That achievement is an incredibly bad example of sexism in video games. The person never really defines why it isn't ok. They never take a moment to consider the context of an M rated game where you do thousands of similarly immoral acts, and the writer never defines why this achievement is sexist. It's a reference to old western movies. Expecting people to never include stuff like this, or to always make sure you can put both men and women on the track is asking way too much. This isn't the issue with the video games industry. There should have been far more focus on the assassins creed unity stuff, on the GTA comment, etc. "oh no we were violent to a girl" is nothing in a game that is basically about being senselessly violent. "why are all the women vein and ignorant in X game" is a far better point and actually has value to being discussed.
Direct quote from the article: It is a sexist act because it requires violence against a woman. That is because immorality and sexism are independent quantities. Sexism can be moral and immoral; immorality can be sexist or chaste. It's a reference to The Perils of Pauline: Which, incidentally, came out the year before Birth of a Nation: An achievement in which you burn a black man on a cross would likely stir up controversy as well. But it probably should be. TV has gotten shit for this since its inception; it's silly to presume games would be immune. One needn't choose one or the other. Both are valid discussions.The person never really defines why it isn't ok.
So the objective is to locate a woman who cannot defend herself against you, tie her up and then kill her by placing her in the path of a train. You cannot gain the achievement by performing this act on a man.
They never take a moment to consider the context of an M rated game where you do thousands of similarly immoral acts, and the writer never defines why this achievement is sexist.
It's a reference to old western movies.
"oh no we were violent to a girl" is nothing in a game that is basically about being senselessly violent.
"why are all the women vein and ignorant in X game" is a far better point and actually has value to being discussed.
That's not actually what it means to be sexist. I could just as easily say it's sexist to shoot a woman, only later it's revealed the woman was shot in the middle of a battlefield in combat, and suddenly it becomes surprisingly unsexist since said woman was being shot at equally with the men. It is the context that makes it sexist, not the act itself.It is a sexist act because it requires violence against a woman
It's not the baseline violence part, it's the part. You're right about context, but you're wrong about your analogy. requires violence against a woman
This isn't a situation where you are killing a girl because she wouldn't have sex with you, or doing something other than killing. If it was I could see why it would be shitty and offensive (metal gear, for example). This isn't it. This is a fairly run of the mill violent action that doesn't represent any hatred or dislike of women. It isn't sexist. Burning a black man on a cross was an action that was, and is, a threat to a group of people. It is an action designed to strike fear and to strike down, not a silly part of a comedy/drama. Secondly, the only controversial issue with feminism and this move is that it is representative of women needing saving. A "damsel in distress". This achivement doesn't exactly fit that. The only reason there is outrage is "you had a girl get hurt, you are a monster!" We shouldn't be protecting women against being attacked, killed, etc, in fictional media. No more than we do men. "One needn't choose one or the other. Both are valid discussions." Anything is a valid discussion. The thing I'm saying is that it's not a valid point. Edit: is it sexist by its lowest definition of "discriminates between men and women" yes, but if you use a definition that low even bathrooms are sexist.
Wikipedia would disagree: Continuing: The argument at the heart of this disagreement is intent. It is intended to be an homage to a film serial from the tail end of the Wild West era. That was 100 years ago, however, a full six years before women's suffrage in the United States. And unfortunately for apologists everywhere, "it was kosher 100 years ago" is an argument that seldom holds water. No, it awards the player for murdering a woman for the crime of being a woman. It may not make you uncomfortable, but it certainly disquiets me. It appears I'm not alone. We also shouldn't condone actions that fit societal paradigms from 100 years ago. The Klu Klux Klan example, for example, is obviously wrong to you. Unfortunately, you are mistaken.This is a fairly run of the mill violent action that doesn't represent any hatred or dislike of women. It isn't sexist.
In feminist film theory, it has become a byword for the negative archetype of the vulnerable woman requiring male rescue; in the first episode, for example, Pauline is bound and gagged and left in a burning building until a man saves her. However, the character of Pauline was also distinctive in her time as an unmarried New Woman who was free to engage in adventure, and her adventures proved themselves an early commercial success, primarily among women film audiences.
It is an action designed to strike fear and to strike down, not a silly part of a comedy/drama.
Secondly, the only controversial issue with feminism and this move is that it is representative of women needing saving.
We shouldn't be protecting women against being attacked, killed, etc, in fictional media. No more than we do men.
Anything is a valid discussion. The thing I'm saying is that it's not a valid point.
The issue with the movie is that it follows the damsel in distress trope. The issue with damsel in distress is that it portrays women as something that should be protected. That women are weak, unable to stand for themselves. That some man has to save the person in trouble because they can't save themselves. What is it you are saying when you say that having the murder of a woman in a video game is such a horrible thing? Forget the whole fact that through most all games nearly all those who are killed, in both situations of helplessness and of not, are men. There are many instances where you are rewarded for murder throughout games, and the vast majority of those who you can kill are men. What does it say to take offense to this one achievement just because it involves killing a woman in a senselessly violent way? Because I see it as the very thing that is wrong with the trope in the first place. The idea that women should be protected, shielded from violent action, and that they can't stand up for themselves. ", it awards the player for murdering a woman for the crime of being a woman" No it doesn't. You aren't murdering the person because they are a woman. This isn't an attack on women because they are women. It features a woman because the film which is very consistently parodied through many films and other media, featured a woman. Again, if the context was different. If you were in game and told to start murdering women on the street who aren't wearing good enough clothing because they deserve it, than i'd understand the offense to it. However, in this situation I do not. I am still saying that it is not a valid point, no matter how many times you tell me I am mistaken (unless it is backed up with proof and I so decide to have my mind changed, that is)
The issue with The Perils of Pauline is that it was written and performed by people 50 years dead in an era concurrent with the Model T. The issue with Read Dead Redemption is that it was written and performed by people in an era where singling out any minority group for persecution is socially deviant. You don't get to put on blackface, no matter how hilarious you think it is. No, focus on that. It emphasizes the unusual nature of killing - specifically - a woman. That it's not okay to specifically kill a woman in a senselessly violent way. There is no "trope." There's only "100 years ago." This is not "defeat a woman in battle." This is "find a defenseless woman and kill her." It is abundantly clear that you view your arguments as valid. Wishing does not make it so.The issue with the movie is that it follows the damsel in distress trope.
Forget the whole fact that through most all games nearly all those who are killed, in both situations of helplessness and of not, are men.
What does it say to take offense to this one achievement just because it involves killing a woman in a senselessly violent way?
Because I see it as the very thing that is wrong with the trope in the first place.
The idea that women should be protected, shielded from violent action, and that they can't stand up for themselves.
I am still saying that it is not a valid point, no matter how many times you tell me I am mistaken
>There is no "trope." There's only "100 years ago." It is actually a trope. While the origins of the trope were in "Perils of Pauline" (debated), it's also been used in multiple cartoons, movies, video games, comics, manga (this was news to me, I had entirely forgotten it's use in JoJo's Bizarre Adventure), books, plays, etc. The fact that the achievement was just for a woman was a shitty decision, but it is a very small decision that was likely made with very, very little thought put in to it at all. Achievements are rarely significant parts of games. They are usually afterthoughts that are there as jokes or to sometimes pad out the game a little more (beat the game on every difficulty is basically tripling the time a player spends on your game). I will not disagree that they should've put it in the parameters that you can do it to a man as well, but in terms of what Red Dead was as a whole, the single achievement of murdering a single person is relatively insignificant and a bit unfair to a game that has a pretty strong cast of characters. Bonnie MacFarlane is the head of the ranch and saves the protagonists life, does the lion's share of the work on the ranch, just to name one. I don't want to get in too many details because it is a very well done game. The issue for Red Dead specifically is likely one of time rather than malicious intent. Nothing else about that game indicates any particular hatred of women or even condescension. If the cast seems male-centric, which it is, it's because Red Dead and a lot of Rockstar games tend to tackle issues of masculinity and have been doing so for quite some time. By no means am I going to stand here and defend the industry, but the example used here with Red Dead is a pretty weak one compared to the vast swaths of games out there that range from "why aren't there and female characters" to "how come all of the ladies in Gears of War never actually do anything besides have gigantic breasts and somehow keep good looking hair in a warzone?" Good-looking, of course, being relative to when their textures load in. It's an incredible shame that as an industry video games can't get away from the whole white man in front of the camera for the next 20 hours. It's really tiring after awhile and fucking confusing why it keeps happening from a story perspective. Shit, I would've given Watch_Dogs a prop if the protagonist was not-a-white-guy. It'd give more of a reason for cops to show up all the time instead of "AI that are coded to report actions taken by the player in X yards without regards to line of sight." Outside of indie games, it seems that for the most part companies have gotten it in to their heads that if they let the player be a girl then anyone touching it will think it's gross. It's a larger issue of writing in games that extends far beyond just ladies (name the last black main character where you couldn't customize your main character), and it's something that needs to be addressed at a deeper level than looking at achievements. It's incredibly confusing that the only game I've played in recent months where you've been in a pretty stable relationship during the actual game is Wolfenstein, a game about a cartoonishly well built protagonist murdering hundreds of nazis every minute. By the way, if anyone likes shooters, you should go play Wolfenstein, because it's actually fun and at least Nazis are really straightforward bad guys instead of yet "generic arabic people living in a desert" or "comically evil russians."
Lara Croft and Samus would disagree. the last installment of Tomb Raider was even about Lara saving her best friend from the clutches of an apocalyptic cult of sexists... who were woshipping a woman. Right. An error of omission. That makes it a casual problem in a $100m game. So in other words, we can believe on of two scenarios: 1) Rock Star spent $100m on a game and didn't bother to go through their press materials to see if there was anything that might be deeply offensive. 2) Rock Star spent $100m on a game and leveraged the press controversy that always follows Rock Star releases despite perpetuating negative gender stereotypes. In other words, they're so offensive they didn't realize they were being offensive, or they're so offensive they decided to profit from being offensive. Either way, this isn't a "sweep it under the rug" problem.Outside of indie games, it seems that for the most part companies have gotten it in to their heads that if they let the player be a girl then anyone touching it will think it's gross.
The issue for Red Dead specifically is likely one of time rather than malicious intent.
"The issue with The Perils of Pauline is that it was written and performed by people 50 years dead in an era concurrent with the Model T. " Are old films suddenly taboo just because they are old? Should we start considering all the silent films as sexist and offensive? No. My point is that this isn't a "blackface" example, no matter how much you are trying to make it out to be. And that picture is kind of unnecessary, and it is honestly a really horrible example of blackface. I'm guessing it's some stupid celebrity bullshit I missed though, and I honestly couldn't care less about it. Quit gobbling up everything that has been done wrong in attempt to relate it to this. If this achivement is wrong it will be wrong on it's own standing.
"That it's not okay to specifically kill a woman in a senselessly violent way." This is in a videogame FULL of killing men in senselessly violent ways. And in an industry even more full of it. If you want to say killing people is not ok, than take offense to video games in general, not sexism. If you are saying that we shouldn't kill women in games, than you are doing the same thing that the "damsel in distress" trope is doing. "There is no "trope."" The tope I refer to is the "damsel in distress" trope, which exists to this very day. "This is not "defeat a woman in battle." This is "find a defenseless woman and kill her." Have you ever PLAYED red dead redemption? This isn't exactly a game where those sorts of actions are unusual. Players in these games will often shoot people because they did nothing but look at them funny, or were just standing in the wrong place. "Wishing does not make it so." I don't need to wish.
Ahhh, but friend: it is. That which flies in The Jazz Singer does not fly on Dancing with the Stars. In 1975, you can title a movie "Boss Nigger." in 2014 you go WHAT THE WHAT!!?!!?? 1) You are not the boss of me. 2) You keep negating my examples. Other examples are necessary, grasshopper. 3) It is wrong. The controversy made The Guardian, my friend. It's not like we're exploring new ground here. 'member that point about singling out women? Do me a solid and go back and revisit that, since it explicitly faces this argument that you've made three times. Negative, Ghost Rider. I made the conscious decision before it came out that I wasn't interested in rewarding Rock Star for incentivizing violence against women. That's the way the system works: a vendor makes a choice I don't support, so I in turn don't support the vendor. It's interesting that you think I must experience a system I find repellant in order to argue its repellence. It speaks to a certain lack of rhetorical rigor.My point is that this isn't a "blackface" example, no matter how much you are trying to make it out to be.
Quit gobbling up everything that has been done wrong in attempt to relate it to this. If this achivement is wrong it will be wrong on it's own standing.
This is in a videogame FULL of killing men in senselessly violent ways. And in an industry even more full of it.
Have you ever PLAYED red dead redemption?
what flies in the jazz singer doesn't fly today because of reasons other than its age. I may not be the boss of you, but your attempts to "gobble up" any and all historical wrongs does nothing to support your point. If it's wrong on its own standings, you shouldn't have to bother with all these comparisons to unrelated materials. "'member that point about singling out women?" There are no examples of singling out men in red dead redemption, no. However, having quest-points that involve specifically killing men are most likely just as common as those specifically singling out women. This isn't specifically a killing, but it took me about ten minutes to find "kick X number of men in the balls" as an achievement in Saints Row 3. I'm sure I could find male-specific things which involve death of a helpless man after enough searching. (although, saints row was the game that had the whole "steal women from pimps" thing. Something that I'd probably agree is quite over the line. As said, there are plenty of GOOD examples of real sexism in the games industry) Game designers don't make these things to single out women, they make them because they are funny, or because they are references to old things. "It's interesting that you think I must experience a system I find repellant in order to argue its repellence. It speaks to a certain lack of rhetorical rigor." I made the argument because you don't seem to have any awareness of just how normal these horrible murdering of innocent people are in games like red dead. You don't need to play the game to know that, but you would know what the game is actually like had you played it. Heck, I haven't even played it.
I agree with this. It's meant to be a humorous reference to a specific act that was popularized in older westerns. Anything outside of that is reading too much into it. I can't wait for the day when we become so sensitive to sexism that all of the characters I play are required to be able to save the male in distress as well as the female, but they'll solve this by making the character an androgynous hermaphrodite, can't complain then, can you? And yes, I'm being obtuse on purpose. There's a lot of actually sexism in the world without convoluting the entire thing with this bullshit.
Somebody would find a way. Somebody always does. I can't wait for the day when we become so sensitive to sexism that all of the characters I play are required to be able to save the male in distress as well as the female, but they'll solve this by making the character an androgynous hermaphrodite, can't complain then, can you?
I kind of felt like we were making this loop at the end of the article. Used to be that people were sexist, they could be loud about it, no one cared, and it was accepted. Then people were sexist but couldn't be as loud about it because what became vilified was the term, not necessarily the action (people are terrified to be called sexist/racist, but some of those terrified people are not terrified by doing or saying racist or sexist things). Now apparently we can be sexist as long as we acknowledge it. Full circle. To be fair I think maybe he is saying he IS sexist because you can't change what you are unaware of, and as a white male in society he is not going to be aware of every way society is sexist / and also, he may feel society has ingrained sexism in him that he may not be conscious of. That which he cannot recognize or control he is attempting to acknowledge. However yes let's get over you admitting you're sexist and get to the part where we talk about how to change. Man needs to watch him some Orange is the New Black.
From a queer minority feminist perspective Orange is the New Black is the best show out there right now. You've got a show that consists primarily of female characters, that features not only gay/straight dynamics but also more fluid sexual arrangements and experiences, including a trans-woman, and also casts women who represent the entire spectrum in terms of color, shape, conventional attractiveness, and size. Orange Is The New Black laughs in the face of the Bechdel test. It's like "Bechdel? Bet you didn't." In addition it highlights women of all age ranges, particularly in the second season, and the impact that living in prison can have on such groups. For these reasons, I love Orange is the New Black. But, good things don't last. Though I do love what this show brings to the screen, and the diversity of experiences it reflects (even though fictionalized), I expect maybe another really decent season out of it before it begins to jump the shark. And frankly, don't know if kleinbl00 has finished Season 2 yet, but like, there's a pretty big deus ex machina that I found frustrating at the end, which I interpret as a warning sign that the storyline/plot is going to go downhill. I mean, we already had competing prison gangs smuggling in black market items using multiple methods, I think we are outside of the realm of "realistic" in that regard now. But are they going to manage to keep it believable or are they just gonna throw the baby out with the wash? tl,dr: I love Orange is the New Black because of the things I feel it is helping do for TV, women, minorities, and genderqueer folks. In that way I view the show as very important - it's too bad it's not on cable but it would never get on cable I don't think. From a plot perspective I had some problems at some points with this season, but all in all I enjoyed it. In regards to kb's comment about people to root for, there are a few kind-of secondary characters I like and would like to see succeed, but I don't know if I was ever really rooting for anyone in particular. KB, do you think the thesis of Orange is the New Black could be that prison makes people into animals? It degenerates basic humanity?Orange is the New Black is about the basic, fundamental shittiness at the heart of everyone
I will agree freely with this - it's noteworthy just how un-Mayberry the storylines and characters are. It had not occurred to me that this is a reason to celebrate the show, but you're right, it is. You are correct - we aren't to the end of S2. I have noticed, however, that I cared for the characters in S1. There were heroes and villains, and heroic villains and villainous heroes. In S2 I wish for them all to be hit by a truck. Commander Janeway is the only one I give the first fuck about, and that's because S1 was long enough ago that I forgot what a bitch she was. The same was said about Philadelphia - about f'n time Hollywood made a movie about AIDS, but why did it have to be such a "Compleat Idiot's guide to HIV" Kapra-esque primer? And that's my beef with New Black - okay, women's prison. Oz for girls. There are things worth discussing, no doubt, but I've known a few kidz to spend time in the federal pen and their stories aren't nearly so trite. I get a real Diablo Cody vibe from New Black - "Hey, peeps - I'm slumming doing this disreputable job so that I can blog about it, shower me with praise for presenting a tidy, bow-wrapped vision of that thing you feel guilty about." That may be unfair but I got really bored with Weeds halfway through Season 2 as well, so maybe it's a showrunner problem. No. Here's the basic story arc of any given New Black episode: A) inter-prisoner drama that focuses on a prisoner in particular. B) flashback to that prisoner's life before they were a prisoner. C) Complication in which that particular prisoner is faced with a choice. D) Flashback to that prisoner facing a similar choice before they were a prisoner. E) Prisoner makes the wrong choice and fucks someone else over, blowback to follow next episode F) Flashback to that prisoner making a similar poor choice, landing them in prison New Black is determinist as fuck. It basically says we're all chained to the wheel of karma with no hope of escape because humans don't actually have free will.From a queer minority feminist perspective Orange is the New Black is the best show out there right now.
For these reasons, I love Orange is the New Black. But, good things don't last.
I view the show as very important - it's too bad it's not on cable but it would never get on cable I don't think.
KB, do you think the thesis of Orange is the New Black could be that prison makes people into animals?
kinda. Commander Janeway as an aging Russian smuggler is kind of amusing. Here's the thing, though. You know how Shawshank Redemption is about the basic, fundamental humanity at the heart of everyone, no matter how deviant and evil? Orange is the New Black is about the basic, fundamental shittiness at the heart of everyone, no matter how principled and good. You run out of people to root for pretty quickly.