly does on a near constant basis.

Louder is not more right.

 

[mikeymikec]

She explicitly asserts these things, I believe it's near the end of her 3rd video which is summing up the first trope, I might be wrong.

Which one is her third one? Because on feministfrequency.com, the third oldest one is about the series 'True Blood', so I doubt it's that one. Alternatively you could be referring to 'tropes vs. women part 3', which I'm going to start watching now.

- edit - it's not "tropes vs. women part 3 - the smurfette principle", which doesn't include anything about gaming or gamers.

- edit 2- it's not "tropes vs. women in video games part 3" either.

Also, you've gone from she "essentially" said it to "she explicitly asserted it".

To anyone skeptical such as myself and many other skeptical and critical thinkers, we'd demand that an approach to the topic be done by investigating the issues from a neutral standpoint, that any such prior affiliations with feminism will bias the results. Essentially she's just looking for examples that best fit her pre-assumed conclusion.

Evidence needed of that conclusion, but also, I'd like you to find this unbiased person or group of people, then another group of unbiased people to peer-review it.

What she ends up presenting and conveying to other people is a bias conclusion, her videos make out men to be the bad guys and for women to be oppressed, used and objectified.

I think that's your personal bias helping you draw a conclusion. From what I've seen of her videos, IMO she is simply pointing out that sexism is games is likely to have a knock-on effect on society and that it lacks creativity.

Furthermore, citation needed on your claim. I don't think I've seen anything from her yet that attempts to make men out to be the bad guys.

We need to be critical of this and demand context and perspective of her work so that we know the whole truth about how PEOPLE are protrayed in games, to what extent and how that matters. It's inherently dishonest and defending her because she's a feminist and she's allowed to bias her results is equally as intellectually dishonest, quite frankly.

You said before that you didn't think she was being dishonest, now you are. I think you should cite your claims rather than embarking on this vague criticism because from where I stand, she's the one making specific criticisms of particular games which can be double-checked, you're not.

Yes it's hard. So why is she so sure she's correct when she asserts this? The reason is obvious, she believes it ideologically like most feminists do, and they do searching for evidence that backs their ideology.

It's an opinion based on logic. If someone plays lots of games with sexist themes or elements, it is logical that their personal perspective on women would be affected by that.

Please note the word 'logical'. It does not define an absolute, nor does it say that everyone (or most people) is likely to be affected in that way.

I don't think I've ever said she deserves what she got. I'm simply not surprised she got the reaction she did, I don't have any sympathy for people who shake the bee's nest and get stung, then complain they got stung and keep shaking the bee's nest. My sympathy for those people is basically zero.

I didn't say you did, I said you appeared to believe that. I think you should elaborate on your distinction between "not deserving" yet "you're not surprised" (ergo she shouldn't be surprised, anyone with half a brain shouldn't be surprised?), and you have "no sympathy" for her. Do you feel sympathy for those you claim that she's in some way disparaged?

I don't disagree with her, I'm saying that what she's asserting has simply not been demonstrated in any kind of way we can verify, replicate or demonstrate. She could be correct, who knows. What we actually need is evidence, she has provided none, she's provided $160,000 of opinion, where as she could have provided us with $160,000 of evidence that would have been infinitely more useful and persuasive to anyone capable of basic critical thinking skills. It's such a waste, or con. Or both.

So she could be right, but you've labelled her as biased, not the right person for the job, and you have no sympathy for the threats she's received for trying?

Please note that I've already agreed on this thread that she should raise the bar with regard to citing sources, especially as a result of the kickstarter.

 

[mikeymikec]

She's taking a group of people (who by the way many already feel like social outcasts in the world), and is making fame and money by convincing other people what they enjoy on occasion is harmful to society, harmful to her.

So she didn't call gamers bad people (or anything like that) is what you're saying.

You can make the case that she is just being informative of the "sexist game developers". But the next step is, if you choose not to agree with her, and choose to continue enjoying video games, "knowing" that they harm other people.

Err... if you believe that kind of logic, you should apply it to the rest of your life. For example, the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy could "harm other people" (e.g. someone mentally unbalanced), so therefore no-one should watch/read it.

And then she parades around twitter comments saying in not so many words to the larger group who enjoy playing games, "this is who you are."

Not 100% sure what this means, but citation needed all the same.

And there isn't a widely socially accepted voice to provide counter opinions and arguments to those who Sarkeesian is attempting to influence (or, none that I'm aware of, I admit I haven't been following this story much).

So come up with one instead of complaining that there isn't one. There appear to be enough people on this forum with a strong opinion on this topic but all you all appear to watch to do is complain.

Furthermore, how is it her fault that someone hasn't stepped up to the plate and countered her claims? What's the point in even mentioning this? Are you suggesting that she shouldn't be allowed to broadcast her opinions until someone is willing to counter them?

 

[mikeymikec]

Thunderf00t's twitter account got banned by Sarkeesian and her followers

Do you know why? I don't, but then the guy says things like "feminism poisons everything" and while it's wrong to "spread poison about the entire male atheist community", he doesn't realise that he's done exactly what he claims that it is wrong to do (spread poison about a community), so it wouldn't surprise me if he said incredibly stupid things on twitter in such a way that violated its terms of use.

My source:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWxAljFlb-c

 

[Blue_Max]

Do you know why? I don't, but then the guy says things like "feminism poisons everything" and while it's wrong to "spread poison about the entire male atheist community", he doesn't realise that he's done exactly what he claims that it is wrong to do (spread poison about a community), so it wouldn't surprise me if he said incredibly stupid things on twitter in such a way that violated its terms of use.

How is that any worse than the basis of her entire platform being called, "X vs. Women!"

Insert anything into X, it is instantly villainized for being against women.

It really is as simple as that. From the top down, she's saying these games are against women. By the very nature of mutual-exclusiveness, if it's versus you - that makes it "evil".

And that's how feminism operates all the time, which is why they LOVE Anita's femi-ranting.


The only real difference between them is Anita bashes on men and gamers (which is socially acceptable and encouraged) vs. bashing feminism (terrifying and leading to millions frothing in rage.)

 

[mikeymikec]

How is that any worse than the basis of her entire platform being called, "X vs. Women!"

Insert anything into X, it is instantly villainized for being against women.

Context is rather important: "Tropes versus women". Then after reading the headline, one should look at the content which provides the actual context.

I looked at the context, ie. the content of the video, you looked at the headline.

It really is as simple as that. From the top down, she's saying these games are against women. By the very nature of mutual-exclusiveness, if it's versus you - that makes it "evil".

Please provide evidence of your assertions.

The only real difference between them is Anita bashes on men and gamers (which is socially acceptable and encouraged) vs. bashing feminism (terrifying and leading to millions frothing in rage.)

Please provide evidence of Anita bashing on men and gamers.

 

[futurefields]

Please provide evidence of your assertions.

Please provide evidence of Anita bashing on men and gamers.

http://www.returnofkings.com/42602/did-anita-sarkeesian-fake-death-threats-against-herself

 

[mikeymikec]

http://www.returnofkings.com/42602/did-anita-sarkeesian-fake-death-threats-against-herself

Which isn't evidence of what Blue_Max claimed. If the article's claim is correct (that she's faking evidence) then it's evidence that Anita faked a death threat against herself (as well as defamation of character against the user who allegedly posted the threats), it's not evidence that Anita "bashes on men and gamers".

 

[Blue_Max]

Please provide evidence of your assertions.

Sure - right after you prove your make-believe patriarchy is real.

 

[mikeymikec]

Sure - right after you prove your make-believe patriarchy is real.

I'm not sure I've even mentioned the word patriarchy on these forums until now, so what are you saying I've claimed?

Or is this your way of attempting to get away with making baseless assertions?

 

[Blue_Max]

I'm not sure I've even mentioned the word patriarchy on these forums until now, so what are you saying I've claimed?

Or is this your way of attempting to get away with making baseless assertions?

Because you're already holding your hands over your ears, ignoring all opposing viewpoints and saying, "I don't belieeeeeve you! na-na! Prove it!"
You'll never believe any "proof" given anyway.

Sleep is more important to me than spending a few hours digging out the exact quotes to make my point. you watched her videos... you'd see what others saw if you weren't so busy cheering for her to "smash the video-game-patriarchy"...

 

[mikeymikec]

Because you're already holding your hands over your ears, ignoring all opposing viewpoints and saying, "I don't belieeeeeve you! na-na! Prove it!"
You'll never believe any "proof" given anyway.

I've asked you to show me evidence of your assertions and you've declined. Then you started making ad hominem attacks and claiming that I've said certain things when I haven't.

Sleep is more important to me than spending a few hours digging out the exact quotes to make my point. you watched her videos... you'd see what others saw if you weren't so busy cheering for her to "smash the video-game-patriarchy"...

If you prefer to stick words in my mouth and claim I'm some sort of cheerleader (if you had read all my posts on this thread then I'm surprised that you came to that conclusion), if that's what makes you happy then so be it. I've watched a few of her videos, IMO she's made some interesting points, I've noticed some flaws in some of the things she said and I commented that I felt a couple of critical videos had some valid points to make.

 

[Nebor]

I've asked you to show me evidence of your assertions and you've declined. Then you started making ad hominem attacks and claiming that I've said certain things when I haven't.

If you prefer to stick words in my mouth and claim I'm some sort of cheerleader (if you had read all my posts on this thread then I'm surprised that you came to that conclusion), if that's what makes you happy then so be it. I've watched a few of her videos, IMO she's made some interesting points, I've noticed some flaws in some of the things she said and I commented that I felt a couple of critical videos had some valid points to make.

Jesus, another one of these guys? Where are they coming from?

 

[0roo0roo]

5 minutes in, this one is certainly more interesting than thunderf00t's compendium of rants IMO. One thing I think should be pointed out though is that AFAIK Anita Sarkeesian hasn't claimed to be an academic-quality source of information; perhaps she should aspire to that (especially given the Kickstarter, it's kind of like "going pro"), but just because someone out there put her on that pedestal, it doesn't make it right to say that's what she should live up to purely because of that. It's like saying that someone believes Anita is a god so therefore she should be a god.

I agree that it's a bit odd/wrong that Anita Sarkeesian doesn't publicly cite her sources, but one thing I think should be pointed out is that "well-researched" could validly be referring to the amount of games that she has cited as falling foul of, in for example the 'body in the refrigerator' trope.

The next example he gives 'Dragon Island', I think both he and she had interesting points, though without citation it is just her opinion as to why it was rewritten. He appears to blow her argument out of the water in The 'King Kong' example, but the 'damsel in distress' one I think they both have valid points and really he just possibly makes a correction in semantics. Her point is objectification in the 'damsel in distress' trope, his counter-point is that in many old stories the damsel has an ordeal to go through and is portrayed heroically as a result, hence not an object, however, that doesn't happen in a heck of a lot of games including the 'damsel in distress' trope, hence IMO both points are valid.

The next point he makes about numbers of games including 'damsels in distress' is disingenuous; she says there are hundreds and points out 260 which IMO is a fair bit of research for what should be an non-debatable point, he effectively is asking her to cite every single game out of "tens of thousands of games", and since he elected himself the job of "debunking" her point, perhaps he should have countered the point effectively instead of not citing any sources for his claim that the rest therefore must be OK. Must one analyse every drop of water in every ocean in order to claim that the oceans have water in them. Her point was that it's a common trope.

The next point about the hero myth I find a bit puzzling. She's talking about the myth in the context of video games IMO, he's not. If he is intentionally ignoring that then he erected a straw man and attacked it, but I think they're just talking at cross-purposes.

Next point 'citation needed' regarding the effect of all of the following on society is a fair point but extremely difficult to prove. IMO she's just giving her opinion. So change the wording and present it as an opinion.

He then appears to go into full-on attack mode with regard to her saying things like "large percentage", and "rampant", then shows a few graphs (probably) depicting increasing acceptance of women as valuable members of society as some sort of counterpoint. If she had used wording to suggest that sexism in society was worsening or something far more dramatic then I would have agreed with his points on the matter, but as they are his points here are completely invalid, as there can be a large percentage of idiots in a society where the idiotic viewpoint is steadily decreasing.

The odd thing is, considering that he attempts to "debunk" what he claims is supposed to be an "academic quality" source of information, then cites only two sources in total when simultaneously claiming that she doesn't cite her sources enough. Pot, kettle.

Actually she did make that claim, beyond all the "research" she claimed her money would be going to, she claimed her materials would be fit for academic programs, and that's just clearly not true to a level that it just becomes a laughable claim from her.

Trust me, most people aren't holding her to an "academic" standard when they slam her, her reasoning is so bad it doesn't mean a "wtf u think I'm stupid" standard. She insults the intelligence of her viewer.

And no, its not disingenuous to include all games when making claims. This is grunt work of research, reporting findings from crunching the numbers. You don't have to play every game through to the end to figure out whether it is based around a damsel in distress trope. I mean seriously, the synopsis of the plot would tell you that.You are setting a low bar if that is too much work for the poor girl to do. She has 160,000 thousand dollars and takes months between videos, she has the time.. So he's right, if she can only point out a small fraction of games to complain about she's just cherry picking or exaggerating the significance of the issue.

You only have to look at her college thesis to see that the quality of her work has always been this bad, and that such programs have no standards for graduation.

Anita Sarkeesian Part 1: The College Graduate
Instig8iveJournalism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6gLmcS3-NI
Part 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpFk5F-S_hI

Btw the onus is not on him to prove her point, he only has to find where her work is substandard, he doesn't have to cite sources. So you are trying to find a false equivalence there.

 

[0roo0roo]

And the otherside since these women claim they are the ones being threatened...
Twitter: Criticize Anita... you're GONE!
Thunderf00t
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTSQbLt9DS8

Milo sent syringe in the mail
https://twitter.com/Nero/status/513666683916255232/photo/1


Total bisquit nerds
http://gamesnosh.com/the-ugly-side-...it-denounced-over-zoe-quinn-scandal-comments/
zoe quin nerd bashing
http://i.imgur.com/Cz7fJqm.jpg
http://imgur.com/ffzlewq
http://theralphretort.com/gamergate-exposes-worst-critic-gaming/
http://theralphretort.com/gamergate-exposes-leigh-alexander-part-2/
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-...-angry-feminist-journalists-slating-GamerGate




A Conversation with Davis Aurini
Sargon of Akkad
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHXOUxSaxkk

 

[Grooveriding]

That youtuber with these asinine rants actually believes they are of a level they can be used for academic instruction ? Maybe in some sort of bizarre cult seminar. That is really a farcical claim. What a deluded narcissist.

 

[0roo0roo]

Mandragoran Anita Sarkeesian knew 4chan would attack her
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fyF3xWz8vA



Anita Sarkeesian Debunked in Under a Minute
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FW-69xXD734



Dear NoelPlum99: Anita Sarkeesian and Trolling
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5m_zV3K3KNQ

 

[Skel]

And the otherside since these women claim they are the ones being threatened...
Twitter: Criticize Anita... you're GONE!
Thunderf00t
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTSQbLt9DS8

Milo sent syringe in the mail
https://twitter.com/Nero/status/513666683916255232/photo/1


Total bisquit nerds
http://gamesnosh.com/the-ugly-side-...it-denounced-over-zoe-quinn-scandal-comments/
zoe quin nerd bashing
http://i.imgur.com/Cz7fJqm.jpg
http://imgur.com/ffzlewq
http://theralphretort.com/gamergate-exposes-worst-critic-gaming/
http://theralphretort.com/gamergate-exposes-leigh-alexander-part-2/
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-...-angry-feminist-journalists-slating-GamerGate




A Conversation with Davis Aurini
Sargon of Akkad
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHXOUxSaxkk

Mandragoran Anita Sarkeesian knew 4chan would attack her
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fyF3xWz8vA



Anita Sarkeesian Debunked in Under a Minute
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FW-69xXD734



Dear NoelPlum99: Anita Sarkeesian and Trolling
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5m_zV3K3KNQ

You seem to spend a lot of time watching videos on someone you can't stand. Personally it's a coin toss for me one which is more boring her videos or the ones debunking her.