Feminism

[Twig]

Meh, just sometimes a juxtaposition I notice. Like this thread compared with the anime thread here.

How so?

[syntheticgerbil]

Well funny enough, I am in the middle of watching that terrible Polygon documentary because I am in dire need of content that I can watch or listen to in the background as I have been working on multiple projects for weeks straight now and I get to episode 7 of the Polygon documentary just 20 minutes ago where Arthur Gies acts like a total hard ass douche the whole time. Best part is when he berates a female reviewer that he doesn't give a shit about her personal life as long as the review is on time before embargo further reinforcing the same old industry coda that it's a loser lonely male's job who has no life balance in which there may be emergency social obligations or the like.

 

The guy says one thing in an official public setting but the personal side doesn't match any of that. So he can you know, spend hours and hours of his life watching Game of Thrones, which has almost no people of color (Does it at all? I don't care about that show for the same reasons in Arthur's Witcher review) and one of the main drawing points is seeing a ton of tits and ass. Flex them muscles, Arthur.

In terms of liking problematic content. I don't really get that. To each their own I guess. I personally pass on shit that really sucks. Like somehow in the anime thread Kill La Kill is a feminist masterpiece among the male dominated thread, but with me it's disgusting enough for me to get rid of my entire collection of the director's work (which to be fair also pertains to similar digust with Gurren Lagann which I thought was hopefully just one misstep). The Ghost in the Shell argument also just boggled my mind. Also Arthur can pass the review on to other people if that stuff seriously bugs him. However don't think that's really necessary with Witcher to be honest, but in the case of his Bayonetta 2 review, it was pretty lame.

[Twig]

Like somehow in the anime thread Kill La Kill is a feminist masterpiece

Literally no one has said that. Everyone who likes Kill la Kill and has talked about it in that thread has issues with it and knows those issues exist.

 

There's nothing wrong with liking something despite its flaws. Nobody "likes problematic content" when they, in fact, believe it is problematic. They look or work past said content to see and enjoy the things they do like. If you can't do that, that's fine, but it's not some hypocritical double standard that I happen to love The Witcher series while also being acutely aware of many of the issues from which it suffers.

[syntheticgerbil]

Obviously no one said feminist masterpiece, I'm condensing. Considering Kill la Kill had a bunch of praise and is considered subversive for god knows why, and then it suddenly comes up as something we should watch in that feminist movie thread, it boggles my mind.

 

By what you are contesting, is a double standard even possible then if problematic content doesn't matter? Surely there's some kind of sliding scale, I know, but sweeping something blatant under the rug because you personally enjoy it and then preaching something opposite won't ever make sense to me.

[JonCole]

There is just so much to unpack there. It just seems like you have a personal beef with Arthur and can't look past that. Just he's a hardass boss and one of his employees is female doesn't mean that it's proof positive that he's some hypocritical woman hater. You still haven't done anything to convince me that watching a show that may not have the POC ratio that you find reasonable means that he's not allowed to be critical of something not having enough POC. Furthermore, I'm sure that any number of "real feminists" that you can find also watch Game of Thrones.

 

As far as drawing a lot of "tits and ass", there are any number of examples of artists who paint with a sexual brush who are absolutely feminist. One of my favorite artists, Irene Koh, is obviously, notably, almost belligerently feminist yet she has an NSFW page on her site with stuff that isn't blatantly empowering for women. Notable feminist writer Gail Simone's biggest and most notable recent franchise is Red Sonja, which has covers like this yet she manages to write Sonja with care and respect. My point in this being, just because you draw "T&A" doesn't mean anything in and of itself.

 

Frankly, this kind of stuff just seems like free association that suggests everything and means nothing. Not only that, but to simultaneously say that you "pass on shit that really sucks" + "to each his own" at the same time as suggesting that Bayonetta 2 isn't problematic in any way is frankly pretty hilarious.

[Twig]

I'm pretty sure the person who brought up in that thread Kill la Kill was joking. Like I'd bet money on it.

 

I didn't say problematic content doesn't matter. I said there's nothing wrong with liking something that happens to have problematic content. Otherwise, how can you even like anything?

[syntheticgerbil]

My point in this being, just because you draw "T&A" doesn't mean anything in and of itself.

 

Frankly, this kind of stuff just seems like free association that suggests everything and means nothing. Not only that, but to simultaneously say that you "pass on shit that really sucks" + "to each his own" at the same time as suggesting that Bayonetta 2 isn't problematic in any way is frankly pretty hilarious.

And just because you proclaim it doesn't mean anything doesn't mean you defeat any point I have to make. What makes everything you say mean something but what I say "doesn't mean anything?" It seems like you cherrypick when it benefits your point. I also didn't suggest Bayonetta 2 isn't problematic. I was hoping it would be obvious that I also I don't like Bayonetta largely because I find it problematic. I'm not a fan of that game series.

 

But I'm done here with your belittling tone you've taken on. You do this a lot, so keep fighting the good fight, Jon Cole. I think I'm pretty much over with engaging you on these forums. I'm sure that's hilarious too.

 

I didn't say problematic content doesn't matter. I said there's nothing wrong with liking something that happens to have problematic content. Otherwise, how can you even like anything?

I mean to say at some point a double standard must exist, while what you suggested read to me that it could not exist. I don't know how to answer that question though, because I don't feel that everything is problematic to some degree, as there is a lot of media that is innocuous, and the sliding scale is definitely personal.

[Mangela Lansbury]

In terms of liking problematic content. I don't really get that. To each their own I guess. I personally pass on shit that really sucks. Like somehow in the anime thread Kill La Kill is a feminist masterpiece among the male dominated thread, but with me it's disgusting enough for me to get rid of my entire collection of the director's work (which to be fair also pertains to similar digust with Gurren Lagann which I thought was hopefully just one misstep). The Ghost in the Shell argument also just boggled my mind. Also Arthur can pass the review on to other people if that stuff seriously bugs him. However don't think that's really necessary with Witcher to be honest, but in the case of his Bayonetta 2 review, it was pretty lame.

 

It's not the problematic content you like, but the container it comes in. You have to be able to look past the problematic content. For something like the Witcher, where the problematic part is more exclusion of races, it's easy to look past because you never see it. It's just something you realize after a while. For something like Bayonetta, which if I remember correctly he reviewed pretty well from a gameplay standpoint, the problematic content is right in your face all the time so it's harder to work past -- and, for him, impossible.

 

It's not a double standard. It's just that not all problems are equally personal or important to all people, and the different manifestations affect different people differently. Sometimes you're going to be able to see past a certain thing. Sometimes you're not. Looking at the content critically is possible either way.

[syntheticgerbil]

Okay I don't think I provided enough context for what I was referring to. What I mean to say about the Bayonetta 2 review, which I brought up in the Bayonetta thread, it is not clear why Arthur even tackled it because it was such a barrier for him. It didn't make sense for him to write the review like that because Bayonetta is exploitative T&A and the majority people who like Bayonetta want that and are there for that as part of the package. This is even brought up on the Quality Control podcast Justin McElroy hosts when he asks Arthur Gies that very thing about the review and does give some credence to the comments on that piece. I did get the tone that Justin McElroy did not agree with Arthur's perspective there.

 

I do understand he took the Witcher review on and had issues with that stuff and I agree it is important to bring up. It's very similar to Danielle's Dragon's Crown review which is also important to bring up. In turn I don't see how the audience for either of those game would be affected if the problematic elements were taken out. If those same elements were taken out of Bayonetta or say Dead or Alive, you'd be catering to different people. I don't at all agree with Ethan Carter jerky guy about that stuff, but I completely get his Game of Thrones remark.

 

What I am saying there is a double standard when you bring up his consumption of all the Game of Thrones episodes. That show is seriously blatant and it's part of the package, much like Bayonetta.

 

I'm not saying here there is nothing I like that I don't have anything problematic to look at, but I am saying there is a point to reach where it can be too much and I will be done with it. If we deal in everything/anything/nothing statements then that paints everything as one or the other and either means a black and white no there can be no double standard or there can only be a set of rules you have to adhere to when liking something. I don't buy any of that. Sometimes there is definitely something wrong with liking problematic content.

[Mangela Lansbury]

There are no real rules. Everything about what you can get past or not get past is... squishy? Malleable? It changes, and it's different for any person consuming any particular piece of media. There are just too many variables involved -- maybe a person who can't get past the objectification in Bayonetta 2 can get past the objectification of Game of Thrones because they've been a fantasy enthusiast since they were young, so the objectification in Game of Thrones is of a variety that they're accustomed to so, while they see it, they aren't hit by it on a personal level, but they can't take the Bayonetta 2 objectification because they never really got into the anime style so it's unfamiliar enough to be offputting. Or maybe it's something else entirely! It's not a matter of double standards, just different things affecting different people differently.

[syntheticgerbil]

I agree completely with the first half of your paragraph and I completely disagree with the second. Because if one thing gets a pass for whatever reason and another thing doesn't that's two standards. As I said, I agree with the sliding scale factor, I just don't think there's always situation where it's okay to like problematic content.

[Twig]

It's not getting a pass, and nobody's liking it. It is being ignored for the sake of enjoying the other, good stuff. Nobody's excusing this shit. They're just saying, "Hey, look, I know this part is fucking shitty shitty shit shit, but look at this other cool stuff maybe, or don't, whatever, I like it, so stop jumping down my throat."

[Argobot]

I see what you're saying Syntheticgerbil, about how this stuff can kind of start looking like hypocrisy after awhile. I'm not saying that no one is allowed to watch something with problematic content and call themselves a feminist (it would be impossible to do this anyway) but I do wish there was a little more introspection about this stuff. There is this definite attitude that you can be one of the Good Ones by attacking an easy target (your Witchers, your Bayonettas) and then not have to examine anything else in your cultural diet and that is frustrating to see play out online.

 

Again, I want to reiterate that I think it's impossible to avoid this shit because it's everywhere. Anyone who says they have a 100% problem free cultural taste is kidding themselves. I do think that we can all be better at being honest wrt to the flaws in the shows we like.

[Gwardinen]

So he can you know, spend hours and hours of his life watching Game of Thrones, which has almost no people of color (Does it at all? I don't care about that show for the same reasons in Arthur's review)

Yes. One of the main locations is populated almost entirely by African and Middle Eastern actors and much of the filming was done in Morocco.

Which isn't to say there aren't problems with GoT or even that specific part of it, which has some uncomfortable white woman bringing civilisation to the savages overtones. But simply for the record; yes, Game of Thrones includes PoC, so no, it cannot entirely be lumped in with the many fantasy properties that only depict feudal England analogues.

[syntheticgerbil]

Is that a new thing for season 5? From this? http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2014/08/05/george-r-r-martin-addresses-racial-diversity-on-game-of-thrones/

 

Before I wrote that I did a quick image search for "Game of Thrones cast" and I saw white faces exclusively.

[SuperBiasedMan]

This is more about an example than a point, but the sexualisation in Bayonetta is also just not the same as in Game of Thrones. Bayonetta offers you control over a sexualised character that you focus on for the entire time. Game of Thrones features up to 3/4 scenes with naked people per episode. If it bothered you enough you could literally just skip those scenes (although you would miss story stuff in them). They're not both tarred with the same brush of sexualisation, they both have problematic sexualisation in fundamentally different ways so each individual will react differently to how bad each is, there's no objective answer or special box they get put in.

I'm not saying that Bayonetta is worse by the way, but I'm indicating why someone could feel very differently about the two of them.

[Apple Cider]

I see what you're saying Syntheticgerbil, about how this stuff can kind of start looking like hypocrisy after awhile. I'm not saying that no one is allowed to watch something with problematic content and call themselves a feminist (it would be impossible to do this anyway) but I do wish there was a little more introspection about this stuff. There is this definite attitude that you can be one of the Good Ones by attacking an easy target (your Witchers, your Bayonettas) and then not have to examine anything else in your cultural diet and that is frustrating to see play out online.

 

Again, I want to reiterate that I think it's impossible to avoid this shit because it's everywhere. Anyone who says they have a 100% problem free cultural taste is kidding themselves. I do think that we can all be better at being honest wrt to the flaws in the shows we like.

 

I'm going to agree with Argobot on this one, fully. I think a lot of male critics absolutely know what to turn the criticism dial up to 10 on (which is still on point, even!) but then neglect to apply that level of stringency towards things they like. If you want to go all in on one thing, you have to be willing to do that for all the things you like. I get it, too: it's incredibly hard to tear down something you love because of how much flack you'll get but it's part of being a fair media critic. 

 

Game of Thrones has some of the same issues as The Witcher as many other things and both of them require that picking apart, even if you enjoy both. So yeah, it's frustrating. It's also frustrating because male reviewers get probably 50% less shit about it. 

 

(On the PoC in GoT tip: Many of the PoC in the show are still portrayed in a way that is very much in line with fantasy tropes, like The Mystical East. They also have more supporting roles, versus main ones. The only reason this season is coming out ahead is just because they are at least in Dorne now, but Dorne is absolutely a mish-mash of Middle East and Southeast Asia flourishes.)

 

TL;DR Male game reviewers get way more kudos for doing less work in this regard because anything they do that's progressive or "on message" is seen as ultimately revelatory.

[Mawd]

Is that a new thing for season 5? From this? http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2014/08/05/george-r-r-martin-addresses-racial-diversity-on-game-of-thrones/

 

Before I wrote that I did a quick image search for "Game of Thrones cast" and I saw white faces exclusively.

 

If we're talking about important main characters I'd say there were between 1-4 poc characters per season. If we're talking about lead characters it is more like one or two for the first two seasons, I don't remember any for season three and then you have 2 or 3 characters who have a point of view (as in scenes are shown we're they're the most important wrt the story) around season four. By season five we have possibly around 8 characters of colour who feature regularly-ish as very important people, 3 or 4 to date who have the most agency in a scene granted that around 5 people are part of a family unit. That would be my rough approximation of the cast that usually does include something like 20-30 important characters at one time with about 10 audience view characters at most times.

I'm just doing this from memory so I'm likely wrong on more than some things. But that's an idea on the diversity and status of poc cast members.

 

Dorne kind of feels like moorish spain to me. I've heard similar comments with the addition that fantasy Dorne has social values that don't reflect those locations.

[tberton]

I'm going to agree with Argobot on this one, fully. I think a lot of male critics absolutely know what to turn the criticism dial up to 10 on (which is still on point, even!) but then neglect to apply that level of stringency towards things they like. If you want to go all in on one thing, you have to be willing to do that for all the things you like. I get it, too: it's incredibly hard to tear down something you love because of how much flack you'll get but it's part of being a fair media critic. 

 

Game of Thrones has some of the same issues as The Witcher as many other things and both of them require that picking apart, even if you enjoy both. So yeah, it's frustrating. It's also frustrating because male reviewers get probably 50% less shit about it. 

 

(On the PoC in GoT tip: Many of the PoC in the show are still portrayed in a way that is very much in line with fantasy tropes, like The Mystical East. They also have more supporting roles, versus main ones. The only reason this season is coming out ahead is just because they are at least in Dorne now, but Dorne is absolutely a mish-mash of Middle East and Southeast Asia flourishes.)

 

TL;DR Male game reviewers get way more kudos for doing less work in this regard because anything they do that's progressive or "on message" is seen as ultimately revelatory.

 

I agree with all of this, especially about the ease of attacking certain cultural products and staying away from others, but I think the confusion and complication arises because it's difficult to distinguish between:

 

"I didn't apply critical analysis because I like this thing"

 

from "I applied critical analysis and recognize this things problems but think it's worth liking anyway because of its good parts"

 

from "I applied critical analysis and came out with a differing opinion about what is good and bad about this thing"

 

So, on syntheticgerbil's point about Arthur Gies, I'm not sure which we're dealing with. I think the first is pretty inexcusable, but the second two are completely valid positions to hold, depending on context. Has Arthur ever written anything on GoT, or expressed his opinion on it thoughtfully? Because it seems to me that we're comparing lengthy reviews that are about digging deep into a piece of culture with a few tweets about being excited to watch a TV show with friends. For all we know, he spent that whole time discussing the problematic aspects of how GoT depicts women's bodies but still enjoyed Tyrion Lannister's fun quips.

 

TL;DR There are several different ways to "like" or "not like" something and it's tough to compare between them.

[Problem Machine]

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? Sexism and racism and other systemic imbalances are so ingrained in our culture that it's essentially impossible to consume any media that can't be viewed as problematic through one lens or another, and I think it's far more valuable to be open to consuming and interpreting that, and remaining open to the vast history of human culture, than to cloister oneself off to only those media products which we haven't figured out how they're full of fucked up cultural bullshit yet, though someday we probably will. Maybe I'm reading more into the statements than was actually said?

[tberton]

I agree with that to a point, but I think it's important to remain aware of the money making systems involved in these media products and how an attitude of "let's consume all we want as long as we're critical of it" attitude can potentially play into that.

[Problem Machine]

Hm yeah, as someone currently too broke to be economically relevant that aspect tends to bypass my thought processes a lot. In general I don't like to think about art in capitalistic terms, but I guess like it or not the marketplace of ideas and the marketplace of, uh, money, are pretty tightly interwoven.

 

Still, as long as a strong preference is shown for things that are less problematic, which I think tends to happen naturally because those things tend to be more interesting, going beyond myopic cliches and building new ideas, progressivism can still be economically selected for. I think the more we expose problematic ideas (and man I need to think of a better word to use there), and the more generally aware people are, the more hunger there will be for ideas that progress beyond them.

 

Making a concerted effort to vote with one's wallet, on top of that, seems redundant.

[natellite]

So, on syntheticgerbil's point about Arthur Gies, I'm not sure which we're dealing with. I think the first is pretty inexcusable, but the second two are completely valid positions to hold, depending on context. Has Arthur ever written anything on GoT, or expressed his opinion on it thoughtfully? Because it seems to me that we're comparing lengthy reviews that are about digging deep into a piece of culture with a few tweets about being excited to watch a TV show with friends. For all we know, he spent that whole time discussing the problematic aspects of how GoT depicts women's bodies but still enjoyed Tyrion Lannister's fun quips.

 

TL;DR There are several different ways to "like" or "not like" something and it's tough to compare between them.

 

FWIW, everything on Polygon written about Game of Thrones is by Ben Kuchera or Brian Crecente. Reviewers aren't typically writing features like that; my understanding is that Polygon is a pretty heavily demarcated organization with regards to your role. It's likely a waste of time to have a reviewer writing things about this show unless they have something really interesting or insightful to add.

 

I think Arthur has been doing this kind of thing long enough that it's safe to assume that he's aware of the problematic elements in Game of Thrones, but I'm also deeply skeptical of the value in trying to infer anything about him either as a feminist or as a person based solely on his TV-watching habits. That way lies madness.

[James]

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? Sexism and racism and other systemic imbalances are so ingrained in our culture that it's essentially impossible to consume any media that can't be viewed as problematic through one lens or another, and I think it's far more valuable to be open to consuming and interpreting that, and remaining open to the vast history of human culture, than to cloister oneself off to only those media products which we haven't figured out how they're full of fucked up cultural bullshit yet, though someday we probably will. Maybe I'm reading more into the statements than was actually said?

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.

[natellite]

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 doesn't exist".

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

 

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.

 

That said, I also think it's a huge leap from what I just wrote to "remove all problematic things from your life forever" because 1. good luck lol and 2. I don't think something's cultural worth hinges entirely on whether or not it passes a litmus test. I just don't think we're there yet.