From this:
http://www.gameongirl.com/podcast-posts/2014/9/10/misogyny-missive-red-dead-sexism.html
#GamerGate continues.
***
"This is the kicker right here. These moments of violence against women are distractions from the main gam — a minor roadblock meant to add a sense of "realism" to the world."
There's nothing wrong with exposition, textures, models, etc., in fleshing out a game world.
"However, women are never truly empowered in Red Dead Redemption."
Considering it's a story about John, that's irrelevant. This isn't "Red Dead Talk About Women's Issues Redemption." It's about John and his. Saving women is part of that, if you want it to be.
"Recently, before Anita's latest video, I was wondering if there was perhaps another reason I didn't feel like replaying the game. I then remembered that the women who were major players in the plot suffered terrible brutalities as well."
Sounds like your brain has been infiltrated by feminist nonsense. You don't feel like playing a cowboy, riding a horse, in a redemption story in the wild west because women -- who were major players in the plot -- suffered terrible brutalities as well? As well as...the men? 'Cause you can at minimum triple the count of brutalities that occur to the men, even the non-plot related ones, and the death and pain they encounter.
Be sure to pick your jaw up off the ground when you start feeling bad about that.
"When Jack Marston, John's son, takes over the post-game narrative, Abigail has died from a long illness, making every single prominent woman in the game the equivalent of damaged goods...which is fitting, given how all of the women are essentially objects in the overall scheme of the game... one way or another."
So raped women = damaged goods = women are objects? What? John's wife was an object? John's family was the point he was motivated into saving, that is, he was trying to redeem himself from his past life of crime, while trying to keep his family out of his current means of doing so. Things came to a point, and he sacrificed himself at the end to save them.
If women are essentially objects, so are horses, stage coaches, and every other semi-interactive object in the game.
"So, Anita's video reminded me of all this misogyny lurking within RDR, and now makes me wonder if I really should replay it. Thus the difficulty of criticism. I liked the game, but I am repulsed by its use of women as narrative objects instead of being, you know, human beings. As Anita states in her video:"
Thus the difficulty with biased, nonsensical feminist criticism.
Repeat after me: there's nothing wrong with pain, death, or other such negative things, in art. Would you rather there be no women to save? No women at all to talk about or see?
Or would you like their death count to equal that of the men? 50/50?
"These women and their bodies are sacrificed in the name of infusing “mature themes” into gaming stories. But there is nothing mature about flippantly evoking shades of female trauma. It ends up sensationalizing an issue which is painfully familiar to a large percentage of women on this planet while also normalizing and trivializing their experiences."
So it's mature, but it's not mature, because she says so? Wanting to protect and help your family isn't mature? Trying to help women from being killed isn't mature? Shades of female what? How about those boatloads of men you mow down every 20 minutes? Who cares why random men/women were killed for various reasons? Some are killed -- if the player doesn't intervene. The context is key to what's going on in a sandbox environment, and why the player should be bothered. Is the entire town evil? Is everyone in the game? Or do you want to just go rope down some horses? Is John the last bastion of what's good and bad in the world? You can choose to help them or not, or have fun. That's the game. You can't expect giant expositions on every random event dealing with "issue X of my crusade" because feminism.
And there's nothing wrong with the depiction men or women in states of helplessness, and allowing the player to help them. That's a good thing. If you want sexism or misogyny in games to make a statement? You're going to need a lot more sexism and misogyny.
If Anita was a member of PETA and talking about the treatment of horses, it'd the same shoddy, nonsensical entitled hogwash.
"It's not edgy just to throw women under the proverbial bus. It would truly be mature to not swipe from Hollywood's "adult-oriented" bag of tricks, and instead question or critique our society's standards of gender in less "shocking" ways."
It's the wild west. Grow up. Also, say the same for the multitude of men that have been thrown under the "proverbial bus".
"I'm still trying to untangle the implications of Anita's video towards my enjoyment of video games, but I am feeling fairly confident that Red Dead Redemption, for everything it does right, made some very poor narrative decisions that will haunt my desire to ever replay it to completion again. I will still likely enjoy its excellent gameplay and exploring its open-world spin on the American West, but I will definitely not relish its disappointing, cliched portrayal of women that plagues our industry."
Don't bother: she's a biased, lying, opportunist. If she's impacting your enjoyment of a video game, you've already lost.
****
EDIT: I got a response
And here's mine
***
"A) I am a feminist. So saying that my "brain has been infiltrated by feminist nonsense" is sort of ironic."
Ironically accurate?
"Also, feminist criticism is, as much as you'd prefer it not to be, a legitimate form of criticism well regarded in academic circles. You may not like it, but that does not diminish its importance."
Which academic circles would those be? Last I checked, feminism was just an offshoot of socialism. I'd love to see what kind of brilliant minds occupy those ivory towers.
"B) The point I'm making here is that women in RDR are incapable of defending themselves. All of the men John guns down have the capability to fight back. The women don't. That's why Anita (and myself) are critiquing the game's handling of women. You want to argue that men die a lot more often in the game, but that's not the issue at hand here. I'm not saying women need to die in equal amounts to men; I'm saying that women ought to be able to do as much as men. That's the difference."
Just re-read your article. Sorry, didn't see that at all. Where is it?
If the women fought back, and won, the player wouldn't have anything to do, making the whole scene irrelevant. Aside from a moment of comedy, no game designer would actively want to do this.
If the women fought back, and lost, then you'd be whining that women aren't strong enough/gender bias/sexism/misandry/LMNOP; oh, like you are now.
Yes, that is the issue. Men DO die a lot more in that game. But you're so focused on the women, that you didn't notice the hordes of men that die by the PLAYERS hands.
The player. As in, John. The guy you're playing. Which is the point of RDR game. To play a western. Not to cater to your bias. Again, you could be a PETA member and whine about the treatment horses, and you'd have the same inane argument.
NPCs, window dressing, things that color the world, are not the focus. Be thankful you even get to interact and SAVE women! My god! Saving women is so bad! Again this is not "Red Dead Strong-Female-NPC Redemption." Stop being an entitled baby and whining about this or that NPC not being your idea of what a woman is!
"C) Anita may have influenced my thoughts here, but she is not the arbiter of my reactions. I was thinking of these issues before the video was released; Anita merely gave me an impetus to consider it further."
And further down the insanity hole you go.
"D) I'm 31. I've grown up plenty. No need for petty insults. It undermines your argument."
I'm making observations. What petty insults?
'E) Ditto with calling Anita a " biased, lying, opportunist".'
Would you like proof of Anita being biased (feminist, doesn't respond to criticism), lying ("not a gamer Sarkeesian", and soon to be, lying about contacting the police), an opportunist (pro-victim card at every turn, 150k+ with no accounting or increase in quality.)
See, these are not ad hominem statements. These are observations. I'm not attacking her character. She's done that herself.
'F) You state that "there's nothing wrong with pain, death, or other such negative things, in art. Would you rather there be no women to save? No women at all to talk about or see?" That again is not the point.'
What is the point? What is the point of art? I can tell you one of the points of what RDR is trying to be, but you don't seem to care.
"You're acting like RDR is a perfect recreation of the American West. It's not."
Never said it was. I don't even think it ever said it was. It's fiction -- art. Deal with it.
"I've worked in a museum for three and a half years that focuses on the history of the Gold Rush. I have access to tons of books, files and newspapers from the 1850s. RDR is a Hollywood-inspired tale of the West, and it shows in how it handles women. If there were women who had the same agency as men, I'd be less likely to complain. And that's what I'm trying to say here."
Well, la-di-dah, museum person. Who said RDR was a "perfect recreation of the American West" aside from you? Sounds like you wanted it to be that, instead of the game it was trying to be. Guess what? It's not. It's. FICTION!
But if a game designer, a developer, and a writer, walk into a bar (saloon), and want to make a game that's fun to play, and a story about a man's redemption in the Wild West, that can save some damsels if they feel like it, and it's not about some petty observation about NPCs? You get RDR.
