Jump to content
Roderick

Feminism

Recommended Posts

Isn't the point to make the effort to be aware of the problems, and not to avoid problematic things altogether? That's what I take from "it's OK to like problematic things". I don't think anyone is demanding we all jettison all culture past and present because it's not 100% free of issues, but it seems important to at least be aware when something messed up is in front of us. If nothing else, it's a matter of respect to the people the issues pertain to. Or does that come across as hollow and obnoxiously privileged? I suppose it's small comfort to hear "I like this thing despite how shitty it is to you". But maybe that's better than "I like this thing and your problem with it doesn't exist".

I don't know. It just seems important to be aware.

 

This is something I've had a hard time getting a grasp on.  If I were to simply avoid things with problematic elements, I don't think there is a single game, movie or book I've ever been exposed to that would stand up to that test.  I agree that it's important to be aware of the problematic elements, but I have a really hard time writing something off because of a word or scene that didn't sit well with me.  I think there has been a tendency in recent years to see one element of something you don't like and write it off completely, or in the opposite direction to see one thing you like and ignore all the problematic elements of it.  I used to listen to a lot of rap, particularly eminem, where he would say something not because he believed it but to make a point.  I've always found that valuable in the sense that it is sometimes necessary to involve specifics rather than just talk about how something is or is perceived generally.  There is one song in particular called Fast Lane by Bad vs Evil which is horribly sexist and violent in it's lyrics, but I listened to it because I enjoy the cadence of the lyrics and beat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but I think the point being made there was that HBO doesn't care how aware of Game of Thrones' problems you are, they've still got your money - and that, at the end of the day, is what drives decisions at the level and scale of something like an HBO show. Awareness is important, but if "awareness" is where your critical involvement with the product begins and ends, it amounts to slightly less than a hill of beans. It is the absolute bare minimum standard.

 

Yeah, and that problem's further complicated when the show in question, like many HBO shows before it, derives much of its popularity from its transgressiveness, brutality, and occasional bigotry. From a purely cynical perspective on business, HBO has an investment in people being offended by Game of Thrones or The Sopranos or whatever, only just slightly offended and never enough to trump the quality of craft in the show's performances and production. It's a knot that's tangled enough that I just try my best to raise awareness (eg, call it bullshit when people try to use Game of Thrones to describe "how it really was" or whatever) and be conscious of how I'm consuming it myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, and that problem's further complicated when the show in question, like many HBO shows before it, derives much of its popularity from its transgressiveness, brutality, and occasional bigotry. From a purely cynical perspective on business, HBO has an investment in people being offended by Game of Thrones or The Sopranos or whatever, only just slightly offended and never enough to trump the quality of craft in the show's performances and production. It's a knot that's tangled enough that I just try my best to raise awareness (eg, call it bullshit when people try to use Game of Thrones to describe "how it really was" or whatever) and be conscious of how I'm consuming it myself.

 

Yeah, that's a great point, too. HBO has a lot of incentive to get the most out of their "YOU CAN'T SHOW THIS ON NBC!!!!" image, hence the lesbian fisting orgy. (That probably happened, right? I haven't seen the show since season 1.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The money thing is also especially complicated with something like a TV show, where it can be pretty unclear how watching something directly impacts the finances of the people putting it out. If I watch Game of Thrones online but talk to a lot of people about how much I love it, is that supporting HBO? What about if I watch it and never talk about it? Does that then make it alright to like the parts that are potentially harmful?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly. And consider this: As a feminist and cultural critic, I could easily argue that I have a responsibility to be current on Game of Thrones. The show is a cultural touchstone for tens of millions of people every week, and quite frankly, I need to know what I'm going to be up against at the water cooler on Monday. I'm not going to be able to speak knowledgeably about it unless I watch the show regularly with a critical eye. Is that different than the guy who has a viewing party? How many people do I have to educate about the problematic elements in the show to cancel out that dude's contribution to HBO?

 

I don't know. At the end of the day, I think you just have to get right with yourself first. Engage with things on a level that lets you sleep at night.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but I think the point being made there was that HBO doesn't care how aware of Game of Thrones' problems you are, they've still got your money - and that, at the end of the day, is what drives decisions at the level and scale of something like an HBO show. Awareness is important, but if "awareness" is where your critical involvement with the product begins and ends, it amounts to slightly less than a hill of beans. It is the absolute bare minimum standard.

Well yes, when you introduce money to anything it immediately becomes more complicated. Perhaps it's just my reading comprehension, but it seems (as it often does) like there are several conversations happening in parallel. I was more addressing the question of taste than economics ("like" being the operative word), but practically speaking expressing your tastes almost always ends up being manifested in some economic form, which is obviously relevant and important. So yes, you're completely right.

This is something I've had a hard time getting a grasp on.  If I were to simply avoid things with problematic elements, I don't think there is a single game, movie or book I've ever been exposed to that would stand up to that test.  I agree that it's important to be aware of the problematic elements, but I have a really hard time writing something off because of a word or scene that didn't sit well with me.  I think there has been a tendency in recent years to see one element of something you don't like and write it off completely, or in the opposite direction to see one thing you like and ignore all the problematic elements of it.  I used to listen to a lot of rap, particularly eminem, where he would say something not because he believed it but to make a point.  I've always found that valuable in the sense that it is sometimes necessary to involve specifics rather than just talk about how something is or is perceived generally.  There is one song in particular called Fast Lane by Bad vs Evil which is horribly sexist and violent in it's lyrics, but I listened to it because I enjoy the cadence of the lyrics and beat.

The entire thing I was trying to get at with that post is that just because it's not necessarily possible, practical or desirable to expunge all offending material from your life, that shouldn't mean you should give up on applying any critical thought whatsoever. Natellite is right in saying that it's the barest of baselines, but it is a baseline. If you're paying attention to the things that are messed up about the media you enjoy, you can at least decide for yourself whether it's really acceptable to you, and try to be mindful of how that stuff might start creeping into your own behaviour, attitude or speech, for example.

I mean, when I type it out it seems like I'm saying the most idiotically simplistic thing, and maybe I am, but I feel like a lot of people react to issues with a very dismissive "Whatever, I just think it's cool, you're thinking about it so hard" kind of response, so I guess that's why I go on about awareness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think everyone has the ability to bow out of stuff that's beyond their comfort level but I think this thread has always sort of loosely gathered around the idea that you can consume problematic media as long as long as you can speak critically or not defend the gross stuff. I watch Game of Thrones but say, I won't play the Witcher. I also haven't played Bayonetta. I am not sure if anyone was espousing otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While it's already quite hard to work out exactly what impact your support has on such a complicated production as a TV show, things get even more complicated when you consider a longer frame of reference. Even if the immediate effect of one's decision to watch GoT is mainly that HBO makes money off of something we all agree has quite a few problematic aspects, their existance as a media company is predicated on eventually creating more content in a similar vein, or at least content that is similarly successful. And that process requires working out exactly what the identity of that show even was, as things frequently end up being wildly successful without anybody being quite sure of the exact reasons.

 

So in other words, eventually HBO, or somebody else, will likely want to create something that resonates with people the same way GoT does, and if in the process of trying to work out why exactly people latch onto that show the way they do in the first place, they find that people watch it not because but in spite of certain problematic aspects, they might just end up removing these from the equasion thanks to this kind of tentative support of a not-ideal thing. That's a big if, of course, but it still stands to reason that the relationship between creators and audience is slightly more direct than the former spinning a big wheel of tropes and the latter having to settle for what few entertainment products end up decently progressive by pure chance alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if that's the intent, but policing people's media consumption habits beyond pointing out their problematic aspects seems kinda gross to me?

I don't think anyone is policing since they don't have that authority?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The following is my opinion of what white guys can best do in the face of problematic media within a capitalistic society. 

 

Ultimately, I don't think problematic content is included or removed from anything based on some board room algebra as much as it is based on the attitudes and experiences of those in power to make the decisions. They might point to this study or that focus group after the fact, but, in my experience working in games, the men responsible for the output of culture producing businesses go with their own instincts before any formula or trend report (the actuaries and number crunchers go into finance, not games or movies or TV). And the attitudes and instincts of those men are formed by their past experiences and exposure to ideas.

 

That's why it is so important to boost the work of alternative voices and, marginalized people. You'll do far more good boosting (and financing) progressive games you think are cool or recommending progressive books to your friends than you will abstaining from watching the mainstream-est of mainstream shows like Game of Thrones. Not because it will change the world overnight, but because it positions those people to do more work, to gather more influence, to inspire MORE good work, to affect MORE people and to shape the views and politics of the next generation of show runners and writers and studio heads. 

 

Follow your conscience, listen to what other people have to say but don't pat yourself on the back if your fight for progress begins and ends with loudly denouncing media that you think someone else might fight offensive. 

 

Guaranteed, for the next ten years we're going to see a lot more po-faced, sexposition filled period dramas regardless of the good progressive criticism aimed at them. The people who will be in a position to call the shots are either not paying attention or don't care. And the people holding the purse strings DEFINITELY don't care.

 

BUT, if you boost the thoughtful work of good critics and support the work marginalized people, in 20 years or 30 years (once the old people are dead) that can change. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone is policing since they don't have that authority?

Hm I didn't mean to imply authority, since I often see the term used in terms of non-official officiousness (the dictionary I checked used 'language policing' as an example), but perhaps it was a bit of a loaded term. Regardless, I think that making judgments about a person's character or ability to speak in an informed way on issues based on tiny samplings of their media consumption habits is generally small-minded and counter-productive. It seems to me the same kind of logic that declares that racism consists of Bad People who do Bad Things, rather than a system we are all complicit in which devalues people based on their race -- a logic that separates things into good and bad based on whether it has been agreed upon to be problematic, and takes that evaluation as the sole relevant measure of merit.

 

A piece of art isn't good or bad, or even progressive or regressive, based solely upon its problematic elements, and having those elements doesn't destroy those merits which it has shown itself to have. Demanding your art be free of cultural baggage seems like a really good way to either enjoy no art ever or to blind yourself to the problematic elements that exist in all art.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless, I think that making judgments about a person's character or ability to speak in an informed way on issues based on tiny samplings of their media consumption habits is generally small-minded and counter-productive. It seems to me the same kind of logic that declares that racism consists of Bad People who do Bad Things, rather than a system we are all complicit in which devalues people based on their race -- a logic that separates things into good and bad based on whether it has been agreed upon to be problematic, and takes that evaluation as the sole relevant measure of merit.

 

I agree with this: these days I see people writing off others as being 'gross' or 'shitty' and in the back of my mind I always think about what made them feel free to cast the first stone. It's a difficult question, especially because a lack of compassion and understanding for marginalised people is a pretty serious handicap when talking about feminism. Someone who's a transphobic feminist, for instance, probably doesn't have the moral authority to take others to task for their lack of compassion or acts of marginalisation, and their arguments likely have problems I'm not smart enough to spot which means I need help to see where their shitty opinions have led them astray. On the other hand, though, if you're looking only for people who haven't held shitty opinions, who grew up in a patriarchal environment and had it not stick in any way, you're looking at a pretty short list. (Many of Gamergate's most popular targets, for instance, would be ruled out.) And it's human nature to not want to admit failings, especially if admitting failings brings attention to those failings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 small-minded 

Thanks dude! :tup:  Idlethumbs 2015!

 

A piece of art isn't good or bad, or even progressive or regressive, based solely upon its problematic elements, and having those elements doesn't destroy those merits which it has shown itself to have. Demanding your art be free of cultural baggage seems like a really good way to either enjoy no art ever or to blind yourself to the problematic elements that exist in all art.

Same problem I've been arguing against, it's not one thing or the other. But it's really impossible to argue here against what is basically opinion one what is okay and not okay. But I don't think I want to post in this thread again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry I cannot explain why I think your approach is counter-productive without using terms that make you feel insulted, but that's kind of an intrinsic problem of criticism. This is the same "I think what you did/said is racist" being heard by the listener as "I think you're a big old shitty racist racist jerk forever" problem that often stymies this kind of discussion, just transported to a different topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

That's why it is so important to boost the work of alternative voices and, marginalized people. You'll do far more good boosting (and financing) progressive games you think are cool or recommending progressive books to your friends than you will abstaining from watching the mainstream-est of mainstream shows like Game of Thrones.

Did you have anything in mind?

I think about this type of thing a lot. I enjoy asking myself which is more important to me, that a woman made it, or that it has a progressive message? It doesn't come up often in reality. I like Agnes Varda because she's offering me something I can't get elsewhere that I value a lot; she happens to be a woman.

One thing I get frustrated about (just an annoyance really) is that poor folks have to care more about the profitability of the art they produce. Typically people try to insure profitability by using the status-quo prescriptively. Another thing is that I love the idea of giving all the folks who can't afford their own housing access to TyranoBuilder, but I expect that most of them would be like "Does it pay?" and when I say "Probably not." they'll dismiss me as some sort of scam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been meaning to check out Queen Bees and Wannabes mostly because I really liked Mean Girls and the actual basis behind it would be fascinating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding is that Mean Girls does a surprisingly accurate job of presenting the book's thesis, i.e. both the social structures as well as the de-escalation process that is montaged at the end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The video-game industry has a dress code – driven by a lack of diversity

 

Predictably, a bunch of white male developers have taken offense to this article that says the standard plaid shirt + denim jeans uniform worn by many developers is inherently exclusionary of women. Also, Jonathan Blow literally cannot get past the fact that the title of the article is "accusing the games industry of something that it isn't" because the industry literally doesn't have a dress code.

 

Another day, another pile of patriarchy garbage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was amazed at the extent to which the article flew over the heads of people who I would otherwise consider to be intelligent. It really goes to show how far the discourse has yet to go. Bleh.

 

edit: Jesus he's Not All Game Developers-ing Leigh Alexander :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Men sure do get defensive when people talk about what they wear. 

 

Are you getting the devs' reactions of Twitter, or is there somewhere that has them gathered up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Men sure do get defensive when people talk about what they wear. 

 

Are you getting the devs' reactions of Twitter, or is there somewhere that has them gathered up?

 

I was gleaning it in real-time just a little while ago from Twitter. If I wasn't at work I'd put together a Storify or something, but Jonathan Blow was one of the loudest developers talking about it and it's all pretty fresh in his feed. He was talking with a few other indie devs that I didn't recognize right off the bat, save for Tommy Refenes of SMB fame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Holy shit, this whole thread.

 

I've never made a storify, but for people who don't have the time to read through the tweets, here's Blow declaring that he knows better what feminists ought to be talking about than feminists do:

 

Sean, that's not the dynamic I am talking about.  The dynamic is that one wears out the attention of people willing to be proactive on women's issues. If you spend that on sound and fury signifying nothing, then that energy is gone later when you need it for something real... because people are tired of the crying-wolf. So I would think that the body of feminists as a whole would want to be careful about this, but that does not seem to be the tactic.

 

Funnily enough, that was a response to someone linking to the appeal to bigger problems fallacy.  Which Blow managed to prove with his reply.

 

Leigh calls him on his bullshit, so he takes his toys and leaves. 

 

Cliff (developer of Democracy) and Blow both agree it's a made up problem that doesn't exist:

 

Cliff: Christ, people are really getting uptight about an 'industry dress code' in gaming? Get real. I'm pretty sure there is no such thing

 

Blow:  I just searched out the article and ... Wow. This is the most made-up problem ever.

 

And Cliff declares himself a Bridge Builder!  While saying that perhaps feminists ought to look elsewhere for sexism rather than how people dress in game development. 

 

Leigh calls Cliff on his bullshit, so he takes his toys and leaves. 

 

Like is it that fucking inconceivable that the culture of a group can be alienating to people outside that group, and the way that people dress and/or present themselves can be a part of that group culture, therefore helps perpetuate part of the alienation?  This is pretty basic shit.  We've known that dress codes (both official and unofficial) can be tools of exclusion, usually aimed at cultural minorities or women.  At a minimum, it's an interesting question to ask and take a look at, rather than simply immediately dismiss out of hand. 

 

Edited: I misread cliffski's twitter handle as Cliffy B's, different devs with very similar names. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, Blow can fuck right off

 

Anyway, isn't the straightforward use of the term "dress code" sort of journalistic malfeasance?

 

journalistic malfeasance.  Really, journalistic malfeasance?  Maybe Blow should be hanging out at KiA.

 

Yes. The whole angle of the article is "the game industry has a dress code". That phrase is in the title verbatim! It is, however, bullshit. It's the usual media-sensationalizing-anything-for-hits.

 

Oh yes, this article was all about those sweet, mad loot hitz! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, Leigh Alexander was saying something to the effect of "I don't she's saying that there's a literal dress code" to which he responded "then she shouldn't have said those exact words in the title!" He's arguing with a position that nobody in reality would actually espouse. Also, I don't think it's especially cynical of a writer to say something in a headline that's not literally true that gets people to read the article for greater context. As far as clickbait titles go, that one barely qualifies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×