I wondered why there were so many comments attached to that post, as if a videogame was the most important issue at hand.

"but I digress and sorry mom"

haha -You're one of my favorite bloggers, Samhita.

"Breslin concludes her piece with a clear frustration that misogyny is so pervasive that we can't do anything to fight it."

But, hey, if you can't fight it, at least you can fit in with the tech boyz by slamming those no-fun feminists and their "overwrought" complaints!

Ugh, I saw that post and it drove me up the wall. I usually love reading Boing Boing, but that was just pathetic.

Robos A Go Go, I think main reason for the volume of discussion in the other thread is that it's the sort of issue that the sort of people who spend time arguing in online forums enjoy discussing.

Personally, I (and a lot of people in the other thread) have some respectful disagreements with the conclusions that Samhita reached in her original post. I think it's a shame that the folks at Boing Boing had to resort to insulting and condescending rhetoric to express their disagreement.

One thing that fanboys are very good at is compartmentalizing the argument. e.g. The video you linked to was not the "official" trailer, ergo, your entire premise is false and the game is not misogynist.

Not that I have any experience with this or anything. :)

"But is it SO crazy to have a gender critique of the way that women are depicted in GTA?"

Well, a little. It's like applying standards of historical authenticity to Meet the Spartans, given the targets' spectacular immunity.

Samhita:

HELLS YEAH! I agree completely with your entire post and can I get another HELLS YEAH!

Seems to me that the GTA crowd knows and understands how extremely fucked up it is, but can only stand there and sputter defensively. Where's the engaged analysis and believable counter-argument to anything you've said in this post? If anyone can read this post and disagree with it, their head is in the sand and da nile ain't just a river in Africa.

Right on, Samhita! Keep it up!

I was really upset to see that post this morning, too. I usually enjoy Boing Boing (though I question the accuracy of their subtitle some days), but after that piece of shit they pilled this morning, I took them off my reading list.

Ponygirl, you're false characterizing the argument as being more one-sided and self-serving than it is. The actual argument was to the effect that one could just as easily make a GTA4 montage of killing men only, or people of a certain race, or whatever, and that video would fail to prove that the game itself was inherently prejudiced. Given that the inherent design of the game does not lend itself any more or less easily to killing hundreds of prostitutes than it does hundreds of Group X, the designers are not culpable for the specific choices made by the video's creator. The party who is guilty of singling out prostitutes is the author of the video.

oh and PS, your gender-specific "fanboy" is pretty sexist, and suggests a closed mind and an "US vs THEM" mentality

and AngryYoungFemme, and the answer to your "where's the analysis?" question is right there in the other thread. In fact, Samhita herself popped in to compliment one of the particularly sober, "let's all try to understand the other side a little better" posts.

Unicorn, are there lots of opportunities in GTAIV to watch a man do a homoerotic striptease, or solicit male prostitutes, and then kill them? No? Hm, I wonder why that is. Maybe we need another fan video.

The party who is guilty of singling out prostitutes is the author of the video.

No, the author of the video is the design team that painstakingly created a universe that negates the option for a female protagonist, denies the existence of non-hetero sex, and will only create female sex workers.

And I have to agree, there's nothing wrong with seriously questioning the underlying assumptions that game designers bring to their world-building. If it starts a dialog that involves gamers and designers then maybe the end result can be positive.

I agree with you Samhita.

I still like to think about taking action and being practical. I believe discussions are important but they can pull us apart if they get too heated like the ones on that thread. Under-representation of women, misrepresentation of women and funny and entertaining depictions of violence against women are problems in our popular culture. But we are not going to all agree on what sucks and what doesn't.

we should be able to take action on issues that most can agree on. Otherwise I personally think it's useless and we will just end up being pissed off!

a suggestion: let's come up with a system where we can send letters/emails to people and companies (and media) for instances that they do a good job according to your specific feminist point of view. So we can reinforce a good behavior even with people and groups that are not 100% good (And what does "good" mean anyway? we are not a religion the last time I checked.)

I have learned that shaming people and expecting perfection does not encourage a change in behavior. If we want a real change we should become more creative.

for example, the post about madonna, I personally don't like her but if she has ever done something that is empowering to women, we can let her know that as feminists, we liked it, even though we might not like some other things.

I don't know, .. all of this might sound obvious, but it seems to me that we still don't have a unified front when it comes to taking action.

I read Reverse Cowgirl's post, and I think your response is spot on.

Women who hate women depress me.

Just saying.

Oh jeez, not this again.

If a movie critic were to publish a review declaring that "I have not seen this movie, don't want to see this movie, but based on the trailer, it sucks", they would be widely ridiculed, and deservedly so.

I think a lot of the bile that's getting leveled at the original post was based on the fact that Samhita's "critiquing" a game based solely on a trailer assembled by someone clearly looking for the sexy bits.

I think that's a totally valid criticism to make.

Unfortunately, this comes out as "feminists suck LOLOLOL!" because gamers, as I mentioned in my post, gamers are primarily adolescent boys.. who sometimes write like adolescent boys.

(for what it's worth, the offending trailer has been pulled from IGN.)

Ponygirl, I'm not trying to rehash the whole argument; the other thread is still going. I'm only contending that your characterization of the "fanboy" response was unfair and inaccurate, which I feel I've proven successfully.

The fact that I disagree with certain criticisms put forth doesn't mean that I think the game represents the pinnacle of defensible enlightenment. I disagree that the video proves that inherent to the game is a specific hatred for women. That's it.

To that end, I'm happy to grant that omission of male sex workers from the game doesn't really make sense. Even though the protagonist is heterosexual, male sex workers & strip clubs should still logically exist. The game is heteronormative, to be sure.

I mainly take exception to your pronunciation of all the "fanboys" as inferior & wrong.

sgzax, to clarify I meant to say the party guilty of singling out prostitutes FOR EXECUTION is the video's author. I don't believe that the design team's failure to include male prostitute characters equates to specific encouragement to kill female prostitutes. Again, it's heteronormative, but that's the worst accusation you can make.

Ms Kar3n, I have to disagree with you.

I have never bought violent rape pornography, but that doesn't mean I can't object to it. Furthermore in instances where I HAVE sat through a vile sexist movie, my objections to it don't carry any more weight to the fans of that movie than if I hadn't seen it.

Samhita's argument are not based around the plot of the game, they are based around the depictions of women in the game, which was self-evident from that trailer. She doesn't have to play the game to declare that it's wrong.

and PS sgzax, ditto to the rest of what you said about questioning the fundamental rules of the game's universe.

Doesn't the word polysyllabic contain more syllables than patriarchy.

Just saying.

Doesn't the word polysyllabic contain more syllables than patriarchy.

Just saying.

I find it sort of bizarre that the game only actually came out on April 29th, and it's already being derided when the game can only possibly be beaten in around 30 hours. So unless theres a lot of bleary-eyed bloggers posting after an epic gaming session, they haven't gotten a fair representation of the game.

Someone pointed it out right on the Boing Boing comments; the game is social satire, and a well written one at that. However, to be fair, a whole lot of people playing the game aren't there to appreciate the biting dialogue.

Phantom hit it pretty well on the nose; it's not specifically violence towards women. Theres no 'bonus' or something for specifically hunting down and killing prostitutes or women. You can rob or kill people at will; the game is a city populated with all kinds of NPCs, obviously including females (most of whom are not prostitutes) But you aren't going to see "GREAT JOB 10X BONUS!!!" or something for doing these things. If –anything-, you’re also conversely discouraged from killing *anyone*. The only real benefit you get (in context of the game) from killing or maiming random NPCs is couple bucks off a pedestrian, but there’s an active police presence in the depicted city, and killing someone usually tips them off.

The game is what you make of it. It's a crime game; it violent, its offensive, and its made to be interactive. It has the potential to be -less- gruesome as well as -more- gruesome in its *violence* towards any one group. Like it was stated; the gross violence depicted in GTA isn't the root cause of violence. But it also isn't required. There are homosexuals in the game. There are minorities. There are males. The game could be faulted just as much for “encouraging� hunting any of them down specifically.

Now actually having strip clubs and prostitutes in the game? That’s a whole other debatable issue.

This game does not have a character creation process. When you play the game, you play as a veteran Serbian expatriate. I don't think you can fault them for not having a female playable character in it any more than you can fault a movie for having a male protaganist, because that aspect is not interactive, is not a choice. We may disagree with the choice of the lead character, and have good reasons to, but its an artistic and technical choice. Creating an alternative backstory, voicing lines, animating an entirely different central character is no small or quick feat, and the company making the game is in the midst of a bit of a financial crisis, having a buyout offer from Electronic Arts on the table and not performing up to profit expectations (leading up to this game, at least). Not that I feel I should defend the publishers for that.

It doesn't deny the existence of homosexual sex, though. As a modern social satire, how could it? They deny the ability to -engage- in it, as far as I've observed. But again; the character they created is a heterosexual male, so that makes sense in gameplay and plot terms.
Now, were you able to make your own character, not accomodating homosexual sex and a choice of gender as options would have been a glaring omission, but I don't believe it's the case with this.

But one last time; not all of the women in GTA IV are strippers or prostitutes, and there is no weighted gameplay benefit to committing acts of -violence- against women.

The problem is, Ponygirl, that a video game is fundamentally different from a movie. It'd be a better analogy if the game featured violent, pre-choreographed cut scenes in which women were slaughtered in numbers disproportionate to men, but to my knowledge this is not the case.

I appreciate what you're trying to illustrate with your extreme example of rape pornography, but I still disagree. You can't say with 100% certainty that you know everything that's going to be in that rape porno, and you'd definitely be at an informational disadvantage if you tried to have an argument with someone who HAD seen it.

Here's what I don't get. How come Breslin's conclusion that we can't "police men's fantasies" (using the example of men who actually use prostitutes, which takes it out of the realm of fantasy) is somehow acceptable to the male blogosphere? If I were a man, I'd be really offended that a female blogger believes that I need to pay for sex because I can't control my violent/abusive tendencies, while women seem to be able to control themselves. You'd think that an invitation to discussion would be more appealing.

I have never bought violent rape pornography, but that doesn't mean I can't object to it...

At least the purveyors of that porn are not grossly misleading.

Take "Captivity" for example. Or the "Hostel" movies. The trailers show women getting tortured, the director has said that's what the plot is about, everyone who's seen the first movies in the series agree that women get tortured.. here, "that movie is sexist and violent and practically porn" would be a valid criticism, since nothing seems to be misleading about it.

However.. trailers are sometimes deceiving, and that's what's going on with the "trailer" from the original post.

If you watch the trailer that was posted on (and produced by) IGN, yes, it looks like a game about strip clubs.

But judging from the feedback from actual gamers who have played the game saying "no, that's not what's it's about", reviewers who have reviewed then game saying "no, that's not what it's about", and the fact that the trailer got pulled off the site after Fox said it was misleading (which is really saying something, ha ha).. I think a second look is in order, and I think reveiwers should be more informed before passing judgement. Especially when they admit they're not familiar with the game to begin with.

I've been banging my head on the wall in that comment thread on BoingBoing for the past fifteen hours or so. A few people in there have been really great, though. I was glad to see some feminists appear in the BoingBoing universe, as it's often me against a bunch of anti-feminists in comment threads there.

Ms. Kar3n,

All the sex workers in the game are women. There are no male sex workers.

Yes, a lot of men can get killed, but to the extent that's true, they're being killed by other men, not by women. To the extent that women are killed, they're killed by men, not women.

We already live in a culture where a lot of men think using prostitutes and even abusing prostitutes is acceptable. This is evident from the extremely high percentage of sex workers who /have/ been subjected to violence by multiple clients. What is so hard to understand about how a game like this might reinforce the status quo?

Here, just to reinforce my point, I'll repost some stats I gathered for a poster on another thread:

Some statistics, for whoever asked (You know statistics are always imperfect, and vary from study to study, but here are some different ones I found that should give you a general idea):

"A 1995 study by the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS) found that people who were sexually abused as children are a whopping 27.7 times as likely as others to be arrested for prostitution. "

"The CIR study showed that 21.4 percent of women working as escorts had been raped 10 times or more, with comparable rates for other types of sex work. "

http://www.rapeis.org/activism/prostitution/sexworkerscivilrights.htm

"Eighty-two percent of these respondents reported having been physically assaulted since entering prostitution. Of those who had been physically assaulted, 55% had been assaulted by customers. Eighty-eight percent had been physically threatened while in prostitution, and 83% had been physically threatened with a weapon....Sixty-eight percent...reported having been raped since entering prostitution. Forty-eight percent had been raped more than five times. Forty-six percent of those who reported rapes stated that they had been raped by customers. "

"Fifty-seven percent reported a history of childhood sexual abuse, by an average of 3 perpetrators. Forty-nine percent of those who responded reported that as children, they had been hit or beaten by a caregiver until they had bruises or were injured in some way...Many seemed profoundly uncertain as to just what "abuse" is. When asked why she answered "no" to the question regarding childhood sexual abuse, one woman whose history was known to one of the interviewers said: "Because there was no force, and, besides, I didn't even know what it was then - I didn't know it was sex." "

http://womensissues.about.com/od/rapesexualassault/a/Wuornos.htm

As I hope you can see, violence against sex workers is not just fantasy, it is no fucking joke.

Even if the percentage of people who would be tempted to act out something based on a game like this is very small, it still helps to normalize the violence. And anyway, it's just plain unnecessary...

Lauren, keep it up, I'm with ya. I've been reading the comments and just posted, but I'm going to try and put together a more thoughtful post in the meantime.

Also, Mighty Ponytail, I agree with your analogy. I've heard this argument so many times before: "If you haven't actually played the game, then you have no right to criticize it". This is just a load of BS made to stifle conversation and invalidate what most of us women have been saying. Mostly I hear it coming from those whiny people (menz) that don't want to hear their precious video game criticized, even though they may know, in the back of their head, that women and feminists have every right to be p.o.-ed about the games sexist depiction of women.

Unicron_The_Vagina, as far as I'm concerned, saying a person has no right to criticize this game simply because they have never played it, is very weak...A person who hasn't played the game, can still take issue to a concept that is brought up in the game, and in this case, I'm against the concept of having sex with prostitutes, then killing them and otherwise treating them like disposable objects, (a concept which is represented in this game.) We as feminists, women have every right to criticize this, and telling us we don't because we "haven't played the game", sounds more to me like "shut up, you're just a girl, and what you have to say doesn't matter"...considering this game is marketed to and mostly played by men.

So, I take offense to what you said. I have every right to criticize anything I want, and I don't need you to tell me what is and isn't off limits. Thank you very much.

Ahhh, sorry Unicron_The_Vagina, I just realized that my whole rant should have been directed at Ms. Kar3n, because she was the one that brought up the whole "you have no right to criticize if you haven't played the game" thing. Sorry 'bout that. I mixed up the names. Feel silly. My bad.

Although both Ms. Kar3n and Unicron_The_Vagina, did agree with and defend that point...so...I disagree with both of you.

Sorry for the repeated posts everyone.

ok,... It seems that I'm talking to a wall.

I'm not a "gamer" but I have played the (previous version of the) game. I didn't have a huge problem with it because I didn't attack any women (in the 1 hour duration that I played the game). But I do find the whole thing sexist. as I find our whole pop-culture to be that way. but so what? why does it matter what we think when nothing comes out of it other than pissing each other off?

I don't find this whole conversation constructive... I have read comments by feminist gamers who absolutely hate the game and feminist gamers who love it. So I don't see where else we can go from here.

Well meeneecat, I think I agree with everything Ms. Kar3n said, so no apology necessary. I think, however, that my stance is a bit more sympathetic than "PLAY THE GAME OR STFU".

I don't think the fact that you haven't played the game means that you're not entitled to your opinion. I just don't think that you should be surprised or offended if an opinion based on limited information turns out to be mistaken.

Don't you think it would be unfair for someone to read a couple of out-of-context and incendiary comments by self-identified feminists, and then immediately close themselves off to the whole movement & philosophy as a result?

A thought just occurred to me; I should play a multiplayer match of GTA4 in which I instructed one of my fellow human players to indiscriminately assault all the women then encounter. I can then stop each assault and kill the aggressor, thus making a pro-woman vigilante video!

all then women THEY encounter; sorry

So after reading some of your comments in the other thread, talking a bit more about the game and why you like it, I will say that I understand that many feminist (or feminist-friendly) gamers enjoy the game and want to defend it from accusations that it's misogynist.
I appreciate that a lot of feminists are into gaming. I appreciate that some gamers are into it for various reasons.

I think the rest of us are just frustrated and threatened because, whether YOU are like this or not, a lot of people are going to be playing the game all weekend because they get off on misogyny.
A lot of people like the game specifically *because* they want to kill women ("hookers" in particular) on screen.
And that's troubling.

"but so what? why does it matter what we think when nothing comes out of it other than pissing each other off?"

I think more comes out of it than pissing each other off.

Otherwise, what would be the point of /ever/ having public debate about anything? We should just yield to the status quo, right? *rolls eyes*

Social change usually happens very slowly. Anyone smart enough to be on these threads should know that. But it still /happens/. And what this site does is create debate. And some people might rethink aspects of their positions. Some people might learn some things they didn't previously know. Some people might be inspired to come up with a new way to fight the problems they think they see.

"Why are we arguing, arguing sucks and we can't save the world overnight" is lazy thinking. Sorry.

I'm also going to point out that this is a "sandbox" type of game, thus it is entirely possible to encounter a representative proportion of the game in about 5 hours. It also does not deviate from the established GTA formula of "anti-hero protagonist participates in criminal activities while trying to avoid police attention." So while many complainants might not have finished out the game yet, that doesn't mean that they can't have a good idea regarding its content--which is largely filth.

I would buy the "clever satire" argument if the principal focus of the game was to progress through the story mode, where there is a lot of good satirical humor about urban stereotyping. But the principal focus is to enable the player to be as bad as he wants and to act out various violent fantasies in this largely repercussion-free environment. You were caught by police after killing off the whole brothel? Lose one life! The "penalty" is wholly tokenized--it can also be evaded by any half-skilled player.

It's not a satire. It's entertainment predicated on theft, murder, trafficking and rape. It's being marketed to teenagers as "cool" and "mature". You don't have to be a marathon gamer to know that it's unhealthy at best and filth at worst. It's fine with me that they make these games* and I'm sure that there are plenty of intelligent adults who do appreciate the satirical aspects. But the incredible height of its popularity with people who enjoy it literally and without social analysis is incredibly frustrating.

*but don't get me started on my opinions about marketing and ratings enforcement

"thus making a pro-woman vigilante video!"

You mean like chivalry?
Chivalry \= feminist, FYI

A "feminist" game would be more like one in which women were equal actors, and men and women could fill the same roles as NPC or PC.

"A "feminist" game would be more like one in which women were equal actors, and men and women could fill the same roles as NPC or PC."

I guess I should have said, in order to be feminist, a game would probably have to /at the least/ meet that requirement

It seems to me that if IGN posted that trailer, they felt it was a decent representation of what the games is or could be about. It doesn't matter that you don't HAVE to kill prostitutes; they are intentionally advertising that feature of the game.

I had to stop reading the comments because my head was going to explode, but I specifically liked the guy using Lysistrata and Taming of the Shrew as examples of women's awesome and universal control. You know the Greek comedy about how crazy it would be if ladies withheld sex and the play where the fiery female protagonist becomes a zombie servant in the end. Good examples.

"I just don't think that you should be surprised or offended if an opinion based on limited information turns out to be mistaken."

Unicron, Who said I was surprised or offended by Samhita's post. I personally think she had all the information she needs to decide that she didn't like what's depicted in this game. Doesn't matter whether or not she played the game. She's critiquing a concept (one of many) that is presented in the game: the treatment of sex workers and women as objects. I know perfectly well about GTA games too, I'm a gamer, I've played them before, and as someone who is familiar with games in general, and GTA games specifically, I'm also defending Samhita's and other's legitimate concern about what's presented in the game, even though they may or may not have played it that really doesn't matter.

I have a feeling people are more offended that someone else would have the audacity to criticize a game that they enjoy. I mean, I haven't heard thus far anyone really defend the killing of prostitutes in this game, I've mostly head people take our criticism and spin it into "feminists want to censor us" or "feminists want to take away our toys". I think someone on the BoingBoing thread said it best with:

"I have the inescapable impression that gamers feel that their right to entertain themselves is more important than any other consideration that anyone else could possibly imagine...Perhaps, if you weren't so busy screaming about censorship, you would notice that you are trying to censor your critics. That blade cuts with both edges."
(antinous)

It just grosses me out that in a game kids routinely play, you can have sex with a sex worker and kill her. I mean, WTF? I know the game is screwed up in various other ways.

One time we were watching the second 'Mad Max' movie (I was at home, as an adult, and it was on TV) and my mother said "I just can't stand the opening scene from this movie," and left the room. I asked her about it later, thinking it was more of her just not liking gory movies (with some exceptions, i.e., Sweeney Todd, of all things) but she said it was because of the rape scene.

A few years later, I got sick of the "rape scene as plot point to move conflict forward for male character where female character has no voice/is slaughtered." Think about how many movies you can come up with where this happens. The Usual Suspects (Keyser Soze's wife), that Mad Max movie, that whole series of Charles Bronson movies (his daughter, after being raped STOPS TALKING)(Death Wish! That's it), The Crow, Kalifornia, etc., etc. And now, I talk about it, because the more people talk about it, the more we are likely to stop making movies/video games that normalize that attitude about rape as plot device.

Ninapendamaishi they CAN fill the same roles in multiplayer.

All three roles (attacker, victim, vigilante) can be whatever gender you like, so I'll just ignore your condescending accusation of condescension from earlier.

"Ninapendamaishi they CAN fill the same roles in multiplayer. "

That's good to know, at least. That doesn't change the fact, however, that you framed your "positive, oppositional video" to the misogynistic one as one in which women were being rescued (you didn't really say by whom) from killers.

But is it SO crazy to have a gender critique of the way that women are depicted in GTA? I am not trying to censor shit, nor am I surprised that there is so much violence in this video game. It is not as though I woke up yesterday and looked around and said, "wow pop culture is really violent and misogynistic!" I am not shocked by the violence in GTA, I am just saddened that this is where we are at and what we think is cutting edge, creative and awesome is gratuitous and not really that edgy.

This is perfect, Samhita. Exactly. It's another plot point on the vast storyboard of sexism and misogyny as injected (in lesser and greater ways) into our pop culture. There's nothing wrong with questioning the portrayal of women in this game -- we question the portrayal of women in *everything*. Why should games be immune?

And for those gamers who point out that the game is only what people make of it... this is only true in the same way that a book or a movie is only what you make of it. You could assemble sexist parts of a movie to show it's sexist, or sappy parts to show it's sappy, or funny parts to show it's funny, etc. Yes, games are more explicitly interactive than traditional media. But games still must work within the confines of their programming. Games really are like movies -- it's just that they're like 5 million hour long movies, where the vast majority of people (reasonably) only watch the parts of the movie they find most interesting (and where a decent chunk of the movie would be repetitive, once you had seen the most key parts of it). But every single thing that happens in a game has been pre-programmed, pre-designed, pre-accounted for in some manner. That's why you don't have male prostitutes; even if you wanted to turn Niko into a prostitute, you couldn't. The game isn't designed that way. Until the machines become self-aware, this is how it will always be, and so it IS valid to point out that the game favors certain choices over others. Clearly, it does, by the simple act of OFFERING some choices and not others.

That said, it's a bit distorted for someone to claim to have a better sense of a 5 million hour movie after watching a 2-minute trailer, than does someone who's watched ten hours of the movie. Neither of you has a perfect understanding of the movie, and both of you are entitled to your opinions, and both of you can reach valid conclusions about it. But it's NOT unreasonable for someone who has watched more of a movie to respond "I know what you're saying, but having watched a lot more of this, I think a broader perspective is warranted, and I personally disagree with your conclusion." Yes, everyone has the right to criticize the game, and some people have done so validly. But if you haven't played the game... um, well, NO, you DON'T know what you're talking about as well as someone who has played. That doesn't mean you have no right to an opinion, or that your opinion is necessarily a bad one -- but when push comes to shove, you can't back it up with independent research. So it's less persuasive.

Full disclosure: I own the game but have only played it online so far. I found the online feature a lot of fun and not particularly troubling. In fact, most of the gamers -- the vast majority of whom are male -- were pretty good-natured and just had fun with the game. Someone runs me over with his car. I come back and shoot him in the head. Etc. In a way... it's kind of like playing tag :)

As for the strippers and hookers, I haven't played that part of the game yet, but in my gut I suspect I won't find its narrative value sufficient to outweigh the harm of including it in the game. I am NOT a fan of the tacit acceptance of gendered sex work that we have in our society, or in the faux-feminism that tries to defend inequality under the misleading rubric of "choice." I drive past a "gentlemen's club" almost every day and, quite frankly, some days I almost kind of wish I *were* in the game and could ram my car right into the building...

Um. Not that I would ever actually do it.

Honestly you shouldn't even give these people the courtesy of a post. Polysyllabic always is a red flag for me. If someone calls you polysyllabic in a negative way, then that just means that they are both too stupid and too lazy to a) know what you are trying to say and b) try to figure out what you're trying to say. It's not worth fighting the ignorant. They have irrationality on their side.

I think that gamers are mostly just frustrated with others criticizing their hobby when they don't understand any of what they are talking about.
Samhitia's post contained just enough true information to sound legit, but a cursory glance by anyone that knew what they were talking about would reveal that many of the premises of the argument were based on misinformation. This is a common theme for fans of video games, and it can become tiresome to debate with people that refuse to entertain the notion that their entire position is rubbish.

GTA4 is heteronormative. There are times when it is misogynistic. There's no excuse not to have male hookers and male strip joints. It may even make sense to offer the option for the main character to try to date other men. I'm not convinced that it's plausible to expect every game company to allow the main character to pick their gender, so I can't fault it for that. I can fault that they haven't had a single female protagonist in the series history, which is either misogynistic or a reflection of the way things are (there aren't many females working their way up through the mafia, so far as I know).
So yes, the game has issues. Samhitia is right about that, but the arguments she used to get there are wrong, which makes her wrong too.

"I'm not convinced that it's plausible to expect every game company to allow the main character to pick their gender,"

really? why not?
it sounds pretty simple to me, especially in a game as intricately designed as games in the GTA series.

anyway, right on, samhita!

What gets me about all this GTA4 back and forth is that it all squicks of the different sects of christianity, pick and choosing which part of feminism they like that happens to support their argument, either for or against the game.

Either GTA4 is misogynistic or it's not. Decide.

From where I'm standing (as someone who has played the GTA games--holy crap, am I credible now?) the view is undoubtably: GTA hates women. One could argue that it hates life, too, what with all the killing, but there is an obvious and more heavily weighted hate towards women, period.

Gamers, stop squirming and whining and just acknowledge that you like to play a misogynistic game. No one is going to slap your wrist or take your game away. Get over it. GTA, in each of its manifestations and in GTA4 more than any of them, is DEFINITELY MISOGYNISTIC.

What is so hard to understand about this?

So how exactly would it be easy? The plotline of GTA4 involves a guy who did terrible things in a unamed eastern european country during a civil war(something it would not be realistic for a woman to do), and then joins the eastern european mafia(something it would not be realistic for a woman to do). You would have to write an entire second plot, with voice acting, essentially an entire second game.

And would people really feel better about the game if you could pick up and then murder male prostitutes?

Counterspin:
"So how exactly would it be easy? The plotline of GTA4 involves a guy who did terrible things in a unamed eastern european country during a civil war(something it would not be realistic for a woman to do), and then joins the eastern european mafia(something it would not be realistic for a woman to do)."

Am I to understand that you have authoritative knowledge on Eastern European mafia(s)?

Uh-huh.

From ReverseCowgirl's blog: I was watching the video you can see for yourself here, and when the guy in the car with the commendable soul pole got what he wanted and then ran over the woman who gave it to him, you know what I did? I laughed. Because I thought it was funny. Because this whole moronic outcry against what is nothing but an unabashed and unashamed articulation of Man's basest impulses run amok is nothing but hypocrisy. Here's a newsflash for you. This is the way people think. This is how things are. This is the way it is.

Seriously???? This is the way people think? She's certainly making a pretty broad generalization in stating that people think that killing hookers is funny. It's also incredibly sexist to suggest that all men have the impulse to kill women. Is this supposed to impress men?

Furthermore, all this: would this (insert example of something that is not included in the game) make it more palatable to feminist sensibilities crap is just missing the forest for the trees.

Samhita said/asked:
"But is it SO crazy to have a gender critique of the way that women are depicted in GTA?"

The question here is not whether the game is misogynistic or not--that's a given. The question, and it's one that no one has yet addressed, is:
"what [does] it say about youth today if their fantasies involve killing the women they are having sex with[?]"

Answer me that, and I'll engage in discussion.

AngryYoungFemme, you're not really arguing. You're just repeating your opinion with stronger and stronger language; "GET OVER IT! I'M RIGHT!" is not an argument. You're not addressing specific arguments that people are putting forward as to why they disagree with certain criticisms; you're just dismissing them by making a general characterization of gamers as squirmy and whiny.

As a feminist who presumably opposes the mass characterization of women, you should be vigilant about unfairly categorizing people; the logical framework for why sexism is both inaccurate and morally wrong has an ever-expanding wealth of applications in modern society.

Unicorn_The_Vagina:

How am I unfairly categorizing people? I asked questions which you have not answered. In fact, I could say that you are the one who, throughout this thread has continually addressed other commentors as if they're arguments are wrong and only your's are right.

All I'm doing is cutting through the crap that is polluting this argument and focusing on the ACTUAL QUESTIONS raised by Samhita.

Like I said: address the questions raised and I will engage. Until that happens, you're just in a pissing contest that will not end.

AYF,

I don't really think your question is as central to the whole discussion as you make it out to be, but I'll bite:

What proof do you have the killing of sex partners, in fact, a "fantasy" of youth today?

I hardly think the popularity of GTA4 is proof; even if you could prove that the "youth of today" are largely playing this game, and that they were killing prostitutes left and right, that doesn't prove that murdering sex partners is a fantasy. It just means that, for whatever reason, they enjoy watching the character in the game do it, knowing full well that their actions in the game are not hurting anyone in the real world.

In order for me to be creeped out by "youth" having this "fantasy", I'd have to imagine that said youth spent time with their eyes closed, imagining themselves murdering a sex partner, and imagining themselves enjoying it. I don't believe playing GTA4 is likely to cause this, though admittedly that's just my opinion.

Not that I agree with "him", but it's Unicron.

Sorry, it's just been driving me crazy to see everyone typing Unicorn.

"Gamers, stop squirming and whining"

You don't address the "meat" of their objections, you just say it's squirming and whining, so therefore you don't have to pay attention to it.

Obviously, I think I'm correct. Everyone here thinks that they are correct. That's what an opinion is. I don't pretend to KNOW that I'm correct, and I'm certainly open to hear people's opinions and justifications.

I value the discourse and as such I make an effort to be respectful to those with whom I disagree. If I fail in that effort, I apologize.

Jeez Vodalus, I didn't think I could choose a more feminine handle than a vagina; obviously it's not enough...

Unicrom, now you're not making any sense. "video games are not fantasy?" Let's see a fantasy is something that's not real, that's imagined. Yeah, I'd say video games ARE fantasy, especially because one of my favorites is called "final fantasy". Seems like fantasy to me.

So sorry.

UNICRON_the_vagina:

"I don't really think your question is as central to the whole discussion as you make it out to be, but I'll bite:"

Really? Did you read Samhita's post? And here I thought commenting on a blog should have something to do with the blogger's actual post. Those ARE her central questions! And no one has yet answered them or attempted to. I was simply asking if anyone would like to give it a go, you know, so we could actually talk about and address Samhita's post.

The proof that it's a fantasy of today's youth is in the fact that a game has been marketed to them involving the gratuitious "killing of sex partners." That's all I need to begin a discussion. Not that I should have to bring this up, but I have a BA in Media, Culture, and Communication, and I understand that things aren't marketed to people without there being a good, nay, great probability that those people will like and BUY what is being marketed to them.

The idea that killing sex partners, and specifically female sex partners, isn't a prevelant fantasy is obnoxious, as evidenced by the fact that the overwhelming majority of women murdered are killed by their intimate partners more than any other perpetrators. That's why we are addressing this: the problem of violence against women is already such a disgusting reality that I (I speak for myself only) have to question the validity of including this kind of content in a video game.

Don't believe me? Check this out:
http://www.endabuse.org/resources/facts/
or this:
http://www.amnesty.org/en/campaigns/stop-violence-against-women

And yes, I allow that saying the majority of the defenders' comments are "squirmy and whiny" was petulant on my part. I apologize. However, I didn't engage in the "meat" of their arguments because I didn't feel they made any. At least, none that I think will further the discussion, thus my call to address the questions that Samhita originally raised in her post.

Care to give it a try? How about an argument that the killing of sex partners ISN'T being marketed as a fantasy to the people, young or not, who play this game? How about answering a question with an answer and not another question?

You know, I was actually under the impression that you were some ironic hipster dude. Sorry about that; I think it was the misspelling of unicorn. Plus, I'm just a baby feminist, so I have certain ingrained perceptions left to root out.

Seriously though: I think that the defensibility of GTA (as a series of games) is marginal. Even if it doesn't specifically mandate sexualized violence against women, it glorifies violent criminality as a whole and profits by exploiting race/class stereotypes.

GTA is really one example of a time when the word "misogyny" is properly applied. The word is, sadly, so over-used in the feminist milieu that it loses all its force. Let's reserve it for these clears instances to help keep feminism from being so damn marginalized. Anything merely sexist is not necessarily misogynist -- nor misandrist. This movement does no good if we are content to preach to the choir, ranting with fists clenched. We need credibility, and the American people will buy into it.

P.S. I do NOT think that killing women is a prevalent fantasy among young males. To just ASSUME that's the case, because obviously SOME males do it, is sexist. Males skew so wide you'll find some males doing EVERYTHING. Is it far too common? I would guess definitely. I personally wouldn't mind seeing all these sorts of games yanked from the shelves. And guns, too.

Not to derail this further, but Unicron is awesome, except in that he thwarts Starscream's designs on the Decepti-throne.

Noah, I agree with your view of being careful in applying the term "misogyny." I do think it is more prevalent than many would acknowledge, however.

Meeneecat: "I have a feeling people are more offended that someone else would have the audacity to criticize a game that they enjoy."

Yeah, I get that feeling, too. So I think it is worth pointing out that playing a sexist game, no matter how virulently misogynistic, does not necessarily mean one is sexist. Clearly, most of the people posting here are not driving around in Liberty City going "Yee-uh, shootin' hookers."

But that doesn't mean that the game wasn't designed using misogynistic themes. While the player has more control over narrative than, say, a traditional reader, in no way is s/he a co-author. Other people have done great jobs in pointing out that the supposed gritty/"real" underworld has been carefully tailored to fit a specific, misogynistic fantasy. No boy prostitutes or AIDS in GTA4! That wouldn't be hardcore in a marketable way.

It's depressing that shooting prostitutes IS marketable... although not to fear, as apparently it's only an ironic prostitute, bleeding from a satirical bullet.

"I don't think polysyllabic is an insult."

Exactly! The anti-intellectualism, willful ignorance and intentional insensitivity in that post were ridiculous.

"I don't think polysyllabic is an insult."

Exactly! The anti-intellectualism, willful ignorance and intentional insensitivity in that post were ridiculous.

"I don't think polysyllabic is an insult."

Exactly! The anti-intellectualism, willful ignorance and intentional insensitivity in that post were ridiculous.

kakodaimon:
"It's depressing that shooting prostitutes IS marketable... although not to fear, as apparently it's only an ironic prostitute, bleeding from a satirical bullet."

Is this supposed to be sarcastic? I feel like it is, so I just wanted to clarify that I read your tone correctly, because I fail to see the irony or the satire...

Thanks!

Oh, I don't believe satire is the reason why GTA4 includes these elements at all. Sorry, tone is so hard to read over the internet.

Vodalus, not that I'm taking personal offense, but Transformers fans do come in all genders :). The fact that you still have preconceptions to "weed out" has nothing to do with how long you've identified as feminist, or how long you've made an effort to hold yourself accountable for prejudicial tendencies in general. EVERYONE has prejudices. Show me someone who has quit examining their attitudes & decisions because they've completely eliminated prejudice from their brain, and I'll show you an arrogant bigot.

SarahMC, well put.

Regarding the whole fantasy issue, yes I am well aware of the definition of fantasy, and I am aware of the "Final Fantasy" series. I'm just not convinced that playing the game amounts to fantasizing about the actions one takes in the game. I'll certainly agree what SarahMC said, and basically say that my stomach turns at the thought of the specific way the game will be played & received by both impressionable youth (and I'm explicitly saying "impressionable" because I don't believe the phrase "impressionable youth" is automatically redundant), and ignorant others (adults with existing sexist and/or violent tendencies).

I DON'T, however see the game's popularity as an indicator of the level of misogynist or violent desires in the mindset of the general public, or even the game-buying public. This disconnect is demonstrated by the fact that a lot of more-or-less enlightened folks here have (I think) justified their enjoyment of the game within an enlightened context. At the point where enlightened people can still like the game, then an affinity for the game is not indicative of an ignorant mindset, and the sales numbers in turn aren't hard evidence of widespread ignorance.

Make no mistake; I'm not pretending that society IS enlightened, or that we live in some sort of post-prejudicial world. There is PLENTY of other evidence of widespread misogyny, sexism, etc. in our society and the world at large. I'm just saying that the case for this game's popularity belonging squarely in that pile of evidence is murky at best.

AYF, I continue to take issue with your efforts to narrow the discussion to only those topics which you deem relevant. Again, you're dismissing out of hand the points which don't fit your arbitrary standard of topicality as "crap...polluting this argument".

Samhita wants to consider the implications of the game's depiction of sexualized violence, so I contend that arguments about the game's content are relevant to this consideration. Go read the other thread, especially the really long posts. People have made some very lucid and thorough arguments as to why they believe that the game does NOT depict sexual violence. I haven't yet seen those arguments successfully refuted, and I continue to agree with them.

I know the response here is going to be "How stupid can you possibly be to deny the sexualized violence in the game after seeing that video clip?!?!" Seriously; go read the other thread.

I've said before that I don't think the game is defensible on every front; I just see problems with some of the specific attacks & criticisms here.

In general, I think there are a lot of equally valid ways to play & interpret the game, and I don't think the fact that the marketing campaign leans heavily on particularly offensive violence changes that. The job of the marketing department is ultimately to move units, and it's their job to take a stab at the most effective way to appeal to people. Look at mass-market trailers for really good movies. The trailer for Dazed and Confused makes it look like a completely brainless stoner flick. In the actual movie, there IS a ton of pot smoking and really dopey characters who have a lot of fun, but I think it's clear that the movie expresses a lot more, if you're the sort of person that pays attention to subtext, character development, etc.

By the same token, I think there are lot of things, both positive and negative, to be found in playing GTA4.

If you play it looking for a prostitute-murdering simulator, you'll find it.

If you play it looking for a depiction of the dangerous conditions that result from the continued criminalization and marginalization of prostitution, you'll find it.

If you play it looking for an unqualified glorification of criminal violence, you'll find it.

If you play it looking for a satirical indictment of organized crime & society's response to it which uses hypermasculine violence as its medium, you'll find it.

If you play it looking for sexualized misogynist violence, you'll find it.

If you play it looking for completely indiscriminate violence, you'll find it.

I acknowledge that the possibilities are not COMPLETELY limitless. There are a lot of elements absent from the game, and a lot of these omissions are of a narrow, heteronormative, phallocentric nature. I hope that the culture of the gaming industry continues to evolve to reflect the ever-expanding strata of its consumer base.

Have a good day all.

...and as a PS, my refutation of these specific criticisms should NOT be construed as either

a)
approval of the post on Boing Boing

b)
ignorance/dismissal of real-life sexual violence

I read one dissenting review that said that the latest GTA has more repercussions to the violence, and forces the player to confront the bad things they've done. Okay, maybe. Still doesn't make me want to play it. I don't have much stomach for that sort of thing.

But I think it'd be really interesting to do a game in the GTA universe with a female protagonist.

Maybe I'll save $65 and the frustration of shitty driving controls and just re-start Mass Effect again.

I am sorry I have not read all the comments yet, so this could have been addressed already, but the labeling of the women at feministing as "girls" says it all to me.

I watched half an hour of my housemate playing the game. he didn't pick up, or kill, any prostitutes, but he did throw a lot of people out of their cars, run over pedestrians, and get shot by cops a lot.

I think I'd rather watch someone playing Portal. My main objection to GTA4, or any of the GTA games, is that they're pretty damn stupid.

Mind you, I enjoyed watching my son play Bully, so it's not the "antihero commits antisocial acts" stuff I found irritating so much as the sheer repetitive stupidity of the antisocial acts. Ho hum, stole another car. Why do people always stop and let this guy get in their cars? The moment a guy touched my car door I'd be hitting the gas. It's *really* glorifying a whole "other people are stupid sheep I can vctimize" philosophy.

Maybe I'd like it better if every so often he came up to some chick stopped in traffic, reached out to pull her car door open and steal her car, and she hit the gas, backed up, and ran him over. That'd be fun to watch.

As for the prostitutes, I was thinking about why it bugs methat you kill prostitutes in the game more than it bugs me that you kill pedestrians. And here it is. In real life, people do not smash their cars into poles indiscriminately, drive on the sidewalk, drive against traffic, run over pedestrians, walk up to cars stopped on the street and throw the driver out of them, or drive off overpasses, and if someone did everyone would unilaterally condemn that behavior. But if someone killed prostitutes, the media would act like it wasn't very important, and some people would actually want to give the guy high fives, and, in fact, in real life prostitutes are murdered quite often. So this aspect of the game is *not* a total fantasy. It actually happens, and it's actually glorified in real life. And since it's the only element of the crime in this game that actual people commit quite often (okay, theft is quite often too, but almost no one drives their car the way this guy does), it is distubring because it's *not* fantasy. i can dismiss running over pedestrians because hardly anyone ever does that. I can't dismiss murdering prostitutes because it does happen often, and when it does, the media ignores or minimizes it.

It makes me crazy how accusations of censorship are used to shut down discussion! It seems to crop up any time anyone critiques a movie/video game/ tv show. Samhita didn't say the game should be illegal, that people shouldn't be allowed to sell it or play it. She wasn't advocating censorship! She simply suggested that maybe the violent misogyny in the game was worth discussing. And then some (not all, I know) boing boing posters respond by jumping up and down about humorless feminists advocating censorship....as a way of shutting down the discussion and avoiding Samhita's actual points. That said I found the comment thread over there pretty heartening actually. A lot of commenters seemed disappointed that Boing Boing had linked to Breslin's post. (Although I did wonder if the smarter posts were all from feministing readers :)

"Unfortunately, this comes out as "feminists suck LOLOLOL!" because gamers, as I mentioned in my post, gamers are primarily adolescent boys.. who sometimes write like adolescent boys."

Yes, that's a fair and accurate summary of the fairly reasonable comments left by male and female gamers to the original blog post.

*irony*

"gamers are primarily adolescent boys"

Is that a fact?

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2004-05-12-gamer-demographics_x.htm

Not sure I believe a word of this comment, but here's another line of thought. It's provoked by an essay I once read about Brett Ellis' book _American_Psycho_.

Why do people enjoy playing games like GTA-IV where they get to kill, maim, and rob random people? Why do we appreciate de Sade? Hell - Sophocles and Shakespeare are chock full of murder.

Because fantasizing about taboo subjects stimulates our emotions. Players get a kick out of driving cars over grannies and shot-gunning street walkers precisely because they are thinking thoughts that are taboo.

Jeebus - read a collection of women's sexual fantasies! The situations, thoughts and feelings that make up the stories are things no sane person would ever do in real life. But these books fly off the shelves.

GTA-IV, like most forms of mass entertainment, is a window into our id. I prefer other kinds of games -- ones where I get to be a hero -- but my tastes are no less fantastic than the ones represented in GTA-IV. They might not be your tastes either, dear reader. But they are fantasies.

Real evil and injustice are banal. They aren't the subject of fantasy. There are no games where the structure includes elements of economic or social inequality directed towards women. We recognize diseased minds by their inability to separate fantasy from reality, and what GTA-IV does is to help define fantasy (and conversely, reality).

Mind you, this line of reasoning leads to the conclusion that the existence of GTA-IV as a social document is actually a positive development for feminism. The game's appeal lies in the conscious recognition that the acts you're engaged in are forbidden.

"One could argue that it hates life, too,." what with all the killing,"

The highly stylised, virtual destruction of 3d animated and textured polygons does not equate to a hatred of life anymore than words typed onto paper by Agatha Christie in a murder mystery.

Do SuperHero comics "hate life", given their body counts can be higher in one panel (the destruction of a planet in, say, Superman) than the entire GTA series?

"A lot of people like the game specifically *because* they want to kill women ("hookers" in particular) on screen.
And that's troubling."

We need statistical evidence for this. Is there any?

It's a bit like saying, "A lot of people like the game "call of duty 4" because they specifically enjoy killing Eastern European men"

"A lot of people loved the Medal of honmour games becuse they really enjoy killing Germans"

Really?

I'm sure there are women out there who enjoy hurting animals - I'd be very, very surprised if any actually bought an xbox 360 and gta4 just so they could spend "all weekend" "getting off" on the shooting pigeons bit.

"It's depressing that shooting prostitutes IS marketable... although not to fear, as apparently it's only an ironic prostitute, bleeding from a satirical bullet."

More depressing than the marketability of stealing the coolest cars, killing cops,doing drug deals and then ramming a 4*4 into a screaming pedestrian, laughing as you kill pigeons all while classic funk and disco blares out in the backround in what is widely regarded as the most amusing game of all time set in a virtual envirionment that has been described by reviewers as "a breathtaking work of art" and "astonishing"?

"I'm not convinced that it's plausible to expect every game company to allow the main character to pick their gender,

really? why not?
it sounds pretty simple to me, especially in a game as intricately designed as games in the GTA series."

I forgive your lack of knowledge of the way games are made if you have never had contact with games or the games industry.

To have the option of a female prtotagonist in GTA4 would require a substantial level of work, effort, time and money.

Rockstar (the makers of the game) have produced something that is widely regarded as the pinnacle of video game "richness" to date.

Like true artists and craftsmen,they gave it their all and much was cut due to time and hardware constraints.

In an ideal world, gta4 would feature thousands of times as much content (750 stand up comics, not just two; 25 episodes of "Republican Space Rangers" to watch, not just one etc etc).

"The question, and it's one that no one has yet addressed, is:
"what [does] it say about youth today if their fantasies involve killing the women they are having sex with[?]"
Answer me that, and I'll engage in discussion. "

During my lifetime I've fantasised about every mainstream sexual act you can think of(there ain't that many).

These fantasies involve myself and a woman, because I'm heterosexual.

I have never onced fantasised about killing a woman. And I'm unaware of how many "youth" do have such fantasies.

I'm guessing heterosexual boys mostly fantasise more about their first kiss and first sight/feel of real breasts than their first violent murder.

I know women who have fantasies about "violent" and "kinky" sex.

While these women are out having "kinky" sex (they don't play video games and find sex easy to get so spend far less time alone indoors in front of a tv or computer screen than a geek like myself) , I'm indoors playing video games and drinking tea.

That might make me a pasty faced sad loser who never gets laid :),but it doesn't make me a woman hating, prostitute killing, pigeon shooting racist drunk driver with fantasies of killing women.

"I mean, I haven't heard thus far anyone really defend the killing of prostitutes in this game"

And I have yet to read one woman object to the "killing" of "men" in the game.

Or the "stealing" of "cars".

*shrugs*

How can I defend "killing" game assets designated as "prostitutes" in a video games?

It's amusing. For two minutes.

Like, "jumping" of the tallest "building" in Libety city to see what happens is amusing. For a bit.

I "died". Press button to restart.

Now, I've had some LOL moments, let's go and get a "decent" "car"...maybe "kill" some more game assets designated prostitutes later before I have my dinner.

The things people are finding amusing about this game are all over the interwebs.

Some people are just loving the animation routines when you "walk" down "steps".

Some people are just loving "driving" around at "night" while Jazz "plays" on the "radio".

Some people think the "being drunk" effect is the most awesome thing in a game, ever.

Hey! Some women get excited at new shoes.

Some women pass out with joy when they see diamonds.

We all have daft, pointless things we enjoy.

Diamonds or games?

A diamond does absolutely nothing. It just is. It's intellectual and emotional impact on me is zero.

A game, on the other hand,may require me to think,move,plan,adjust,sweat,grimace,and/or just LOL

It may entertain (has any woman ever been entertained by a sparkly gem?) frustrate, annoy, promise more than it delivers, crash, freeze, make me punch the sofa, bore me to tears or put a massive grin on my face.

Cheaper than diamonds, too.

Dean, you started out as insulting and condescending with your first couple of posts, then on to confusing with your vegetarian and/or vegan references, and now you've gone completely off the deep end here with your sexist analogy about diamonds and shoes.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and just assume that you're the most nefarious of trolls, hell-bent on thoroughly discrediting any and all positions which defend anything about GTA4.

If so, well done. Now kindly stop.

Actually, upon further review you crossed the line even earlier with whatever the hell you were trying to say about women and kinky sex. The enjoyment of kinky (consensual) sex and the condemnation of GTA4 are NOT incompatible stances, and the gender of the person or people in question is completely irrelevant.

Oh... that's so not cool. They should be ashamed of themselves.

Thanks for this post, by the way. I totally agree that a conversation about the depictions of women especially in regard to the violence and the way in which it is expressed is exactly what's needed here.

I think GTA is a great game; I'm now over 30 hours into it (the game logs 20, but that doesn't account for how many times I've reloaded after messing up) and the reasons I love it go well beyond the violence and crime and even the story (which I think is overhyped). Just... driving at night, in the rain, over the Broker (read: Brooklyn) bridge was one of the most magical experiences I've ever had in a game. For a moment, with russian radio up full blast and the rain striking the shimmering pools of water on the road, I forgot I was playing a game at all.

Why do such wonderful things exist in direct relation to a game that sees as one of its defining characteristics something so heinous and alienating?

Thanks again, Samhita. I'm sorry not everyone understands that there's always room for criticism.

Maybe I'll save $65 and the frustration of shitty driving controls and just re-start Mass Effect again.

Norbizness, you hate shitty driving controls yet you're gonna play Mass Effect again? I loved that game, but driving that Rover around was something I never want to experience again.

But is it SO crazy to have a gender critique of the way that women are depicted in GTA?

Samhita, it's perfectly legitimate to have a gender critique of GTA. But unfortunately, your critique wasn't very well crafted (no offense). I was interested in seeing the feministing perspective on the game, but it was immediately obvious to me that as far as the game content goes, you don't know what you're talking about. That makes your critiques incredibly easy to dismiss.

You start off by saying "Prostitute killing is a big hit." But as many people have pointed out here, prostitute killing is not a part of the story, and it only happens if the player makes a point of doing it.

You then reference a trailer which isn't a trailer, and you say "most of the women are killed shortly after forcibly performing sex acts." Again, you don't have to kill anyone, it's a players choice, and all of the sex in the game is consensual.

You then say "many young men are going to have their first (or already have, as this is not new content for GTA) sexual experiences via GTA." This repeats the canard that video games are just for kids, though the average gamer age is around 30.

What's the value of a critique if you're not willing to do the research on what you're critiquing.

There are plenty of gender issues that you could hit GTA on:

1) Why does the ad campaign feature a busty woman in a low-cut dress seductively licking a lollipop?

2) Why does the game let you play as a pimp in Vice City Stories (the PSP version)

3) In every version of GTA, the women you dated were treated as sex objects, golddiggers, and bimbos.

4) Why is it necessary to include strip clubs and prostitutes at all? What value do they bring to the game?

Those are just a few issues that I can think of off the top of my head.

5)

Hi, I'm a female gamer, and I'm not alone. I know there are a lot more female gamers out there then ever before. So my question is, why are so many video games still made with the premise that only guys will be playing them?? Presumably gaming companies should be marketing towards women, as we represent the biggest untapped consumer base for video games. Yet almost every big game that comes out seems to be a step in the other direction. I'll take an older game for the point of example.

Oblivion is a great game, kind of like GTA set in the past (you can kill any character, steal anything, etc). You can play as a good or evil character based on your preference, and your interactions and quests will change based on what you do. Oblivion has a main storyline and endless side quests. It is also a
"sandbox" style game in which every area and sprite is interactive.

The point that I wanted to make was that in this game you have complete control over your character design (male or female). All the voice actors recorded their lines twice with male and female pronouns.

Considering how long ago Oblivion came out, and how much less advanced the graphics/game controls are compared to GTA4, I really don't buy the argument that it would be too hard for the game designers to make both male and female characters an option.

But then, girls are never gangsters right?? Do the game designers really think that GTA4 is a realistic portrayal of gangster life? Or is it that they think making out with prostitutes and going to strip clubs would be weird for a woman to do? I just can't think of good reason a female playable character shouldn't be included. It would certainly have made me willing to buy the game, which I have decided not to do.

Paul G. Brown said

Because fantasizing about taboo subjects stimulates our emotions. Players get a kick out of driving cars over grannies and shot-gunning street walkers precisely because they are thinking thoughts that are taboo.

"Do the game designers really think that GTA4 is a realistic portrayal of gangster life?"

No, it's not meant to be. It's a very strongly satirical game and draws heavily on the atmosphere of certain gangster movies.

"Or is it that they think making out with prostitutes and going to strip clubs would be weird for a woman to do?"

The fact is that the single player game is a story about a specific guy. He has character and a backstory and he goes through the story doing his things. What you are asking is like saying that there should be a special version of a movie with a female protagonist because we would be able to relate to her better. If there was a female protagonist then the story would be very different. Like I said, it's a story. The guy isn't meant to be *you*. You just control him.

By contrast, in the multiplayer mode you do set up a character to represent you and you can make that character female.

It's also worth noting that the character the story is about is actually a pretty sweet guy. He does stuff like apologise sometimes when he bumps someone with the car. He's generally very friendly. Also, people are talking like the game is meant to be super realistic - it's not meant to be, and it isn't. It's meant to be cinematic, and it is. It's extremely pretty but the violence is unrealistic and not super detailed.

The game isn't above criticism, but very few people are coming from a position of knowing the first thing about it. :(

*sigh* Gamers get really stupid when Grand Theft Auto is involved. Unfortunately, it often fuels a lot of sexism, racism, homophobia, and other various forms of human boorishness.

I wish I could apologize on behalf of the gaming community and say these people are generally very nice, but honestly, this is why I don't visit gaming sites much any more.

So what about the pro-feminist stuff in GTA IV? Can we discuss the radio stations that lay into conservative pundits who are anti-women? Can we discuss the portrayal of women as leaders within the game, or as FBI agents? Can we discuss the varying roles we see women in, and the fact that the game at the very least acknowledges homosexuality?

The problem I have with the criticism of GTA IV is that it's not black and white. Some parts of GTA are bad, and some are good. But you can't discuss something you know nothing about. Most of the criticism I've seen so far is in the vein of "I haven't played it, nor do I plan to, but I know enough to lay out blanket generalizations about the game and its fan base."

You don't think I chuckle when I hear the in-game Rush Limbaugh/Chris Matthews knock-off making a fool of himself? There's plenty of pro-feminist humor in the game. But you just cannot analyze something until you see/listen to/read/play it. Any opinion rendered on the subject will be inherently underinformed at best, and misinformed at worst.

Dave, please enough with the "if you've never played it you have no right to judge it". I've played the game, I'm a gamer, and like realityfighter said, I also share her embarrassment at how other gamers are handling this. Especially, Dave, your assertion that this game is feminist.

GTA games are NOT feminist.

I mean, C'mon, Dave, let's not blind ourselves to sexism, racism, and homophobia when we see it; just because you might like this game doesn't mean it isn't there...and as far as video games go, this is one of THE most racist/sexist/homophobic games out there.

meeneecat, can you give me ANY examples to support your point? Please do.

I supported the argument that at the very least GTA is conflicted in its messages with actual evidence.

If you're saying I'm blind to the racism, sexism, etc. in GTA IV please point it out to me. Honestly, I'd like to see a thoughtful analysis of the game. Unfortunately I haven't seen one yet on this site. How would this site regard the character of Elizabeta, or Michelle/Karen? It'd be interesting to see, given the strength of these two female characters.

Saying "I've played the game" is an ambiguous statement. How long did you play the game, and in what sense? I can't say I've read "Moby Dick" if I only read parts of it, can I?

I have no problem with people who consider political correctness obsolete, as long as they have no problem with me politically incorrectly punching them in the face for being racist, sexist assholes.

Dave, I nor anyone else should have to justify this to you, if you can't see sexism and racism when it hits you in the face, then the problem lies with you, not with the rest of us who, as you say, "need to prove it to you". Why don't you try rereading some of these comments, go over to BoingBoing and read their thread because there are plenty of people there who point out the racism and sexism. And try reading it with an open mind this time, not the "white male privileged" mindset that thinks it needs to erase every speck of racism/sexism because it's just easier to pretend it doesn't exist. Try putting yourself in someone else's shoes and think "gee, how would I like it if my group, ethnicity, gender, etc. was presented in this stereotypical way". Yes, I know it's always hard the first time you do it, but stepping outside of your own privileged comfort zone is not supposed to be easy.

Just ask yourself this, if GTA is so racially and gender sensitive, then where are all the white gangs? where are all the female gangs? Answer me that Dave?

If you still are blind as a bat and need more convincing check out all the stereotypes presented in the article here.

I have to agree with Dave. As I posted in the original thread (and as others have mentioned here), GTA is subject to legitimate criticism, but Samhita's original post does not qualify. It wasn't drafted with very much care, getting significant facts wrong and ending with an admission that the author has no first-hand knowledge of the subject of her critique.

It's a shame, because I think a credible feminist critique could be incredibly valuable, for the game industry and for feminism.

meeneecat, one, who said I was white, at least in the traditional sense? My minority is portrayed in GTA as diamond merchants and gangsters. Make assumptions about me at your own detriment.

Secondly, here's a list of white male gangs:
1. The McRearys
2. The Lost
3. Dmitri's Gang
4. Vlad's Gang
5. The other biker gang
6. The Italian Mafia
7. Assorted small gangs

Female Gangs/Gang Leaders:
1. Elizabeta's gang in Bohan
2. Michelle/Karen (not necessarily a gang, but a shady character working for a shady organization)

Now how about we discuss the missions where you kill homophobes committing hate crimes?

Oh wait, we can't, because you didn't play those, did you?

SarahMC,

You misunderstood me.
As someone who is spending half of her time on volunteer (means I don't get paid for it) feminist activism, I'm the last person who you'd be able to call lazy in this regard. and believe me, I KNOW it's slow.

Lazy is merely discussing things endlessly and feeling good about it rather than finding a feasible goal, organizing together, and taking steps to change things. Debate is awesome (if it's constructive) and necessary but doing something is NOT the same as talking it over.

THAT was my point. /*I find this eye-rolling thing a bit silly*/

now if everyone here is super-active on the side, and if they are all collectively taking action, then I guess I stand corrected.

DaveNJ17 – Thank you. That was perfect. I can’t wait to see if meeneecat pretends that post never happens and goes back to a “if you can't see sexism and racism when it hits you in the face, then the problem lies with you� stance, or if she abandons the thread altogether.

I think she'll abandon it because she assumed my ethnicity, and was incorrect. But either way, yeah, that post is going to go unanswered. When people get called on the fact that they don't know what they're talking about it's usually the result.

Too bad, but really there's no point in discussing the game with meenee. Obviously she's going off of preconceived notions instead of actual knowledge, which leads to her making up claims that there are no white gangs, when in fact gang activity in GTA IV is almost entirely dominated by white people.

As for her "article", that criticized the originality of GTA, not its racial content. Unfortunately for her, GTA has never hid its influences, in fact it wears them on its sleeve. A prime example would be the bank heist for the McRearys, which draws heavily from the movie "Heat".

My point is simple: you can't "see" the racism and sexism unless you've actually played the game, truly played it, and until then you're going on second-hand information and assumptions, which in many cases are false. Speaking out of ignorance is never a good idea, especially when you try to pass it off as legit analysis or criticism.