Feminism

[SecretAsianMan]

Although I covered this in the list I just posted, I just wanted to clarify that the argument isn't that they're actively endorsing the norm, more that they decided to be part of that norm with no good reason.

 

(Disclaimer: as I said before, I have not played the game, so I'm just presenting arguments, not making them.)

 

I'm going to ask the question that's been asked a million times before: does it need a reason?  The game clearly has no intention of social commentary.  It seems odd to me to thrust one upon it.  I'm not one of those people who says that games should just be about fun, but I certainly think some games are and this is one.  Also the norm they are presenting is the comic book one.  Not that I condone it there either, but it's not like the world of Arkham City was created from nothingness.

 

Of course I've also argued that intent and outcome aren't the same thing and often don't align.  As I said, the game has no aspirations of social commentary so their tone is trying to be consistent with their source material.  I can see that said tone rubbed some people the wrong way which is unfortunate because it distracts from what I feel is an excellent game.

 

One other thing I'll mention is that there are 4 prominent women in the game (Catwoman, Poison Ivy, Harley Quinn, and Talia al Ghul) who are all pretty heavily sexualized both in their design and by the other NPCs in the game.  That struck me as much more gross than a few random barks calling one of them a bitch, which I still maintain are few and far between.

[Bjorn]

It's been mentioned before, but this kind of writing feels so lazy and uninteresting. Having a random thug in a video game call a woman a "bitch" or threaten her with rape is so overused at that this point that it no longer shocks me, it just makes me bored and angry. Whenever I see a prominent female character in a game, I count the minutes until something like this happens and am never disappointed. Batman doesn't sound like the worst example, but it is another addition to the garbage pile of lazy writing that plagues female characters in games (and tv and movies).

 

Highlighted part is exactly how I feel.

 

I also want to point out one of the effects of normalization.  Batman: AC was rated T, meaning it could be marketed and sold to kids as young as 13 (and realistically, probably younger).  My point isn't about kids playing it though, it's about how we rate and view games.  The official ESRB page for ratings says that a T rating may include "infrequent use of strong language."  And the page for AC says that it includes "Mild Language".  I'm guessing that if AC had multiple characters screaming FUCK dozens of times throughout the game, and included fuck as a standard AI bark that you would hear repeated multiple times, it probably wouldn't have received a T rating.

 

This is normalization, and this is why normalization is bad.  Female characters having bitch hurled at them dozens of times in a game is described as simply "mild, infrequent use of strong language appropriate for children as young as 13 to play" (to combine the ESRB's statements).

 

Now I think the language is troublesome no matter what, even if it had an M rating.  But that normalization, that acceptance that it's just okay, or not that big of a deal, to use bitch in that way, or that much, that results in things like a T rating.  Which pushes the normalization of bitch even further, entrenching misogynistic language even deeper in our culture.

 

That struck me as much more gross than a few random barks calling one of them a bitch, which I still maintain are few and far between.

 

I honestly don't remember how common they were, it's been years since I played it. But between the Hulk list earlier, and this Kotaku article, there are 14 specific lines, some of which are repeated AI barks. And I doubt those two lists are the only examples. So it seems reasonable that on an average playthrough, someone would hear a female character called a bitch at least a couple of dozen times, and possible several dozen, depending on the frequency of the barks.  I know that for me, AI barks tend to be background noise when I'm actually in combat.  Could be easy to simply not even notice some of them for a lot of people.

[SecretAsianMan]

To the people saying it's lazy writing, let me ask, what would not be lazy writing?  No snark here, I genuinely want to know.

[JonCole]

My standoffish answer would be I don't know, isn't that the writer's job?

 

My slightly more nuanced answer would be, are barks necessary? Games with better writing use barks as a means to convey information, not just for the purpose of supposedly enhancing the convincingness of the environment. Like, in Splinter Cell the guards say stuff like "hey, what happened to the lights" instead of just saying "I heard you were a pussy and I'm going to kick your ass, Fisher". Barks could be something like, "What was that shadow? Come out, there are more of us than there are of you" or something like that. Hell, it could even be something that enhances Catwoman as a character, like "don't go easy on the Catwoman, she can kick your ass just like the Batman can!" could be said from one AI to another.

[Ben X]

I'm going to ask the question that's been asked a million times before: does it need a reason?  The game clearly has no intention of social commentary.  It seems odd to me to thrust one upon it.  I'm not one of those people who says that games should just be about fun, but I certainly think some games are and this is one.  Also the norm they are presenting is the comic book one.  Not that I condone it there either, but it's not like the world of Arkham City was created from nothingness.

 

Of course I've also argued that intent and outcome aren't the same thing and often don't align.  As I said, the game has no aspirations of social commentary so their tone is trying to be consistent with their source material.  I can see that said tone rubbed some people the wrong way which is unfortunate because it distracts from what I feel is an excellent game.

 

One other thing I'll mention is that there are 4 prominent women in the game (Catwoman, Poison Ivy, Harley Quinn, and Talia al Ghul) who are all pretty heavily sexualized both in their design and by the other NPCs in the game.  That struck me as much more gross than a few random barks calling one of them a bitch, which I still maintain are few and far between.

 

It doesn't have to make social commentary, but then if it doesn't want to do that maybe it shouldn't use such problematic language. If there's no reason for including something that has strong real-world connotations, if you're just making a "fun game", then make the deliberate choice not to put that stuff in. Just like, say, the Batman Adventures or Batman '66 comics do at the moment.

 

To the people saying it's lazy writing, let me ask, what would not be lazy writing?  No snark here, I genuinely want to know.

 

II think the point is that it's lazy use of misogynistic language - ie, they haven't thought about their use of it and its connotations. Presumably, most of the stuff they say to Batman would work just as well with Catwoman...

[SecretAsianMan]

There are barks that show some of that stuff.  If they see Batman and you move away, they'll call out insults or taunts, unless you've intimidated them in which case they'll be freaked out.  There are also conversations you can listen in on where a bunch of them will talk about how they're afraid of Catwoman/Ivy/Harley and don't want to cross them.

 

I think I agree that maybe it would be better if they had avoided using words like bitch at all, but I still think the amount in the game is very low, disproportionate to the level of scorn that seems to exist.

[Bjorn]

It doesn't take that much work to come up with something more interesting, even if you're determined to have an enemy call the Catwoman a bitch.

 

Possible scenario:

 

Catwoman spies 4 enemies and listens in on their conversation:

 

Criminal 1: When I get my hands on that bitch, I'm making her pay.

Criminal 2: Don't use that word, I fucking hate that word.

Criminal 1: What, bitch? 

Criminal 2: I just hate that word, don't fucking use it.

Criminal 1: So you're some kinda pussy feminist.

Criminal 2: You know why I was in Blackgate?

Criminal 1: Why?

Criminal 2: My father used to call my mother a bitch all the time.

Criminal 1: So?

Criminal 2: So I cut my dad's tongue out.  Nobody calls my mother a bitch.

Criminal 1: So what you're saying is that you're a son of a bitch.

*racouse laughter from rest of criminals*

Criminal 2: *shoots Criminal 1 in the face* 

*fight breaks out between 3 remaining criminals*

 

Now as Catwoman, you can easily sneak past the remaining enemies as they are distracted, you can jump in and more easily kick their ass since they are down one man and distracted, or you can just watch the fun and see what happens. 

 

You've just made an interesting, memorable scene involving the word bitch that is not used as a derogatory and generic slur to hurl at female characters.  You've broken the complete homogeny of the criminal enemies (which is frankly boring).  Players who take the time to scout and listen to enemies will be rewarded.  You've improved a scene in the game in multiple ways, and it took about 5 minutes of thought.

[Twig]

I think I said this in the MGS thread when it was first brought up, but basically...

 

This is a game about a dude (or a lady) running around in his )or her) underwear beating up bad guys with fancy gadgets and kung fu. All matters of social commentary (intentional or unintentional) aside, the "realism" of using sexist language to insult a woman is completely unnecessary, because the game is unrealistic from the get-go. It doesn't bother me in the slightest if they do choose to call Catwoman a bitch, but also it wouldn't bother me in the slightest if they DIDN'T choose to do so, so why are they choosing to do so? There's no legitimate reason for it. Especially when it DOES bother some people that it exists.

 

Also I find Bjorn's proposed scenario way too forced and on-the-nose so I don't like that. U:

[SecretAsianMan]

I like that scenario Bjorn.  Thanks for a good example.

[Gormongous]

I wanted to respond to Thrik's post, but damn you guys move so fast.

 

After you guys got me thinking about all the gender-orientated words, I caught myself using the word 'gash' earlier on to describe something shitty. As in, 'that's a bit gash'. There are two things this word can refer to:

1. Wound
2. Vagina

I think that it's clear how the second likely evolved from the first. It's very widely used (here) as a stand-in for 'shit', 'crap', 'rubbish', etc. Am I bastard for using it in this way? I can't really say that I'd associate the word with either definition in this particular context, but I'm conscious that there's sensitivity to use the term for either gender's genitalia as some kind of derogative.

 

Clearly avoiding the term altogether is the easiest course of action, but — and I realise this sounds kind of stupid — I like the word. I'm re-evaluating terms that make their way into my everyday conversation and it's quite interesting thinking about the possible connotations of some of them. Is it going too far to use words like 'bollocks', 'dick', and any other gender-specific term? Should such sensitivity be reserved for when that gender is female, so what we're saying isn't so much 'avoid gender-specific terms' but more 'avoid female-specific terms'?

 

I think the problem here is that connotative meaning is so fluid. This is just me, but if I were to call a man a bitch and a woman a bitch, that word would mean completely different things. When a woman's a bitch, she's cold, cruel, unpleasant, mean, and all the other things that women aren't supposed to be. When a man's a bitch, he's weak, wimpy, scared. There's a gendered dichotomy of emasculation going on here that doesn't exist even with male-specific insults like "dick" because being a dude isn't and has never been the grounds for oppression and therefore an undesirable thing to be.

 

To go a bit deeper, the normalization and attenuation of insults is a weird and scary thing. It's very affecting to go back even fifty years and hear racial language being used to describe completely nonracial things. "That's awfully white of you" used to be a very common compliment, "I'm sorry I've been so black" used to be a very common apology. I guess I'm saying that common usage is dangerous and oppressive because we live in a society that oppresses people as a matter of course. Very rare is the insult that doesn't put someone down by associating them with a group currently or formerly considered undesirable to be a part of (which is what makes asshole so impressive, because poop is apparently apolitical, although it's getting close to "trash", which has overtones of socioeconomic discrimination, so I don't know). You just have to be careful about what you say and about all possible meanings for it. This is currently the battle I'm fighting with the ableist language I still use too much. I don't see as much of a problem with male-gendered language, for the reasons Ben gave, but I still avoid it whenever I think to do so because I feel self-conscious about the gender politics I'm inadvertently deploying when I call someone a dick.

 

 

As for the conversation actually going on now a page later, I think that a bark that doesn't work with Batman shouldn't work with Catwoman. They're the same mechanically and narratively, so why shouldn't there be massive overlap? I actually think the excessively gendered nature of AI barks for Catwoman are because the developers wanted hers to be a different experience and so focus on the main (albeit superficial) difference between her and Batman, that she's a woman. In a way, it goes under the same umbrella as the hyper-feminization/sexualization of female characters in Arkham City that does make you uncomfortable, SAM. The defining characteristic of them all is that they're women, so it has to get as much play as possible, even if it's just that Catwoman is a "crazy bitch" instead of just "crazy".

 

I'd really, really like Batman to be called a "crazy bitch", if only because I know it'd never happen. Batman is half bat, all man, so no one would ever undermine his masculinity with a female-gendered insult.

[Zeusthecat]

My problem with this, and in general how this game is being described (I haven't played it, but here's my opinion anyway), is that it creates a hard dichotomy that just doesn't reflect reality. Plenty of nice or good people use gendered swears, the last few pages of this forum are evidence of that. Saying the word "bitch" doesn't automatically you a bad person and creating a world where only the bad guys use words like that obfuscates how pervasive these attitudes are in society. It's like when someone is presented as having cartoonishly racist attitudes; it allows people to ignore the more systemic racial problems because hey, at least they're not going around using awful slurs like the real racists that are often shown in media.

 

This is true, but I honestly can't imagine how a game could get away with reflecting that reality in a constructive way. It may be lazy or unrealistic to only have the bad guys talk this way but I think it would be far more problematic if you had random "good guys" using that same language as might happen in real life.

 

After seeing some of these other posts I'll definitely concede that the writing in this regard was pretty lazy and they could have excluded the misogynistic behavior altogether and had a better game for it. Personally, though, I think the sexualization of every female character in this game is far more problematic than what we're talking about.

[Twig]

Personally, though, I think the sexualization of every female character in this game is far more problematic than what we're talking about.

To an extent, but also hearing people use "faggot" and "nigger" and "bitch" all day every day in online gaming because they're such easy insults and there's virtually no consequence almost annoys/infuriates me as much as seeing every other piece of entertainment overflowing with giant tits. The two problems may be related, but they're separate enough that you can't fight them at the same time.

[JonCole]

This is true, but I honestly can't imagine how a game could get away with reflecting that reality in a constructive way. It may be lazy or unrealistic to only have the bad guys talk this way but I think it would be far more problematic if you had random "good guys" using that same language as might happen in real life.

 

After seeing some of these other posts I'll definitely concede that the writing in this regard was pretty lazy and they could have excluded the misogynistic behavior altogether and had a better game for it. Personally, though, I think the sexualization of every female character in this game is far more problematic than what we're talking about.

 

For me, I regard with barks with much more seriousness because a big problem in modern misogyny is the pervasiveness of it in even the most seemingly innocuous things. I think that most reasonable people would agree that the overt visual sexualization of the female characters is not productive, so that's why I'm making the argument regarding the less obvious offense. I suppose I would find the visual misogyny more offensive and more directly deserving of scorn, but for that reason I give the other aspect more of my personal attention.

[SecretAsianMan]

As for the conversation actually going on now a page later, I think that a bark that doesn't work with Batman shouldn't work with Catwoman. They're the same mechanically and narratively, so why shouldn't there be massive overlap? I actually think the excessively gendered nature of AI barks for Catwoman are because the developers wanted hers to be a different experience and so focus on the main (albeit superficial) difference between her and Batman, that she's a woman. In a way, it goes under the same umbrella as the hyper-feminization/sexualization of female characters in Arkham City that does make you uncomfortable, SAM. The defining characteristic of them all is that they're women, so it has to get as much play as possible, even if it's just that Catwoman is a "crazy bitch" instead of just "crazy".

 

I'd really, really like Batman to be called a "crazy bitch", if only because I know it'd never happen. Batman is half bat, all man, so no one would ever undermine his masculinity with a female-gendered insult.

 

I can see how the use of bitch falls under the same umbrella, it just seemed odd to me to pick out that of all things to take umbrage at.  I figured if anything was going to get people going it was going to be stuff like the jokes about what Ivy and Catwoman might be "doing" together since they were seen in the same place.  But I suppose that topic has been discussed myriad other times about other games.

 

Edit: Basically what JonCole said while I was typing this post.

[Zeusthecat]

For me, I regard with barks with much more seriousness because a big problem in modern misogyny is the pervasiveness of it in even the most seemingly innocuous things. I think that most reasonable people would agree that the overt visual sexualization of the female characters is not productive, so that's why I'm making the argument regarding the less obvious offense. I suppose I would find the visual misogyny more offensive and more directly deserving of scorn, but for that reason I give the other aspect more of my personal attention.

 

Fair enough. And thanks for the good discussion. I think my opinion has been swayed enough at this point that I can't reasonably defend the way this kind of language was used in the game.

[SecretAsianMan]

I honestly don't remember how common they were, it's been years since I played it. But between the Hulk list earlier, and this Kotaku article, there are 14 specific lines, some of which are repeated AI barks. And I doubt those two lists are the only examples. So it seems reasonable that on an average playthrough, someone would hear a female character called a bitch at least a couple of dozen times, and possible several dozen, depending on the frequency of the barks.  I know that for me, AI barks tend to be background noise when I'm actually in combat.  Could be easy to simply not even notice some of them for a lot of people.

 

Didn't see this part until now.  Those barks are definitely in there, but before I started playing I had the impression that there was a ton of it in this game.  I'm taking the game rather slowly because I'm actually interested in the collectables (a rare occurrence for me), which means I spend a lot of time creeping around and eavesdropping on conversations.  The bitch barks seem to be in the minority compared to the amount of other stuff that gets talked about.  It does occur often enough that I probably would have noticed even if I wasn't specifically paying attention to it, but I think the actual amount was blown out of proportion.

 

Also I'm so glad we're actually having a civil discussion here.  Almost forgot what those were like.  Thanks everyone for reminding me why I love these forums.

[Gormongous]

Also I'm so glad we're actually having a civil discussion here.  Almost forgot what those were like.  Thanks everyone for reminding me why I love these forums.

 

Yeah, I love peeking into this thread and feeling almost no need to chime in because you're all being so excellent to each other and talking about complicated stuff in good faith.

[James]

This is a very simplistic and well-worn approach to this kind of issue, but would there be any confusion over the offence if it had been caused by racial insults? It would certainly be compatible with these thugs' bad nature, and in that sense 'realistic', but I imagine everyone here would feel quite uncomfortable with its inclusion, particularly if the issue wasn't addressed in any other way, either directly or indirectly. Sure, not all games have to tackle serious social issues, but I do have to wonder whether those which don't are in a good position to be invoking them as scenery. Normalization aside, does that not run the risk of evoking a the heavy and grim mood of a more serious piece for those personally affected by the issues in question? If you don't want the game to seriously tackle the issue of sexism, why confront the audience with something that might affect them seriously?

 

I'm not sure there's a simple rule for when art (or creative media or whatever you want to call it) can justifiably include things like aggressive discriminatory language and so on. I guess the main thing is that it's done so mindfully, and not as just some sort of atmospheric window dressing. The latter is crass and excludes unnecessarily.

[Twig]

I would have the exact same reaction if it was racial. This is a game based on a superhero comic book. Realism doesn't matter. If it was historical fiction (or even contemporary fiction with the right setting), then it could be entirely justifiable. But superheroes are not real and, especially superheroes like Batman, should not be treated as real. (I could see a non-DC/Marvel universe superhero fiction in which things should be more... "authentic", I guess.)

[Bjorn]

Pulling back more generally, gendered swear words or insults are actually something that I kind of struggle to wrap my head around what to do with them.  Earlier in the thread (or maybe it was in the Batman thread) I mentioned how having a daughter affected my perception of those words.  But I also have some incredible friends who I respect greatly who are part of the movement to try and reclaim words like bitch, slut, cunt, etc.  They don't want to see these words banished, they want to make them words of pride and empowerment the way some other words have been reclaimed and repurposed.  Two of these women write professionally about sex, and experience the positives and negatives of words like these weekly. 

 

So while I think something like Batman is unnecessary and could be greatly improved without its language and tone, I don't want to that come off as having a general attitude that these words should not ever be used, or that they can't serve interesting purposes both in fiction and real life.

[SecretAsianMan]

I was about to ask if there was any context in which a gendered insult/swear could be considered "appropriate".

[Gormongous]

I would have the exact same reaction if it was racial. This is a game based on a superhero comic book. Realism doesn't matter. If it was historical fiction (or even contemporary fiction with the right setting), then it could be entirely justifiable. But superheroes are not real and, especially superheroes like Batman, should not be treated as real. (I could see a non-DC/Marvel universe superhero fiction in which things should be more... "authentic", I guess.)

 

It's interesting, I feel like a lot of superhero comic books take place (or want to take place) in a post-racial world where our biggest problems are supervillains and not poverty or starvation. Only recently has the same (ultimately nominal) effort been made for them to take place (or try to take place) in a post-sexist world where women get to be one of the boys, to be facile about it. It ties back to the most recent "political games" thread, really. How do you go about designing an apolitical setting, knowing that it's impossible

[Bjorn]

I was about to ask if there was any context in which a gendered insult/swear could be considered "appropriate".

 

For years now some feminists have been trying to take slut back, to empower female sexuality and normalize their desire and promiscuity in the same way that men's desire is normalized and accepted.  And part of that has included trying to destigmatize words around female genitalia and sexuality. 

 

But that's kind of where I hit a mental roadblock.  I see where slut is heading, and I think that's good and positive.  But I don't see a road where bitch or cunt end up being positive words, or having both the positive and negative connotations that dick, prick or cock can have. 

[Argobot]

I would have the exact same reaction if it was racial. This is a game based on a superhero comic book. Realism doesn't matter. If it was historical fiction (or even contemporary fiction with the right setting), then it could be entirely justifiable. But superheroes are not real and, especially superheroes like Batman, should not be treated as real. (I could see a non-DC/Marvel universe superhero fiction in which things should be more... "authentic", I guess.)

 

That just sounds like a cop out to me -- just because a story is fantastical doesn't mean it can ignore social issues. The writers are under no obligation to directly confront those issues, but they also shouldn't be allowed to disregard real world concerns because their stories aren't grounded in reality. It's a bizarre hypocrisy that I see a lot in genre writing; the authors want their stories to be taken seriously, but the second anyone examines the story with any amount of intellectual rigor, everyone throws up their hands and shouts "it's not real, it's fantasy!" as a defense. You can't have it both ways.

[Merus]

There's also the problem Idle Thumbs has brought up, in that if you're making a fantasy you still choose what fantastical elements you are introducing into your world. If you've made a world that's more misogynistic than reality then that is part of your world-building and open for critique.

 

I think Arkham City is particularly problematic because, while those barks are definitely present, they also exist in a world with plenty of female supervillains, but all of them are dressed to be appealing to males. For Catwoman, this makes sense, because it's a clear part of her character and other writers have done interesting things with that element of her, so it's only natural that Rocksteady would find it obligatory, but Poison Ivy's in underwear despite her uniform being basically arbitrary, and Harley Quinn's essentially running the Joker's gang and she's just as sexualised. You never actually fight her, and towards the end of the game you find her tied up, relatively useless. All of the choices made about how to treat female characters by the developers err on the side of making them less powerful, less empowered and more sexualised.