Kotaku article!

[Bos_hybrid]

I hate when journalists try defendind honour of all the women , men or some minorities when a big bunch of them is content with how the things are.

 

Its a woman, to make matters worse. In fact, in depth reading of the article leads me to the conclusion that she is a feminist lesbian and:

1. angry that the main character is a male who can bed several women

2. angry that the main character wont be turned down in a humiliating manner by an openly gay woman

The first offends her feminist sensibilities, the latter her lesbian side.

I can't stress enough how ridiculous this article is.

 

I'm not seeing that, but I have been wrong before........

 

Although the no lesbians exists part raise an eyebrow, such a strange thing to say.

[RPGmasterBoo]

The text on Kotaku is an abbreviation (my brackets):

 

It is seriously problematic to have a game where the male player/avatar can have sex with any and every woman in the game (you dont say, and how does she know that?). On top of reinforcing the commodity model of sex, it is desperately heteronormative. For all the player's "choice" of with whom to engage, there's no possibility that the player might want to have a relationship with another man. It also shows that lesbians just don't exist in this world, if every single woman is open to a sexual encounter with a man. In addition, it perpetuates the narrative of the Nice Guy (described in Millar's essay, and elsewhere): that men are entitled to sex from women if they follow the rules and do the right things, or in the case of Alpha Protocol, "select your responses wisely." It is not only dangerous but just plain unrealistic to portray a world in which every single woman is a potential sex partner: in the real world, there are lesbians, and there are straight or bisexual women who won't sleep with you no matter what you do, because they are human beings with their own preferences and desires and interests. (If I remember correctly, a counterexample may be The Sims, where often certain personalities just won't get along well enough to develop a relationship no matter how hard you try.)

 

So what can video games do to portray better relationships? For one, they can stop being so goddamn heteronormative and allow options for queer relationships. And secondly, designers can start thinking of sex as a collaborative performance between two equal partners, and romantic interests as actual human beings with lives and thoughts and preferences outside of where they intersect with the player, rather than as conquests. And everyone would do well to read Millar's essay!

Edited August 30, 2009 by RPGmasterBoo

[Pop]

Video games aren't a platform suitable to explore human relationships, as simple as that. When they do tackle such complex subjects it ultimately has to come off as shallow (yes, shallow, not misogynistic, misantrophic, misandric or whatever). But video game developers have no pretense of trying to potray such subjects accurately. We're talking about a form of entertainment here.

I don't buy the reductionist argument. Not because I disagree with it, but because people tend to agree with it only when it suits them. Roger Ebert frequently makes this argument and gamers tend to get mad and disparage him. Take a game like Torment, a game that people around here and on many other outlets across the internet tend to hold up as an example of intercharacter relationships done right, or "as right as games can get". It seems to me that the reason people love it so much is that they actually believe Torment achieved something that the reductionist argument posits is impossible. The gameplay certainly wasn't exceptionally fun. The C&C was okay, there was certainly some freedom as far as feasible character builds are concerned, but you don't really hear about those things as much as you hear about Dakkon's oath, or the ghost woman's (I forget her name) storied love of the Nameless One. I don't really think people who cherish these things think that games are incapable of portraying meaningful relationships. Doesn't mean that Torment isn't as socially retarded as any other game of course, but people certainly want to think it's special, and that's a hard thing to admit when games are "just a form of entertainment".

[Bos_hybrid]

The text on Kotaku is an abbreviation (my brackets):

 

It is seriously problematic to have a game where the male player/avatar can have sex with any and every woman in the game (you dont say, and how does she know that?). On top of reinforcing the commodity model of sex, it is desperately heteronormative. For all the player's "choice" of with whom to engage, there's no possibility that the player might want to have a relationship with another man. It also shows that lesbians just don't exist in this world, if every single woman is open to a sexual encounter with a man. In addition, it perpetuates the narrative of the Nice Guy (described in Millar's essay, and elsewhere): that men are entitled to sex from women if they follow the rules and do the right things, or in the case of Alpha Protocol, "select your responses wisely." It is not only dangerous but just plain unrealistic to portray a world in which every single woman is a potential sex partner: in the real world, there are lesbians, and there are straight or bisexual women who won't sleep with you no matter what you do, because they are human beings with their own preferences and desires and interests. (If I remember correctly, a counterexample may be The Sims, where often certain personalities just won't get along well enough to develop a relationship no matter how hard you try.)

 

So what can video games do to portray better relationships? For one, they can stop being so goddamn heteronormative and allow options for queer relationships. And secondly, designers can start thinking of sex as a collaborative performance between two equal partners, and romantic interests as actual human beings with lives and thoughts and preferences outside of where they intersect with the player, rather than as conquests. And everyone would do well to read Millar's essay!

 

I really should of clicked on the gamescritic link.

 

Now I can see why you say that, still not willing to call her a feminist lesbian though. But for whatever reason she wrote that article, it is a gross overreaction to a game. It still strikes me as a very strange article. A game is a game, the article contains the same sort of logic, as 'playing violent video games turns kids into murderers'. It just seems strange to come from a VG journalist.

 

J.E. Saywer posted comment about there being an achievement for not doing said deeds and didn't get a response from her.

[J.E. Sawyer]

Uh, I think you're misrepresenting the plot here?

I don't think so. The characters are literally resigned to death until the Protagonist decides, on a whim, to leave the hospital. For the first day after they depart, they have no destination. After that, they do have a goal of sorts, but it's mostly just a context for their conversations.

 

I'm calling it out because the p/Protagonist of the story is only really the protagonist because a) he is called so/is the narrator and b) he starts the journey. He has no real drive or goal other than not to die at home/in the hospital. That's great if you're telling a story and just want some people to talk frequently. I don't think most people would consider it to be a great premise for a player-driven narrative.

 

Many of Alex's complaints revolve around the dominance of the male character over females. One of my responses to this is that typically any video game's protagonist's actions are going to dominate/drive everything around him or her. The less dominant the player is in conversations/action, typically the more players feel like they are being pushed around/railroaded.

 

On a side note, personally I feel that while Narcissu does manage to generate empathy for the characters, Setsumi is not characterized very deeply/is uninteresting to me.

[Slowtrain]

Video games aren't a platform suitable to explore human relationships, as simple as that. When they do tackle such complex subjects it ultimately has to come off as shallow (yes, shallow, not misogynistic, misantrophic, misandric or whatever). But video game developers have no pretense of trying to potray such subjects accurately. We're talking about a form of entertainment here.

I don't buy the reductionist argument. Not because I disagree with it, but because people tend to agree with it only when it suits them. Roger Ebert frequently makes this argument and gamers tend to get mad and disparage him. Take a game like Torment, a game that people around here and on many other outlets across the internet tend to hold up as an example of intercharacter relationships done right, or "as right as games can get". It seems to me that the reason people love it so much is that they actually believe Torment achieved something that the reductionist argument posits is impossible. The gameplay certainly wasn't exceptionally fun. The C&C was okay, there was certainly some freedom as far as feasible character builds are concerned, but you don't really hear about those things as much as you hear about Dakkon's oath, or the ghost woman's (I forget her name) storied love of the Nameless One. I don't really think people who cherish these things think that games are incapable of portraying meaningful relationships. Doesn't mean that Torment isn't as socially retarded as any other game of course, but people certainly want to think it's special, and that's a hard thing to admit when games are "just a form of entertainment".

 

 

Sure, any creative human endeavor can aspire to be more than a entertiniment product, but it hasn't really happened with games yet. Books and mvoies have there big commercial products and their smaller non-commercial releases. Gaming still hasn't been able to incorporate the latter to any great degree.

 

ATM, Torment not withstanding, games are shallow products aimed to provide entertainment. Any misogynism that ends up in them is simply subconscious overflow from the cultural pool, not an attempt at putting forth a misogynist agenda.

 

(Although there may be exceptions to that. I haven't played all games)

[RPGmasterBoo]

Now I can see why you say that, still not willing to call her a feminist lesbian though. But for whatever reason she wrote that article, it is a gross overreaction to a game. It still strikes me as a very strange article. A game is a game, the article contains the same sort of logic, as 'playing violent video games turns kids into murderers'. It just seems strange to come from a VG journalist.

 

J.E. Saywer posted comment about there being an achievement for not doing said deeds and didn't get a response from her.

 

Well its an assumption on my part that she is a fem/les. No matter. As for the rest, I agree.

[Pop]

Sure, any creative human endeavor can aspire to be more than a entertiniment product, but it hasn't really happened with games yet.

That's a debatable statement. Not to get into a debate about aesthetics, but I think you could make the serious argument that games are more than capable of being more than just momentary, hedonistic pleasures. Some games that people play and fondly remember / think about well after completion - the Fallout games, Earthbound, System Shock, Bioshock, any number of Final Fantasy games, any number of Zelda games, Planescape: Torment, Baldur's Gate 2, Vampire: The Masquerade Bloodlines, KOTOR2. People think about and analyze these games as much as they do any classic film or album. Again I'd say that people like to downplay the potential in gaming up until the point where they're really proven wrong, and then they go back to downplaying. It's Rock'n'Roll all over again.

 

Really the rate of success in movies and music is only perceptibly higher because there are more movies and songs being made at any one point than games. People tend to be sneaky and point out all the schlock that hits Gamestop and lament the cultural retardation that games display, but I could just as easily go to Blockbuster and gaze upon all the Michael Bay films and the direct-to-DVD slasher cheapies and wonder why it is that people love movies as much as they do when it's so obvious that film is a bankrupt medium. But if I look a bit harder, amongst the **** there's Scorsese and Tarantino and Tarkovsky. There are fewer great films than negligible ones, of course, but that doesn't really matter. People don't feel comfortable representing gaming by its successes when they can't help but represent other mediums by their triumphs.

 

ATM, Torment not withstanding, games are shallow products aimed to provide entertainment. Any misogynism that ends up in them is simply subconscious overflow from the cultural pool, not an attempt at putting forth a misogynist agenda.

I'd say you're missing the point by some measure. Your contention that transgression can only ever be intentional sets the bar so exceedingly high it practically obliterates the concept of prejudice outside of cartoonish bigots. Think, for example, of a kid who's having trouble with his math homework, so he seeks out an Asian classmate because he's heard that Asian people are great at math. Is he a racist? Well he doesn't mean to be racist, he's not trying to be hurtful by assuming the Asian kid is good at math (he might even think of it as a compliment). Yet the assumption is still racist.

 

Likewise, many people who believe that women should be kept out of the workplace and should be staying home and cooking meals and raising kids above all else believe that because they were taught that as children, or they read it in an old book. Many of them don't hate women or want to hurt them, but they think they know what's good for women, better than women themselves do. Are they misogynist? Yes, even though their ultimate intentions are nominally benevolent. A game like The Witcher in which every single woman in the game is a whore to be conquered is, in fact, misogynist. Mind-bogglingly so. And there's no excuse for that.

 

Point is, as a general rule focusing on the intentionality of an action in determining whether or not it's prejudicial ignores the perspective of the people who are ultimately at detriment. The fact of the matter is that racism and misogyny and xenophobia are not things that are symptomatic of individual wills being exercised. They are part of our cultural background noise. People absorb misogyny and racism through osmosis, from being exposed to our culture, much in the same way a person would know what sound a car makes when it starts even if they've never drove or even been inside one. In many (but certainly not all by a long shot) cases people can be weaned off of these things - children tend to be commonly dissuaded from racist ideas like "All black people are good at sports" at a young age, for example. Fewer children are dissuaded from misogyny, because as even this thread shows, misogyny is often accepted as fact. Even fewer are dissuaded from homophobia or transphobia.

 

It falls upon cultural gatekeepers - the writers and directors and designers and musicians who shape our social environment - to at least provide counterexamples to the messages this vast apparatus throws at us. They're really the only people who can do it. Problem is that those counterexamples are marginalized, and Obsidz wants to succeed in the marketplace. So we have Matt Rorie touting Sie the Cougar and her sexual proclivities towards S/M as a means to sell this game. You'd have to be stupid not to recognize that Obsidz is using sex (and a nonexistent subclass of women created by tabloids to describe Demi Moore) to sell AP. Which is, uh, misogynist.

Edited August 31, 2009 by Pop

[Fearless_Jedi]

I personally don't see what's wrong with having sex scenes in Alpha Protocol. Sex has been a staple of spy movies since James Bond, and its exactly the kind of experience people would expect from a Spy RPG. Honestly, I don't think Sega/Obsidian could promise an experience similar to a Bond movie without having sex in the game. Seriously, every single Bond movie I have seen has had sex in it, and I don't see how people could expect anything different.

 

If you don't like it then you don't have to buy. As for me, I didn't beat Mass Effect twice so I could see a few sex scenes and I'm not going to play AP because the character gets to sleep around. That is not the experience Im looking for and it does not define the core gameplay.

 

I know feminists and in many ways I am one but complaining about this makes no sense to me. If they have a problem with it then they should have spoken up when James Bond became popular. If they want to stand against video game sex scenes then they should start with Hollywood cause that is where game developers get alot of their ideas.

[Pop]

If they have a problem with it then they should have spoken up when James Bond became popular. If they want to stand against video game sex scenes then they should start with Hollywood cause that is where game developers get alot of their ideas.

I'm pretty sure they did, and they do. As for when Bond first came along, it might be the case that prevailing theories on patriarchy and socialization were not formulated or widely believed when Bond came to prominence in the 60's. There were more basic battles to fight at the time. There still are, of course, but media is now identified as part of the problem.

 

Regardless, speaking up doesn't really do a lot of good, as we've seen over the years. What it will take is a brave stance from people who are prominent but aren't academics. Which is rare.

[crakkie]

 

Film has distinguished itself as an art form for decades, far beyond what games have done so far. I might argue your choice of example auteurs, but still there are hundreds of directors whose films have more literary merit than any of your video game examples. And 'gamers' don't deserve to snort coke off of Roger Ebert's ****. At some point video games might achieve something that's worthy of the kind of literary depth seen here, and a reviewer/essayist competent enough to explore it (and that title certainly isn't without peer or superior).

 

The uncorrupted state of human relations is not tolerance and understanding. Social behavior, mores, and prejudices stem from systemic social needs. If these needs have be resolved without this behavior (child care, birth control), , then the behavior and mores will gradually vanish. But treating them as inventions with no basis in reality will not help reduce or suppress these leftover behaviors, but rather boost them. Teaching children that the stereotypes that they witness every day are non-existent is no way to help them deal with race, gender, or sexuality.

 

Misogyny is the hatred of women, despite what feminists have tried to morph the term into. Equating sexual objectification and paternalism with hatred is a shrill, hostile and weak position, and not one I think you are trying to take, so please change your terminology. Using the allure of an attractive female character to sell Alpha Protocol does not mean that Matt Rorie hates women.

 

The media does not create the social atmosphere, it reflects it and generally is restricted by it. It's currently reflecting a reality where homosexuality is accepted and normal, and women and black people can become president. With such a breadth of tolerance and respect for humanity as the status quo, one would imagine there is room to portray the human animal as it sometimes exists, such as a regional manager of a paper company unable to view an employee beyond her gender and appearance, an ad agency executive spying on his wife's psychotherapy, and a young secret agent finding his way into the bed of a powerful German mercenary who is turned on by danger-- all without accusing the creators of these works of harboring hatred for women.

 

And Bond, in Fleming's novels, is an actual misogynist. He's clearly disgusted by anything remotely feminine, and portraying today him as he was written would make Don Draper look like Margaret Sanger.

[Pop]

Film has distinguished itself as an art form for decades, far beyond what games have done so far. I might argue your choice of example auteurs, but still there are hundreds of directors whose films have more literary merit than any of your video game examples. And 'gamers' don't deserve to snort coke off of Roger Ebert's ****. At some point video games might achieve something that's worthy of the kind of literary depth seen here, and a reviewer/essayist competent enough to explore it (and that title certainly isn't without peer or superior).

I don't disagree, necessarily. My earlier contention was meant to point out inconsistency on the part of gamers who downplay the significance of the messages in games but also hold them up as high art. Again, I don't want to get into an argument about aesthetics, but suffice to say that the threshold of consideration as far as I'm concerned is relatively low.

 

The uncorrupted state of human relations is not tolerance and understanding. Social behavior, mores, and prejudices stem from systemic social needs. If these needs have be resolved without this behavior (child care, birth control), , then the behavior and mores will gradually vanish. But treating them as inventions with no basis in reality will not help reduce or suppress these leftover behaviors, but rather boost them. Teaching children that the stereotypes that they witness every day are non-existent is no way to help them deal with race, gender, or sexuality.

I really hope you're not suggesting here that the sort of stereotypes I described earlier are in fact grounded in empirical truth. If an Asian is good at math, it isn't because he or she is an Asian. There could possibly be cultural values instilled in a child that can lead to greater relative achievement, but that has nothing to do with race, and what's more one's apparent heritage is not appropriate shorthand for any cultural values they might have.

 

Misogyny is the hatred of women, despite what feminists have tried to morph the term into. Equating sexual objectification and paternalism with hatred is a shrill, hostile and weak position, and not one I think you are trying to take, so please change your terminology. Using the allure of an attractive female character to sell Alpha Protocol does not mean that Matt Rorie hates women.

I do not agree. Misogyny as "hatred of women" is a limited, simpleminded and useless definition. A better definition is "fear of women", which encompasses hatred, objectification and paternalism. This objectification of women, this stated desire to conquer a woman sexually, to have sex with as many women as you can get away with, comes from a deep-seated fear of women, because as the Gamecritic article points out, sexual purity and through it a woman's dignity are commodified in our culture, by and large the act of sex in our culture is considered an exchange of power - seduction is a display of power over a woman, the taking of a precious thing that is supposed to be selectively given out. Women are seen to hold their sexuality as a bargaining chip over a man's head. Women hold power over us and make us vulnerable because they have something that we demand and they control the supply, and that power makes us hate and fear women. The only way we can assert our power is to persuade that holder of the commodity to share it, or to take it by force. Women who don't supply at all are thought of us prudes, or stuck up bitches, and women who like sex denigrate themselves because they give away their sexuality easily, and thus the value of their commodity drops - it's not valuable if everybody's got it.

 

Whether you like it or not the trumping up of the women in Alpha Protocol as trophies to be earned is misogynist. That you can choose not to conquer the women in the game doesn't really change the situation (as I recall, you didn't have to have sex with anyone in the Witcher, by miles the most misogynistic game made since Custer's Revenge) and Josh's point about how game design in general is built around similar power exchanges also doesn't really get us anywhere. I believe he's said in threads of yore that romances can't be done correctly and that they shouldn't be included in games, and I agree with what he said then. I don't know if Matt Rorie fears women, I assume he doesn't, but Obsidz is obviously not above pandering to the common fantasy of seducing the sort of women who would be unattainable in reality. It speaks to the same frustrated misanthropy that would lead people to, say, play a game where you get to beat up the sort of guy who bullied you in elementary school.

 

The media does not create the social atmosphere, it reflects it and generally is restricted by it. It's currently reflecting a reality where homosexuality is accepted and normal, and women and black people can become president. With such a breadth of tolerance and respect for humanity as the status quo, one would imagine there is room to portray the human animal as it sometimes exists, such as a regional manager of a paper company unable to view an employee beyond her gender and appearance, an ad agency executive spying on his wife's psychotherapy, and a young secret agent finding his way into the bed of a powerful German mercenary who is turned on by danger-- all without accusing the creators of these works of harboring hatred for women.

Your perspective on reality is a lot more rosey than is warranted, I think. In the media homosexuality is "accepted and normal" so long as it remains chaste, the whiff of sexuality removed. The essence of male homosexuality generally becomes a sharp fashion sense or an ability to form close friendship bonds with heterosexual women. At the very least, homosexual men are to be portrayed basically as straight men who just happen to be gay, a signifier with nebulous meaning that's never explored. Outwardly sexual homosexual men elicit discomfort, especially when they're pursuing straight men (a scenario that straight men often live in fear of). Lesbians in the media are of a general type - young, glamorous, conventionally beautiful, and exhibitionist. You don't see a lot of portrayals of butch dykes. Hell, you don't see pictures from gay pride parades in mainstream media outlets, when they're reported on.

 

As for women in power, I don't know where you were during the last presidential campaign. Leaving aside Sarah Palin's highly dubious qualifications, there was a lot of talk about how difficult it would be for her to fulfill her obligations while having such a family to run, and a special needs child. Sort of curious, don't you think? Do you actually think that if Todd Palin was running, there would be the same speculation? No, because men can be leaders and patriarchs, but women are only so capable. Likewise when Clinton scolded a student journalist overseas, there was a lot of MSM tittering about her losing her cool. You didn't get that with Donald Rumsfeld, whose prickliness was a integral part of his public image. Women are held to a higher standard because we don't trust that they can do the things that men, historically, have done.

 

That's not even getting to transgendered or gender variant people, who remain mentally ill freaks.

 

And what of Obama? Sure, we've proven that a black man can be President. But there continue to be echoes through the MSM of doubts of his heritage, his religion, and his credentials for the Presidency. You're absolutely right that the media can reflect social atmosphere. The media in this case is reflecting a nagging fear that Obama, as a black man and a second-generation immigrant, can't possibly be legitimate. President is just not something a black man becomes honestly.

 

Oh, and how about that Sonia Sotomayor, eh?

 

Another thing that I feel I have to point out is that your outrage at the prospect of Obsidz being called misogynist is erroneous, and typical of the way that our culture, oriented as it is towards the white male perspective, handles prejudice. See, you use the phrase "accusing the creators of these works of harboring hatred for women" as though it is somehow a tremendously powerful and terrible accusation. It's not. The fear of accusation in your post speaks to the blind terror that people feel when they're called out. White men typically tend to see accusation of racism or misogyny or homophobia as a sucker punch, a devastating and irreversible attack on a person's character, a one-up that can't be one-upped, an instant TKO. But that's not really the case. Most people are misogynist at times, most people are racist at times, most people are homophobic at times. When I call someone out on their misogyny or their racism, I'm not so much judging (though there is some of that there, admittedly), I'm doing it because I hope that they can recognize their behavior and correct it. Reacting with terror and revulsion is no more than a method of not owning up to mistakes and refraining from correct behavior.

Edited August 31, 2009 by Pop

[Hell Kitty]

Perhaps misogyny seems too harsh a word, but our society definitely sees women as being less than men. If a little girl dresses in boys clothes and plays with boys toys, she might get called a "tomboy" but otherwise such behavior is fine. If a little boy dresses in girls clothes and plays with girls toys, it might initially be seen as cute or funny depending on how young he is, but parents will seek to limit such behavior. When a female is like a male she is elevating herself to a superior status, when a male is like a female he is lowering himself to an inferior status.

[Fearless_Jedi]

If they have a problem with it then they should have spoken up when James Bond became popular. If they want to stand against video game sex scenes then they should start with Hollywood cause that is where game developers get alot of their ideas.

I'm pretty sure they did, and they do. As for when Bond first came along, it might be the case that prevailing theories on patriarchy and socialization were not formulated or widely believed when Bond came to prominence in the 60's. There were more basic battles to fight at the time. There still are, of course, but media is now identified as part of the problem.

 

Still, after reading the article and a few other related articles it seemed that gaming was their target and I have yet to see them mention anything about the spy genre as a whole. Nor have the articles I read said anything in relation to the way Hollywood objectifies women.

 

I took a psychology of gender class in college, and it was a very eye opening experience for me. Every week the objectification of women came up, and it stood out as a problem across all forms of media. However, the true source of the problem is not necessarily the media itself. Rather the media just perpetuates the problem.

 

The true source of the issue lies in society and the established gender roles that society has come to accept/expect. If I were to choose a target it would be the already established spy genre and the unfair portrayal of masculinity and femininity in the genre. That is the real problem.

 

Now its true that feminism had other issues back in the 60s, and I will admit that it is unfair of me to say that they should have done something back then. However, I do believe the real failure here is how they targeted the video game instead of the actual source of the problem as I already explained.

 

Plus, the argument in the original article made one other noteworthy mistake. It stated how sex was portrayed as a reward in the game but failed to mention that abstinence was also rewarded.

[Gfted1]

Perhaps misogyny seems too harsh a word, but our society definitely sees women as being less than men. If a little girl dresses in boys clothes and plays with boys toys, she might get called a "tomboy" but otherwise such behavior is fine. If a little boy dresses in girls clothes and plays with girls toys, it might initially be seen as cute or funny depending on how young he is, but parents will seek to limit such behavior. When a female is like a male she is elevating herself to a superior status, when a male is like a female he is lowering himself to an inferior status.

 

 

I disagree on this point. I dont think its so much that a female is "elevating" herself while a male would be "lowering" himself as it is a (wrongful) assumption on the males sexuality. Homosexual acceptance has come a long way but, imo, a homosexual male is much less acceptable to society then a homosexual female.

[Pop]

That's not an entirely satisfactory answer, though. Homosexual females are stereotypically masculine, yet there is no apparent assumption on the part of adults about a child's sexuality when they're presented with a tomboy. I think part of this might be due to a common belief (it's somewhere in this thread!) that lesbianism isn't so much a sexual orientation as much as it is a stubborn hatred of men that can be overcome, usually through sex with a Real Man (another thing to consider is that with non-het relationships most people are interested in "who the Man in the relationship is", as though a relationship needs a decisive masculine figure to be truly functional) so there's nothing that can't be fixed about a masculine girl.

 

But you're right, gay women are more accepted in our culture than gay men. But you have to ask yourself why that is, and the best answer is in the post you quoted - We live in a society built and ruled by white males, and as such the values we cherish are the values that men are supposed to cherish, masculine values like self-sufficiency and industry and assertiveness, and strength of will. Feminine boys alarm us because we wonder "how can this child survive in a man's world?". Girls were brought up with this question for ages and until very recently they were encouraged to run the other direction and submit, to find the right man to protect and provide for them in exchange for sex, servitude and a family (keeping in mind that displaying masculine traits as a woman will make you undesirable). Parents freak out about feminine boys because nobody's going to take responsibility for them, nobody's going to protect and provide for them. You succeed either through making do for yourself displaying masculine traits, or by attracting someone who will succeed in that way through your femininity, and since homosexual men and heterosexual women can't be masculine there's no recourse for the feminine boy. Proper success can only ever be achieved through showing the characteristics that are valued in your gender.

 

Furthermore, when you look a bit into how the culture views transgendered people, while on the whole it is overwhelmingly negative, of the two sorts male-to-female transgendered people bear a relatively greater amount of abuse. This jibes with what Hell Kitty is saying - While there is certainly a great amount of revulsion at rejecting the sex you displayed physically when you were born, that revulsion is doubled when that rejection is of maleness. It's akin to someone refusing pay for his work - why would they not accept what is theirs by right (that is, all the advantages that men have in life)?

Edited August 31, 2009 by Pop

[RPGmasterBoo]

I think this has gone beyond off topic and well into the realm of pointless discussion.

 

The classic problem when inherently simple things are skyrocketed into the realm of pseudo philosophy.

- 97% of people are heterosexual. The rest are as insignificant as any 3% anywhere.

I lived in an African country as a part of a 3-4% white minority. It was clear where everyone stood. It was a country of black people run by black people, and we were irrelevant because we were strangers. I'm not complaining, as the same would apply in reverse. I could hardly expect them to treat me as equals of any sort when in fact we are not equal. Same goes for gays/transsexuals etc etc - they are a minority in a heterosexual world and they should adapt to it as best they can and the best way to do that is to go quietly about your business and keep your choices in life private. I've known plenty of gay people who do this and they are genuinely happy, as much as any of us.

 

- gender roles are there for a reason. They have served society well for thousands of years.

 

- men are not superior to women. however they are physically stronger and ultimately when asserting dominance that's all that counts. And when you strip away the civilized icing of society dominance is what all relations hinge upon. That will not change anytime soon, if at all.

 

So there is no reason to philosophize over things that are essentially set in stone. Sure the foundation rocks slightly every now an then but it never collapses or changes in any truly significant, long lasting manner.

 

Its a wonder the mods havent locked this one up yet.

[Cl_Flushentityhero]

IMO, the late-page discussion is much more interesting than a thread in which we all take turns saying "the article is stupid."

[RPGmasterBoo]

When I call someone out on their misogyny or their racism, I'm not so much judging (though there is some of that there, admittedly), I'm doing it because I hope that they can recognize their behavior and correct it. Reacting with terror and revulsion is no more than a method of not owning up to mistakes and refraining from correct behavior.

 

The desire to "correct" other people comes when you presume that you "know the right way" , the "correct behaviour" and that other people don't. Its a crusader sort of mentality, no matter how mildly you put it.

[RPGmasterBoo]

Whether you like it or not the trumping up of the women in Alpha Protocol as trophies to be earned is misogynist. That you can choose not to conquer the women in the game doesn't really change the situation (as I recall, you didn't have to have sex with anyone in the Witcher, by miles the most misogynistic game made since Custer's Revenge) and Josh's point about how game design in general is built around similar power exchanges also doesn't really get us anywhere.

 

To call the Witcher misogynist is ignorance of the highest order.

 

 

 

 

All I see here is a is a total worship of female beauty.

[Joseph Bulock]

I enjoy that the article bases the entire argument on the naming of one of our perks, and a few comments by a game developer. No movie critic worth his salt would write commentary based on a trailer, and no book critic would write commentary based on reading the outside jacket promotional text, but somehow this person thinks it's acceptable to form a critique based on the name of a perk.

 

If he has the same opinion after he plays through the game, that's his business, but this sort of laziness is exactly what is ridiculous about game journalism and critique currently. I think one of the greatest signs that our industry is still young and hasn't reached the depth that other mediums have reached is that the critics still pass off writing such as this as serious commentary.

[alanschu]

All I see here is a is a total worship of female beauty.

 

Of course you see it that way. It prevents your cognitive dissonance.

 

 

Same goes for gays/transsexuals etc etc - they are a minority in a heterosexual world and they should adapt to it as best they can and the best way to do that is to go quietly about your business and keep your choices in life private.

 

The issue here isn't that the minorities don't keep to themselves. It's that the dominant classes pass judgment on them, and actively seek to oppress them, based on those judgments.

 

 

Simply saying "They should just adapt as best they can" doesn't mean very much if the minority in question gets hunted down, ostracized, villified, and sometimes outright killed based simply on largely unthreatening statuses.

 

 

I am debating going more into detail about this, as I have done in the past, but a large part of me feels it'll be relatively futile. If people really want a response, I'll consider it.

Edited August 31, 2009 by alanschu

[Slowtrain]

I enjoy that the article bases the entire argument on the naming of one of our perks, and a few comments by a game developer. No movie critic worth his salt would write commentary based on a trailer, and no book critic would write commentary based on reading the outside jacket promotional text, but somehow this person thinks it's acceptable to form a critique based on the name of a perk.

 

If he has the same opinion after he plays through the game, that's his business, but this sort of laziness is exactly what is ridiculous about game journalism and critique currently. I think one of the greatest signs that our industry is still young and hasn't reached the depth that other mediums have reached is that the critics still pass off writing such as this as serious commentary.

 

 

Post of the week.

[RPGmasterBoo]

All I see here is a is a total worship of female beauty.

 

Of course you see it that way. It prevents your cognitive dissonance.

 

 

To not see that the artist who drew these pictures did so lovingly and tried to bring out in each one beauty appropriate to the theme is at best ignorance, at worst a complete lack of good taste.

 

"Those who find ugly meanings in beautiful things are corrupt without being charming. This is a fault.

Those who find beautiful meanings in beautiful things are the cultivated. For these there is hope." - Oscar Wilde

Edited August 31, 2009 by RPGmasterBoo

[alanschu]

All I see here is a is a total worship of female beauty.

 

Of course you see it that way. It prevents your cognitive dissonance.

 

 

To not see that the artist who drew these pictures did so lovingly and tried to bring out in each one beauty appropriate to the theme is at best ignorance, at worst a complete lack of good taste.

 

 

Coming from you, the ignorance comment is laughable.