|
On May 17 2009 05:09 Railxp wrote:
lol entertaining read, its an interesting interpretation, but this point has been made before, aliens = women, humans = men, and so its not really new ground shaking bullshit.
Although i think she neglected to point out that the DTs run a matriarchy. And if she wanted to go out on a limb she can say DTs wear less cloths and work in the shadows and they are like muslim women because they wear veils.
llololol
she also failed to mention how much evolution chamber looks like balls.
|
Starcraft so sexist 
![[image loading]](http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/uncyclopedia/images/b/be/C566ac33f3f66c4eac4b5f56.jpg)
|
Did any of you actually read the article, or even its opening paragraphs? While the article quickly descends into the post-structuralist cultural studies style that I dislike immensely, the author points out that:
1) this isn't a problem with Starcraft - it's a problem with society and the structure of our social hierarchies
2) Starcraft is merely symptomatic of these problems, and is useful as an exemplar.
And she has a point. Starcraft fails the Bechdel test; it has few female characters (even the non-human characters are archetypally male). This doesn't mean that those who made Starcraft were sexist - it just goes to show that Starcraft is not above the (potentially negative) stereotypes and motifs that run through society.
|
On May 17 2009 05:14 The Raurosaur wrote:
Did any of you actually read the article, or even its opening paragraphs? While the article quickly descends into the post-structuralist cultural studies style that I dislike immensely, the author points out that:
1) this isn't a problem with Starcraft - it's a problem with society and the structure of our social hierarchies
2) Starcraft is merely symptomatic of these problems, and is useful as an exemplar.
And she has a point. Starcraft fails the Bechdel test; it has few female characters (even the non-human characters are archetypally male). This doesn't mean that those who made Starcraft were sexist - it just goes to show that Starcraft is not above the (potentially negative) stereotypes and motifs that run through society.
think about the target market for sc when it was released
|
On May 17 2009 05:16 mahnini wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2009 05:14 The Raurosaur wrote:
Did any of you actually read the article, or even its opening paragraphs? While the article quickly descends into the post-structuralist cultural studies style that I dislike immensely, the author points out that:
1) this isn't a problem with Starcraft - it's a problem with society and the structure of our social hierarchies
2) Starcraft is merely symptomatic of these problems, and is useful as an exemplar.
And she has a point. Starcraft fails the Bechdel test; it has few female characters (even the non-human characters are archetypally male). This doesn't mean that those who made Starcraft were sexist - it just goes to show that Starcraft is not above the (potentially negative) stereotypes and motifs that run through society. think about the target market for sc when it was released
But her point still stands. To use an extreme example, if someone comes along with a KKK booklet and says "this shit is racist", pointing out its target audience (KKK members) doesn't make it less racist.
|
Do you even know what the Japanese on that said? ><
EDIT - or rather, why is there such a weird contradiction between the Japanese and the English, lol.
On May 17 2009 05:18 The Raurosaur wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2009 05:16 mahnini wrote:On May 17 2009 05:14 The Raurosaur wrote:
Did any of you actually read the article, or even its opening paragraphs? While the article quickly descends into the post-structuralist cultural studies style that I dislike immensely, the author points out that:
1) this isn't a problem with Starcraft - it's a problem with society and the structure of our social hierarchies
2) Starcraft is merely symptomatic of these problems, and is useful as an exemplar.
And she has a point. Starcraft fails the Bechdel test; it has few female characters (even the non-human characters are archetypally male). This doesn't mean that those who made Starcraft were sexist - it just goes to show that Starcraft is not above the (potentially negative) stereotypes and motifs that run through society. think about the target market for sc when it was released But her point still stands. To use an extreme example, if someone comes along with a KKK booklet and says "this shit is racist", pointing out its target audience (KKK members) doesn't make it less racist.
But that argument brings us nowhere, so SC is reflective of a culture and societal issues, then what? If her point was to suggest that such persecution is abundant, then sure, that's fine, but that post-structuralist analysis didn't add anything to it. Overall, it is hard to read that as anything else but a farce. She might have had the right aim, but the supporting evidence for the most part doesn't do much to prove the point.
|
On May 17 2009 05:14 The Raurosaur wrote:
Did any of you actually read the article, or even its opening paragraphs? While the article quickly descends into the post-structuralist cultural studies style that I dislike immensely, the author points out that:
1) this isn't a problem with Starcraft - it's a problem with society and the structure of our social hierarchies
2) Starcraft is merely symptomatic of these problems, and is useful as an exemplar.
And she has a point. Starcraft fails the Bechdel test; it has few female characters (even the non-human characters are archetypally male). This doesn't mean that those who made Starcraft were sexist - it just goes to show that Starcraft is not above the (potentially negative) stereotypes and motifs that run through society.
Oh no a computer game doesn't aim to fix flaws in society, let's all make a big fuss.
|
oh jeez....
zerg are like orgasms now?
wats next? Protoss are like boners? -_-
stupid ppl
EDIT: ok ye sthere are flaws in society. I agree with that part.. i still dont think the zerg are like orgasms..
|
In all honesty this is one of the more coherent feminist theories I've read in my time.
|
On May 17 2009 05:14 The Raurosaur wrote:
Did any of you actually read the article, or even its opening paragraphs? While the article quickly descends into the post-structuralist cultural studies style that I dislike immensely, the author points out that:
1) this isn't a problem with Starcraft - it's a problem with society and the structure of our social hierarchies
2) Starcraft is merely symptomatic of these problems, and is useful as an exemplar.
And she has a point. Starcraft fails the Bechdel test; it has few female characters (even the non-human characters are archetypally male). This doesn't mean that those who made Starcraft were sexist - it just goes to show that Starcraft is not above the (potentially negative) stereotypes and motifs that run through society.
And if there were more women, they would complain that women are represented as ruthless killing machines, which is totally insulting to women. There would always be something to complain about.
|
Bill307
Canada9103 Posts
On May 17 2009 05:14 The Raurosaur wrote:
And she has a point. Starcraft fails the Bechdel test; it has few female characters (even the non-human characters are archetypally male). This doesn't mean that those who made Starcraft were sexist - it just goes to show that Starcraft is not above the (potentially negative) stereotypes and motifs that run through society.
lol?
Realistically, almost all combatants in a war are male. Why expect anything different from StarCraft?
|
Sweden33719 Posts
Why have I looked through 3 pages of this thread and not seen a single "lol you retards, it's a joke" post?
I mean, reading the description I was SURE it had to be a joke.
Not a joke? Really? Fuck me.
|
While on the subject, can we get 'feminist' to automatically filter to 'fugly mingers' in forum posts?
|
On May 17 2009 05:24 FrozenArbiter wrote:
Why have I looked through 3 pages of this thread and not seen a single "lol you retards, it's a joke" post?
I mean, reading the description I was SURE it had to be a joke.
Not a joke? Really? Fuck me.
But feminist writings really all read like this :p
EDIT - If you mean that the whole movement in itself is a joke though I am tempted to agree!
|
On May 17 2009 05:19 Nytefish wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2009 05:14 The Raurosaur wrote:
Did any of you actually read the article, or even its opening paragraphs? While the article quickly descends into the post-structuralist cultural studies style that I dislike immensely, the author points out that:
1) this isn't a problem with Starcraft - it's a problem with society and the structure of our social hierarchies
2) Starcraft is merely symptomatic of these problems, and is useful as an exemplar.
And she has a point. Starcraft fails the Bechdel test; it has few female characters (even the non-human characters are archetypally male). This doesn't mean that those who made Starcraft were sexist - it just goes to show that Starcraft is not above the (potentially negative) stereotypes and motifs that run through society. Oh no a computer game doesn't aim to fix flaws in society, let's all make a big fuss.
But how are flaws in society to be fixed, if not in part through small movements from the mass media?
You're right in that making a big fuss is pointless and fairly infantile. I don't really agree with the article, but there was an interesting point that a lot of people on here didn't seem to grasp so I thought I'd bring it up.
|
On May 17 2009 05:14 The Raurosaur wrote:
Did any of you actually read the article, or even its opening paragraphs? While the article quickly descends into the post-structuralist cultural studies style that I dislike immensely, the author points out that:
1) this isn't a problem with Starcraft - it's a problem with society and the structure of our social hierarchies
2) Starcraft is merely symptomatic of these problems, and is useful as an exemplar.
And she has a point. Starcraft fails the Bechdel test; it has few female characters (even the non-human characters are archetypally male). This doesn't mean that those who made Starcraft were sexist - it just goes to show that Starcraft is not above the (potentially negative) stereotypes and motifs that run through society.
She is right, but is it a big deal?
Armies consist mainly of men.
This is a game of war.
Also zerg and protoss shouldn't matter in this case because they aren't human. They are aliens. Basically zerg is just a load of insects.
Protoss are random scifihumanoids. are there even any info whether women exist in protoss world?
agh this is such a stupid debate. them feminists can make anything sound sexist and bad -__-
Also, one could say that its the other way around.
Starcraft is very feministic! The message it sends is that, why is most of the armies men?
MAybe its because of the flaw in the society that only men have to go to the army in so many countries. But there are a few women, who all are very pwoerful or they have a really important role in the army! its an encouragement to join the army for women!
|
On May 17 2009 05:23 lololol wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2009 05:14 The Raurosaur wrote:
Did any of you actually read the article, or even its opening paragraphs? While the article quickly descends into the post-structuralist cultural studies style that I dislike immensely, the author points out that:
1) this isn't a problem with Starcraft - it's a problem with society and the structure of our social hierarchies
2) Starcraft is merely symptomatic of these problems, and is useful as an exemplar.
And she has a point. Starcraft fails the Bechdel test; it has few female characters (even the non-human characters are archetypally male). This doesn't mean that those who made Starcraft were sexist - it just goes to show that Starcraft is not above the (potentially negative) stereotypes and motifs that run through society. And if there were more women, they would complain that women are represented as ruthless killing machines, which is totally insulting to women. There would always be something to complain about.
Stereotype #53: Women complain a lot.
Are Raynor or Tassadar portrayed as ruthless killing machines? You're making a strawman.
|
except for most of those stereotypes and motifs are not only based on truths of our society, but on truths of our behavior as individuals of our species.
feminism for equal social, political, individual rights is great.
feminism for equal everything when the sexes aren't equal in the first place is ridiculous.
beyond that, mahnini made the most obvious point I can think of. the game is for guys, not for girls. why wouldn't they make it what guys want?
I couldn't even stand reading this article much more than halfway, because it gets so ridiculous.
|
If you see vaginas in computergame buildings you do have a serious problem. Also stating that young men wants to be protoss. Uhm she is just guessing wildly there.
|
On May 17 2009 05:27 The Raurosaur wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2009 05:19 Nytefish wrote:On May 17 2009 05:14 The Raurosaur wrote:
Did any of you actually read the article, or even its opening paragraphs? While the article quickly descends into the post-structuralist cultural studies style that I dislike immensely, the author points out that:
1) this isn't a problem with Starcraft - it's a problem with society and the structure of our social hierarchies
2) Starcraft is merely symptomatic of these problems, and is useful as an exemplar.
And she has a point. Starcraft fails the Bechdel test; it has few female characters (even the non-human characters are archetypally male). This doesn't mean that those who made Starcraft were sexist - it just goes to show that Starcraft is not above the (potentially negative) stereotypes and motifs that run through society. Oh no a computer game doesn't aim to fix flaws in society, let's all make a big fuss. But how are flaws in society to be fixed, if not in part through small movements from the mass media? You're right in that making a big fuss is pointless and fairly infantile. I don't really agree with the article, but there was an interesting point that a lot of people on here didn't seem to grasp so I thought I'd bring it up.
The point is only as good as what you are basing it off. If the article was just that, then it would be a lot more convincing. Toss in enough of the nonsensical drivel and message itself becomes marginalized, this should be argued against even if the person has a good message, like how you cut off the rest of the "analysis". Even then it is pretty tainted already.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
