Contributors

I have today approached a guy who mentioned that he had concerns about both sexism in gaming/gaming culture and the problematic approach that Anita Sarkeesian has taken in her opening video introducing her latest video series on tropes in games.

Whilst I in part agree with Sarkeesian, what this guy has to say is just as interesting and perhaps even illuminating in discussing the problems that her opening video (and by inference - though it's not to be taken as truth obviously) her series creates.

I also hope that he will give his own take - as a feminist white male - on sexism and "troping" in video games.


I have also approached another person who challenged the idea that it is the minority gamers that have a problem with mainstream video games, rather than those that defend sexism (very bitterly, some of them). Whether he's willing to expand or write anything on that is to be seen.


So, if any of you have a game/book/film/t.v. show you want to talk about (for the lighter writers - though obviously there could be problematic themes you want to rant about) or any social issues you want to discuss or challenge, do message me - either via my tumblr ask box (no registration required) or in the comments below.



*Disclaimer (mostly cause it was posted out on tumblr - I don't think I really need to say it here but I shall anyway): I will not accept any submissions that are openly misogynist, racist, or people-bashing in anyway. I do not mind discussing the other view, but it must be as balanced and civil as possible. When I say “issues with feminism”, it could be that there is a group or opinion or movement or individual that is trying to critique and change, but going about it the wrong way, for example, NOT “I hate feminists, they’re the entire problem with this damn country” posts.

Though of course discussion of misandry and the damage that causes is equally welcome.

Ask them "why".

In the last week, I have come across more open discussion of the verbal abuse and threats that women - both as a sex/gender and as an individual - experience in online communities, largely to do with gaming.

We all know the "Get back into the kitchen" jibes that women get from pathetic little boys (and little men) who can't bear the thought that someone has beaten them in a game on Xbox Live. If it's not a woman, then they'll pick on their name, accent, sexual orientation or race.
However, the articles in question discuss the more sinister and darker side of online banter. Rape threats, death threats, vandalism of online identities, systematic intimidation and abuse and general extreme unpleasantness. The first results purely from having a female voice, the second because a female wanted to critique the tropes that video games keep reusing. Whilst a few of the comments make the point that males are tropes too, I do not think they quite realise what tropes are and why they should be looked at in a while. In fact, sometimes, there's nothing wrong with a trope, provided it's done properly. But then I guess it wouldn't be a classic trope... anyway, I continue with my questioning.

The responses to these articles have been pretty unvaried:

From the women:

1. I too have been on the receiving end - whilst I can handle this crap, it is very off-putting to those who'd rather just play the game in peace.
2. That is awful. 
3. It's not just women - everyone gets abuse.
4. It's sad that women can't discuss things from a feminist POV where games are concerned.

From the men:

1. Everyone gets abuse. Just learn to put up with it.
2. It's not sexism - it's just sexist-themed abuse because you have boobs and beat them at the game.
3. It's not that bad, my brothers wind people up all the time just to see how long it takes before they're put on mute. It's harmless.
4. It's like when I went into the sea once and complained it was wet.

The last two from the men (an almost exact quote) are what pissed me off. First of all, what his younger brothers have been doing is just childish behaviour that most 12-15 year olds go through, even at school. It's the same crap they'd spout in the classroom and even then that is not acceptable behaviour, which we hope they grow out of. 
What the articles were detailing was far worse - had these people started yelling at a girl in a gamer t-shirt "I'll rape you myself" or "I hope you get raped for being out of the kitchen" or "go and die, whore" in the street, and there was a policeman or security guard near by, they would at minimum get a ban from the shop or a caution for disorderly behaviour or abuse of another member of the public.

It's emotional cyber bullying, intending to intimidate in a way their physical presence is unable to. They either get ignored or they succeed in putting an individual off the community or online gaming experience. There is a lot more to hate speech than just immature baiting.

Second of all, the sea analogy is just the apathetic rubbish that people always spout when things are bad but they don't have any good ideas.

In both instances, the threats and abuse were being trivialised - either by blatant down-play or an acceptance of what has been "normal" behaviour.

So I have been asking the same damn question all week, and received no answer: 

Why is it acceptable behaviour, and why should we expect that?

After all, it used to be expected and normal to go into Mississippi and to see black communities being treated like diseased vermin, but that did not make it ok.
 When I spoke out and said that it was this exact apathetic attitude that paved the way for victim-blaming, rape culture, and the continued acceptance of homophobic, sexist, racist and religious discriminatory behaviour, I was disagreed with and "downvoted" on the website that I was commenting on. A very common  occurrence where over 70% of its users and actually incredibly sexist and misogynist.
It's equally sad that pretty much everyone gets online abuse - yes, even the white men - but apparently it's not ok to be unaccepting of it.

Once again, I spoke out because of the second article linked above (click on "an individual")  was posted and this quote:

I am certainly not the first woman to suffer this kind of harassment and sadly, I won’t be the last. But I’d just like to reiterate that this is not a trivial issue. It can not and should not be brushed off by saying, “oh well that’s YouTube for you“, “trolls will be trolls” or “it’s to be expected on the internet”. These are serious threats of violence, harassment and slander across many online platforms meant to intimidate and silence. And its not okay. 

had resonated with me, because I had argued the exact same thing last week. Again, I have been disagreed with. Whilst everyone is in agreement that what has happened to Anita Sarkeesian is 100% disgusting, her individual experience should not in anyway result in the  the behaviour of others towards her sex in general being dealt with.

The more I asked "why though", the more apologist the responses became. Apparently, my expectations of people's behaviour are too great. I am limiting free speech (which, in another topic, I pointed out has limitations in set cases - cases which actually are displayed in the treatment of Anita Sarkeesian, and this time I was "upvoted") and I am being "facist" in my social views.

My "social" views are these:

• Everybody should be treated with respect - unless there is a good reason that this respect has not been earned. Simply being online and a particular sex, gender, body type, race or creed is NOT a good reason. I have very little respect for those that spout abuse at people for these reasons - they've proven to me that they are not worth an iota of my time. I'd try to remain civil, but that is all.
• That equality among sexes should be practised in both online and offline communities.
• That people should not be intimidated and abused just because what they are saying is a new point of view. As a feminist pro-choice atheist I do not silence or intimidate anti-choice/pro-lifers, misogynists or theists. They can say what they like. I do not agree with them. I will offer a counter argument or point out where I think they're being unfair to others, but I won't tell them that I wish rape, cancer, death, bludgeoning, or any other form of natural or man-delivered vengeance.
  
  Fortunately it is possible to say that generally, it is religious extremists and violent women/gay/minority-hating people that exercise these intimidation techniques, and even go so far as to active terrorism - be it threatening to blow up the studio of the creators of South Park or murdering an abortion practitioner. We have yet to hear of people with my thinking of actively destroying buildings and lives because of something a classic case bigot has said - online or in print.
• That forms of bullying - cyber, physical, emotional, mental - and intimidation should not be tolerated anywhere. I firmly believe that the more people that stand up now and say "I won't stand for your bullshit behaviour" (maybe not those exact words at school) the more people will find the courage to stand up themselves. The feminist movement was about changing perceptions and behaviour of men towards women through winning civil rights and challenging their perceptions and behaviour. And haven't women come far? They're not at true equality yet. Maybe we won't be. But feminism isn't just about gender equality. It's about fairness and humility and humanity. That no people should be discriminated against for things beyond their control. 

Feminism and racial/sexuality equality movements have all done the same thing: They have questioned and challenged what is considered "normal behaviour" in communities and changed them. Black people can now go on the same beaches, use the same toilets and even sit at the front of the bus now. It wasn't "normal" in 1940.

Why should online behaviour and "ettiquette" (or lack of, in my opinion) be as unchallenged? Just because nearly everyone involved is anonymous? Not good enough.

When you hear people explaining away a social injustice as something "to be expected" or in some way acceptable behaviour, I charge you to ask them why.
If they can honestly come up with an acceptable answer as to why it's expected and therefore acceptable, then you should let me know or shout from the rooftops 'Hallelujah', cause I can almost guarantee that they won't.

Just now I tried to think of an example where it is an acceptable expectation, and I couldn't.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Additions/further reading:

A good related post on the white privileged male's defence of sexism in gaming - often sexism in the game itself and the sexism of its players go hand in hand, whether they know it or not.

The key quote that links in well with what I have just been saying is this:

It opened my eyes, to use a cliché. I couldn't stop noticing how much was made for me. Everything. Movies, TV shows, books, and especially video games and commercials. All for the straight white male, and it had never even occurred to me. I was ashamed for a little while that I hadn't noticed before, but I got over it. Suddenly, I realised that the attitude of "What's the problem?" was a far greater issue than I had thought.

Sexism, racism and homophobia are not the domain of extremists such as the Westboro Baptist Church, the KKK and the 50s. These are ongoing issues, and they affect everyone, and most people are guilty of perpetuating the negatives, whether they realise it or not.

On Sisterhoods and Feminism.

Over the past two or three - perhaps even four - years, I have been increasingly involved with feminist/equality/humanist movements. Usually in the form of petitions, informing those around me, spreading the word.

I have taken part in marches for causes - before Sixth Form, I had been on at least 4 Anti-Iraq war marches (There were far more that took part than police or politicians at the time gave credit, as per usual).
I took part in the Lancaster Slutwalk (much good that did to such a small town) and I have done my best to educate those online who've asked me to - prod them in the right direction of articles or 'Feminism 101', inform them of female or minority perceptions of their behaviour, that sort of thing.

Today I filled in a (what should be a superfluous) form for the Home Office telling them that homosexual and trans* people should be allowed to marry in full, not just have a civil 'partnership'. I also said I think that civil partnerships should be open to heterosexual couples - not everyone wants a full marriage, but they damn well need and deserve the same benefits and safe guards.

I drive my chauvinist grandfather crazy with my latest news and incidents against minorities, or more frequently with American news, women.
I think that as much as she may feel tired about my chosen topics of conversation, my grandmother is in her own way pleased that I care that much about other people.

But I wanted to get active and to meet up with like-minded people. So I did a google and found that there's a local action group of feminists in my town. I joined the facebook group and I'm on the mailing list. Can't hurt to know what's going on more in my local area - a lot of crap happens everywhere after all.

And was I disappointed once I was reading through the facebook group postings! It isn't the issues, or the causes... it's the fact that (so far) one member has addressed us all as 'Sisters'.

'Sisters'. Maybe it's just me being funny about it, but I hate it when a community of like-minded people end up being called 'Sisters' or 'Brothers'. Perhaps it's the anti-dogma-and-religious-institution atheist in me, but it feels like cult behaviour to me.

This isn't the main reason I hate the term, but a good example of cult like behaviour is this: My grandmother got briefly entangled with a group of Colin Firth fanatics (Mr Firth, if you, or your publicist, are reading this, I'd advise you take out some restraining orders pre-emptively) on Youtube called "The Firth Sisters" or something ridiculous. And it IS like a cult. They rehash the same video clips, put it to music and talk about Colin Firth as 'Colin' all the time and go to every public appearance he does and worship every move.

Colin Firth is a top-notch guy. Great actor (Should have got the Oscar for A Single Man, more than The King's Speech but I like to think the Oscar was recognition for all his works) and a huge philanthropist. He and his wife practically own Oxfam, for example. (Slight exaggeration but they do actually own a famous charity shop in London and possibly a linked chain in New York?)

But he has done nothing to deserve the cult-worship of these women.

I digress.

I guess what I am saying is that I greatly wish that movements wouldn't start using such language. 'Feminist' is already considered a 'dirty word' full of negative connotations - we're bra-burning, ball-busting castraters who wish men would be taken down a notch - which is grossly untrue. But it doesn't help when a group of women (and men) go around calling each other Sister and Brother whilst doing feminist work or protesting.
I'm picturing them all with long dreadlocks, peace signs, marijuana joints and brightly coloured hemp clothing or sari-like shawls as I type the word 'sister'. Yes, it's a stereotype, but not a helpful one.

I can understand why they think of us all as a Sisterhood. I really can. We are a united community, sort of, as we fight for gender equality. After all, William Cobbett said,

Women are a sisterhood. They make common cause in behalf of the sex; and, indeed, this is natural enough, when we consider the vast power that the law gives us over them

But I can't help but feel that in order to be taken seriously by anyone, we should stop referring to ourselves in that sort of language - I'm picturing US University frat houses and Greek houses and stuff, you know, "the sisterhood of the omega" and whatnot.

And whilst the idea that feminists are a sisterhood can be uniting and communal, it also sounds selective. That only particular people can be part of the sisterhood. Preferably ones with ovaries and uteri. There are men in the facebook group, and I don't know how they feel about being referred to as Sisters - or, by singled out by omission.

Whilst feminism is about embracing all people and fighting for equality of everyone regardless of race, gender, sex or orientation - and perhaps this is very singular and abrasive of me - I just can not bring myself to refer to other members of the human race as "brother" or "sister" just because we share a common belief or interest.

Dear Esther

I actually started writing this on the 19th or something of May - we played it on the 18th May. But again, I was having a great week and stuff kept happening.

In what I hope to be the start of a really fun and nice tradition (perhaps even with recording - turns out that I come out with rather spontaneous outbursts of funny and oddly cute nerd commentary) of playing through games with The Boyfriend, we played through an indie game called Dear Esther. (Currently around £6 on Steam - bear in mind it takes about 2 hours to play through, depending on how much exploring you decide to do.)

It is first and foremost an atmospheric game. There are no action sequences, no dungeons, no fighting, no tactics involved. You are exploring, allowing yourself to enjoy the gorgeous but bleak scenery, discovering strange runes in florescent paint, abandoned shacks, wrecked ships - boats became a thing for me - and listening to the entries of a diary being read. What soundtrack there is is very quiet and background, perfect for immersion in the scenery.

Once night has fallen. Unfortunately we did not think to screen cap any of the inside of the caves.

And what graphics they are. From the cliffs of what appear to be Devon to the insides of gorgeous caves to the running water and ocean, no details are spared. If only to experience some amazing sights, you should play this game.

(Click the second image to see it in its full screen glory. Look at the detail of the sand, the rocks, the reflections.)

The voice acting is ideal - it's understated but not boring. It's doesn't chug along and it's not a dramatic reading. It is simply the thoughts of an old? man being put to paper, written to someone named Esther. Who she is, we don't know, but I think it is generally assumed that it is his late wife.

The story is based, as I've indicated, on diary entries of an unknown person. Whether we are the person writing, or whether we are simply following through his life as a ghost is uncertain. There is a lot of ambiguity in the storyline, which makes it all the more interesting. Only one thing is clear - we are following the last days of his life. As we make our way across the shoreline to the caves and abandoned shipwrecks, we do see shadows of people - just that. I called them ghosts. Perhaps shadows of the player's past self, if we are to assume that we are the reader. Since it is possibly using the same engine as Amnesia, there was one mildly creepy noise that made The Boyfriend suddenly yell "GET OUT GET OUT" when I was looking around an empty shack. However there is NO scary evil here. Maybe a creepy sadness about the game. And strange ghostlike figures, but nothing will take over your mind just because there's a dark corner.

The story is very simplistic. I will avoid spoilers as much as possible, but the only thing clear from the start is that Esther is dead.We learn how quite quickly, and when jumping into a very deep water pool deep in the caves, we experience the visual memory of the scene of her demise, which is poignantly shown as he makes his way back to the surface. We also know that he - possibly they - is an explorer, and he's nearing the end of his life. But aside from what he's been doing on the cliff sides, from the diary or letters we know little else - just the writer's feelings and thoughts.

As we travel through the wilderness of Devon (actually, it turns out it is an island in the outer Hebrides, but I think the Esther's accident happened in England), we discover many strange markings. Is it science? Aliens? Madness? Towards the end of the game, there are whole phrases and sentences on the cliff face - they both mean something and nothing to us. We have no idea otherwise who the author is, whether he even painted all these strange markings! Just that he lost someone very dear to him and is going through grief.

The ending is quite the climax, for a game in which technically nothing happens. It is a journey and all journeys have to end. How it ends, you'll have to play to find out.

Were the 2 hours worth it? From a couple play through point of view: yes. We had fun. We were both engrossed as I navigated through, investigating anything that the boyfriend pointed out, or that I felt was worth seeing. There are no directions as such in the game, and I guess we were just lucky that we'd taken the "main route" and played through more quickly. There may have been some more at the start, outside of the caves.

From a gaming point of view? It's a short game and not a lot of effort is required. I think it was worth it, if only to play through once, and I believe that on Steam it is never much more than £7. Which is reasonable for what the game is.

I'll certainly end up buying it just to play through it again - maybe play through with my brother. Some things just have to be shared. Aside from that, the game apparently offers a unique experience each time you play, as the audio is randomly generated, and so aspects and emphases might change. Either way, you should probably play through at least once.

Ode to Joss

Ok, so I actually saw The Avengers the first week it was out (for my birthday, GREAT timing :D), but you know how it is with blogging. You're too busy having fun elsewhere sometimes and everything piles up!

What I like to call his 'visionary' pose.

Oh, Joss Whedon, you've had a very good year. You've announced the secret production of 'Much Ado About Nothing', starring the world's favourite Whedonites, you've released a popular horror film with Cabin in the Woods (I've not seen it, but I'm told it's very good and not too scary - Joss couldn't resist adding his trademark humour, throwing in the odd pastiche and homage to the genre) and then record breaking The Avengers.

It deserved its record breaking status. The thing that amazed most audiences, I think, is the fact that the film simply shouldn't work. It's the culmination of 4 super hero films, with the addition of two extras whose background films haven't yet - if they ever do - been made. There needs to be continuity for the four main films in order for it to flow, and yet it needs to make sense. A lot of the time, the characters are just talking at each other - and this wouldn't have worked if, say, Steven Spielberg had directed. (Sorry, Steve.)

Joss's wit, storytelling and general genius really shines through with this film.

We don't require too much development of Tony Stark, as we see how he has changed in Iron Man 2. However Joss still throws in a nice bit of Tony's homelife now that he is with Pepper. They're seen working together creating building designs and whatnot. Pepper is wearing casual clothing - no shoes. They're quite lovey dovey, really. 

He is seriously gorgeous, too.

Hulk needs to be reintroduced, since we all know there have been two or three flop films previously. And may I say, Mark Ruffalo, where have you been all my life? He is PERFECT. He's a quiet, understated and observant Bruce Banner, with all the underlying menace as he bitterly comments on SHIELD's 'craziness' at keeping him cooped up with everyone in the sky. His relationship with Stark is lovely, too, as the two scientists share mutual respect and insight.

Black Widow's character is the most developed of all, as Whedon works his magic to undo any indication that she is somehow a token female, with the few dimensions of Michael Bay's Mikaela Banes. (Even Megan Fox wasn't happy with her character.)

We see her use her whiles to get information out of Loki, showing tenderness and emotion, coupled with professionalism as she listens to what Loki has done to Hawkeye. 

She is proven to be a dangerous adversary without the bizarre and unrealistic choreographed kung fu stylefighting seen in Iron Man 2. 

And, to defeat once again that she is 'just a token female', we have of course Maria Hill briefly introduced, who is herself a key player in the storyline, for the sequel AND as a scene filler. She is a career woman who is just as capable as Black Widow to hold her own, her first scene being the evacuation of a SHIELD HQ in a fast driving car, shooting guns at an escaping Loki.

She gets her hands dirty, and although we don't see much of her or much character development, you can tell she will be a key figure in later films.

I wasn't overly taken with Hawkeye at first - I didn't care that he'd been taken over so quickly and easily by Loki, and I wasn't sure I cared much what happened to him, but I really do hope now that they do a cross over film with Black Widow's. It'd be good. I think if Marvel reckon they can't flesh out a Black Widow background film, they should definitely throw in Hawkeye. I mean, I think I speak for most of the internet fandoms when I say, WE NEED TO KNOW WHAT HAPPENED IN BUDAPEST.


And of course, Coulson's built upon, and even gets some of the best lines in the entire film.

The only criticisms I have - and it's not entirely Whedon's fault - is the shallowness of Loki's character. He doesn't really have a drive or real motive (though there are plenty of theories explaining his actions in this film to be a means of getting back to Asgard for Thor 2, the *real* sequel) and his mental state and emotions are less complex than they could have been. It was a very watered down Lion King 2 style storyline, only instead of being Kovu, he's Zira.
And boy, does Whedon punish his arrogance. xD

And perhaps that Maria Hill was a teeny bit shoe-horned, but only a bit. And it's not really anybody's fault. Couldn't very well leave her out, either.

Perhaps the reason the film works so well weaving the characters' stories together is that the characters themselves have to learn to work as a team - The Avengers. To start with they each have their own opinions and agendas, not really trusting each other. Captain America and Stark start on the wrong foot, whilst Thor just generally does not get them.

The script too is a big reason the film works so well. It's full of sharp one liners, with perfect delivery and comic timing. And there's plenty of piss-taking of each individual character - from Nick Fury's one-eyedness to Captain America understanding a Wizard of Oz reference.

The Avengers was quite simply marvellous, putting the bar very high for potential Black Widow/Hawkeye/Hulk and other sequel films in the Marvelverse, and I am certain that Whedon will do a great sequel.
(Though apparently he's 'torn' about doing it. Which makes fans everywhere weep.)

Incidentally, if you're interesting in what Joss had to say about his phenomenal record breaking week, read his thanks to his fans.