|
On May 17 2009 05:28 The Raurosaur wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2009 05:23 lololol 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. 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. Are the zerg portrayed as women and the protoss and terran as men? Who's making a strawman?
|
On May 17 2009 05:28 MuR)Ernu wrote: Protoss are random scifihumanoids. are there even any info whether women exist in protoss world?
dark templar are matriarchal.
razhagal was the dark templar matriarch
|
Bosnia-Herzegovina1437 Posts
|
On May 17 2009 05:28 The Raurosaur wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2009 05:23 lololol 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. 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 Feminists complain a lot. Are Raynor or Tassadar portrayed as ruthless killing machines? You're making a strawman. Fixed.
|
Sounds like an essay of someone taking a feminist class in college that was trying to BS their way to an A.
|
Now, don't get me wrong, there's nothing that I love more than curling up with my computer, a Starcraft CD, and Josie and the Pussycats in the stereo, but the other day I came to a few realizations. Well you can't hate her too much. Just a college student taking feminist studies looking for patterns that don't exist. Really though... You'd think she'd take a second to analyse how sexist Josie and the Pussycats itself is.
The actual argument is trash... There's a lot of reasons to say women aren't fairly represented in StarCraft, but saying the Zerg represent women is a premise most people are going to reject... It's totally far fetched. However, if you take the view that each of the female characters in the Terran units is generally seductive, it is falling into some pretty demeaning stereotypes... Unlike the male units which range from scrawny to bulky and have all different personalities.
If you look at the Protoss though, their female units (Razzengal or whatever) are actually quite varied and seem less seductive and sterotyped in their roles. If you take this to mean that the Protoss, a more advanced civilization, have advanced far enough that women have equal and varied roles, it's more like Blizzard is saying progress will bring equality, the future isn't dominated by one sex.
It should be obvious to note, however, that this looks like a joke. Maybe half serious at times, but I'm sure the writer knows they're going overboard. I just wish I knew when it was written.
|
Kerrigan ends up pwning everyone at the end (and after all the men in her life abandon her) so imo Starcraft is really a female empowerment story.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On May 17 2009 05:25 Ecael wrote:Show nested quote +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! I meant the site specifically but yes I think the whole movement has become completely ridiculous and I'm sure the people who originally initiated it would be ashamed of what it has become.
Btw, it's amazing how she bends facts to fit her argument, even something as basic as the order in which you are introduced to the races - she claims Terran/Toss/Zerg while it's Terran/Zerg/Toss followed by Toss/Terran/Zerg.
And Protoss are not asexual. In fact, the DTs are a matriarchy as has been pointed out.
Further, protoss buildings are described as phallic.. The closest thing to "phallic" in the game is the god damned zerg spire but of course that wouldn't work very well for her retarded argument.
The evidence section makes me want to smash my head into the monitor.
|
On May 17 2009 05:28 MuR)Ernu wrote: 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. But they are represented as male. They have male voices and possess archetypally male traits.
On May 17 2009 05:29 travis wrote: 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. That's a totally unfounded statement. Firstly, we don't understand the interactions between nature and nurture with regards to human behaviour, especially considering the conditioning effect of society. Secondly, what about all the different cultures around the world that have different power structures and different stereotypes and tropes?
On May 17 2009 05:29 travis wrote: 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. I agree.
On May 17 2009 05:29 travis wrote: 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 have to challenge both of your premises here. 1) Starcraft was made for guys. Really? I'll agree that the market audience was mainly young males, but I doubt the design team at Blizzard sat down and said "right, let's make a good old strategy game for the lads". It wasn't marketed as a particularly "boyish" game. 2) So they made it with what guys want. Do guys actively want games with empty female characters in them? Most of the response in this thread suggests that people don't care.
On May 17 2009 05:29 travis wrote: I couldn't even stand reading this article much more than halfway, because it gets so ridiculous. I agree.
On May 17 2009 05:30 Ecael wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2009 05:27 The Raurosaur wrote: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. I agree with you in principle. However, the message may be marginalised but that doesn't mean it's not true. If I gave a proof of there being an infinite number of prime numbers, and padded it with a load of crazy garbled nonsense and drivel, that may marginalise my proof but doesn't invalidate it.
On May 17 2009 05:30 lololol wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2009 05:28 The Raurosaur wrote:On May 17 2009 05:23 lololol 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. 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. Are the zerg portrayed as women and the protoss and terran as men? Who's making a strawman? What I'm getting at is that the situation you're suggesting (women being in the game, and the feminists still complaining about it) is one that you don't really have any evidence for. If someone tells you you're doing something wrong, and you fix it, and they still say it's wrong, either a) they're never pleased or b) you didn't understand what was wrong with it in the first place. In this case I think it's a mixture of both of them.
|
o.o
has this person not played gta iv? why the fuck is she complaining about starcraft xD
|
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.
Uh, why don't you actually examine the story and the contexts surrounding the units. The terrans are largely criminals: Criminals are male. Males are unfit to be in society. Clearly a pro-patriarchy move, right?
Protoss have 2 branches of their highest caste. One is run by females, the other is run by men. Shocking.
The zerg are led by a woman. The woman's origins and rise to power are nearly identical to those which are portrayed in a unit of the same type who is male. He dies.
All i can see from this is that toss are fairly egalitarian. Human males are still unfit for society and are sent off to war to die, and that females when directly compared to their counterpart males are superior.
NEW ARTICLE: STARCRAFT IS MISANDRIST.
|
That woman who wrote the article makes me feel like other people think I'm retarded because I play StarCraft
|
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.
LOL, you silly guy, ofc it's a joke. HIGH FIVE RETARD!
|
Sweden33719 Posts
2) So they made it with what guys want. Do guys actively want games with empty female characters in them? Most of the response in this thread suggests that people don't care. Obviously not but the female characters in SC are every bit as deep as the male ones. Which is to say, not very but it's an RTS not an RPG.
|
-_- wtf...
Sounds to me like a feminist seeking attention by looking for any random excuse to call something sexist...
Why not call all movies and TV shows with a male lead role sexist? Or almost everything in the media for that matter. It's not a matter of people being sexist. It's a problem with people seeing everything around them as sexist...
Edit: PS. I do not masturbate to the apparently sexually appealing gameplay of Zerg and I highly doubt anyone does... (well maybe a couple of exceptions...)
|
I get the (presumably) woman talking about the objectifying of women these days. But for her subject to be Starcraft is wrong.
I can't say anything else then, she was wrong.
|
Valkyrie has a German accent.
|
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.
Humans are sexually dimorphic in both physiology and behavior. Military units are primarily composed of male-bonded networks. In all societies and cultures. Starcraft is a game about... military units.
Too bad life and biology are so unfair, eh?
On May 17 2009 05:50 L wrote:Show nested quote +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. Uh, why don't you actually examine the story and the contexts surrounding the units. The terrans are largely criminals: Criminals are male. Males are unfit to be in society. Clearly a pro-patriarchy move, right? Protoss have 2 branches of their highest caste. One is run by females, the other is run by men. Shocking. The zerg are led by a woman. The woman's origins and rise to power are nearly identical to those which are portrayed in a unit of the same type who is male. He dies. All i can see from this is that toss are fairly egalitarian. Human males are still unfit for society and are sent off to war to die, and that females when directly compared to their counterpart males are superior. NEW ARTICLE: STARCRAFT IS MISANDRIST.
Shhh, you'll question Raurosaur's dogmas.
|
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. you just equated being a guy with being a member of the KKK.
|
On May 17 2009 05:43 The Raurosaur wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2009 05:30 Ecael wrote:On May 17 2009 05:27 The Raurosaur wrote: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. I agree with you in principle. However, the message may be marginalised but that doesn't mean it's not true. If I gave a proof of there being an infinite number of prime numbers, and padded it with a load of crazy garbled nonsense and drivel, that may marginalise my proof but doesn't invalidate it. Isn't that an issue in itself then? Unlike a hard field like mathematics, the context of this is a social movement. The ability for people to accept the message is just as important as the validity of the individual criticisms. A marginalized and valid criticism is no more useful than something completely false. Like what FA said already, people writing things this way is the reason why there is so much backlash to it. We have seen plenty of examples where social movements take form of correcting what is perceived as wrong, why not adapt a similar policy and create a much more stable position rather than that of a laughingstock?
|
|
|
|