I'm gonna pick out the highlights of her article. This must be the best:
This proves that you can find anything if you look hard enough.
Next up, she claims that the Zerg runs on a female economy which relies on reproduction. And Zerg gameplay is like the development of an orgasm! <-- LOL WTF???
The Zerg on the other hand, build up first a small and weak group of troops. These troops usually test the mettle of the enemy, and so you build up a slightly larger group to do the same. You then follow this with a larger, and more powerful, and a larger and more powerful, and a larger and more powerful group… until finally you have won, or you are struck in the instant of rebuilding before your next great thrust begins. While this argument is much more blatant when shown graphically, anyone who has studied either human sexuality, or gender-comparative literary styles should recognize this pattern. It is the comparative stages of sexual peaks, climaxes, and orgasm(s).
After a hard day of classes, who doesn't want to kick back and relax? But there are so very many options of what to do on our beloved Bethany campus! … Many people on this campus, and throughout the country and world relax by indulging in various forms of gaming. Whether it be sports or role-playing, pool, arcade, or computerized, gaming is a popular form of entertainment. But, are modern computer games more destructive than they are productive? 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.
While this argument could take nearly any game and come to the same conclusions, I would like to talk about the game Starcraft. To those of you who have never played it, don't worry, my point is clear enough that the actual gameplay need not be experienced to understand. I fear that Starcraft, along with nearly all modern computer games, alongside it's addictively entertaining gameplay, and beautiful plotline, reinforces negative gender stereotypes by quantifying the women as sexual objects, and simultaneously as unknowable beasts. This is not but a problem of Blizzard (the company the produces Starcraft and the popular Warcraft series.), but in fact of our society at large…. But to attack a whole society is so very difficult these days, so let's just stick with Starcraft for now.
Starcraft is an 'overhead-realtime-strategy game'. Which in short means that it is a game in which you build armies, and send them strategically to eradicate your enemies, while holding a bird's eye view. There are three races in Starcraft: The Terrans. Humans, expelled from Earth so very long ago that they've adopted their own governmental reign, technology, and customs… but who are still pretty much just like us with bigger guns. The Protoss, an ancient alien race whose power comes from their honor, nobility and psionic powers. And, the Zerg. A monstrous race of insects that have bred themselves into a hierarchical, hive-minded powerstructure, who wish to attain supreme perfection of form and essence.
Sounds pretty straightforward, huh? The blatant problem however is the way that women are depicted in this game, and perhaps the bigger problem is the comments on women that Blizzard may or may not have even realized that they put in (you may argue that if Blizzard didn't know, it's not a problem… if you want to argue this, first read some Michel Foucault… then e-mail me. (A game is a work, just like a book, once out of the author's hand, it is no longer theirs.).
Women in this and many computer games are depicted as sexual objects, and nothing more. Simply put, women are much more than that. Women, men… we are people, humans… nothing more, nothing less. Just because some of us have breasts, and others penises, does not make either more of an object of sex, nor more an object of power. We are of America, where we claim that we're all equal; equal rights, equal opportunities, equal power, equal sexuality. Therefore, it is not right to ingrain into our minds (through our entertainment) that one gender is only for the sake of sexuality. (For examples of the ways that women are overly sexualized in these games, see the attached "evidence" quotes.) Although this is a distinct problem, as these sexual identities get ingrained in us as we recreate, this is not actually the issue that I wish to address at the moment.
The issue that I wish to address is the much less obvious one. Of the three races in Starcraft, the player begins by first greatly feeling a connection to the Terrans. They are, after all, like us. They are humans, they look like us, they sound like us, and they claim Earth as their homeland. They have their power struggles, and their titles, and their government, and we understand this all, and empathize with it… quite frankly because it is our society. The Terrans are us, and so we relate to them. Blizzard was intelligent to do this, as it brings you into the game, and allows you to learn the user interface with a feeling of comfort, as you are not outside of the comfortable world of your computer room.
The next race is the Protoss. They are alien from us (as with all 'good' sci-fi aliens) in that they are exactly like us, but with a tweak here and there. Most players settle into the Protoss as their favorite race. This is presumably because of the fact that they are 'human' enough that we can feel for them, but they are alien enough that their power is new and sweet. The Protoss are essentially humans with greater psychic powers, and a more rigid code of honor (Note: I do not mean to say this of the story line, but of how we relate to them… I mean this in the same way as saying that Vulcans are humans with greater logic, less emotions, and pointy ears, or that orcs are green barbaric humans.). The Protoss are what many developing boys with to be. They are powerful, honorable warrior-philosophers. They are described as perfection of essence, but not of form (Alternately to the Zerg who are described as perfection of form who are seeking perfection of essence, and the Terrans who are described as perfection of neither, but on the brink of both.). We can feel for the Protoss, because, when all is boiled away, they are us… or at least our dreams and aspirations.
And then there are the Zerg… The ruthless, writhing alien beasts. The icky bugs. The enemy. The Zerg are not human. We have difficulty relating to them because (if for no other reason) when we click on them, they do not talk to us. They do not sass talk. They do not bend to our will. They do not entertain us. They simply respond to us in an animalistic tongue that we cannot comprehend. Upon clicking on one of their buildings, you do not hear the sounds of building, nor of metal upon metal, but instead of the organic sounds of life oozing. The Zerg tap into the spirit of fear that resides in all human beings. It taps into our primal memories of beasts that cause our tribes harm. And they are meant to be that way. They are the plague upon the universe, the disease, the evil, the enemy… the Other. So what? What the hell does any of this have to do with sex, sexuality, gender, or the price of tea in China? It has everything to do with reinforcing gender stereotypes. but first you have to realize that the Terrans and the Protoss are men, while the Zerg are women. What??? The Terrans have male and female. The Protoss are asexual. And the Zerg…well, they're the Zerg! I understand… but keep reading and it will become clear.
Both the Terrans and the Protoss function on a productive economy. You build buildings that are suited to the type of unit (army) that you would like to use to conquer your opponent, then you invest money into those buildings. The more money that you invest into the more of those buildings, the stronger your army, and the faster you get those armies. The Zerg however work on a reproductive economy… something that we are not all too familiar with. With the Zerg, there is one main building, called a hatchery, that produces Larva. These larva are then transformed into a more powerful unit, which is even then occasionally transformed into an even more powerful unit. The power of the Zerg lies not in how many productive buildings you have, but in how many reproductive (larva-birthing) buildings you have. Also, their power lies not in efficiency of building (more marines per minute) but in keeping your troops alive long enough to get them nurtured and grown up to a state of power. (Good job for those of you who are putting together the gender argument already).
So? So, the Terrans play hard and fast, the Protoss play power, and the Zerg need to nurture, who cares? The reason why this is important is because the productive economy is the male economy. It is the economy that is set up by the half of the species that cannot bear children, the half than needs to invest worth in order to gain. Conversely, the reproductive economy is the female economy. It is the economy of the half of the species that bears children and is biologically required (at least for a while) to nurture the young. So that's great! We've shown one side of evidence that implies that the Zerg are playing off of female ideology, while the Terran and Protoss play off male… but that is still not yet anything offensive or bad. Allow me to show more support for the claim of Zerg being female, and Terrans and Protoss being male before I show the full extent of my hand.
The buildings say a lot about what gender they are meant to parody. The Terran buildings are sharp and angular. They are built in a series of poles and walls, and constructed from the ground up, sharp, boxy, and rigidly unwavering. Cold. The Protoss buildings are tall and thin, reaching toward the sky, the large phalluses reach upwards, rigid and firm, an emblem of power for all to behold. The Zerg 'buildings' are somewhat different. First of all they are not buildings, per se, but are living entities in and of themselves. Secondly, they must be 'built' upon the life-giving fluid that oozes from the mother building: the hatchery. Thirdly, a drone (evolved from a larva as are all troops) must sacrifice its life in order to become the building. Once the drone sacrifices itself, it becomes a large, undulating womb-sac that pulses and grows until the building inside has finished incubating. It then bursts forth out of the womb as a once again undulating 'building'. But the Zerg buildings are neither angular, nor phallic, but explicitly gynic. All of the Zerg buildings ooze some sort of fluid from one of their many openings. Nearly all of their buildings have one to multiple openings, ranging from gaping circles, to small oozing slits, to rounded triangles that pulsate open and then closed slowly. Also, one of the Zerg's greatest strengths is a building known as a Nydus Canal. A Nydus Canal is a large, vaginal opening, that if a Zerg unit enters, it may emerge at the other end, in a manner that "greatly puzzles most Terran scientists." (This quote is too much to not mock: What? Men cannot understand the vagina: the symbolic representation of women? I never would have guessed.)
My third argument comes from the actual experience of playing the game. When playing the Terran and Protoss, you slowly build and army of ever increasing power. You start off low in power, but then build and build, and build, and build until one glorious moment when you 'go' and it is either your moment of glory when you sweep the map, or it is an unpleasant resolution, as your great accomplishment is wiped out and you have no choice but to lose, or if you are lucky to undergo the slow but steady process of getting back up to the point where you can 'go' again.
The Protoss and Terrans, follow the male sexuality of building up, and up, and up, until finally it is the long awaited moment, while the Zerg build up, and then drop some, then build more… and more… and more… and more, and once dropped it may re-build up again, much sooner than it's male counterpart.
If these arguments aren't enough 'evidence' to get you to at least contemplate the possibility that the Zerg are intended to be taken as female, while the Protoss and Terran are to be taken as male, I feel that you should reread the evidence more carefully, and perhaps simply examine if you don't want to believe it. Now, to the crux of the matter. The reason why it is harmful for games like this to draw on such ideologies is that it reinforces negative gender stereotypes, in regard to both men and women. I am mainly concerned with the female aspect, and so that is what I will put my emphasis upon. To solidify into gamers minds the idea of Zerg = female, alongside Zerg = unknowable, evil beast yields a culture who regard female = unknowable, evil beast. This is obviously a problem. Women are human, men are human. In that sense there is no distinction. I would say "women are as worthy (or as human (or as anything)) as men", but this statement itself reinforces the ideology that men are standard, while women simply strive to be like them. this need not be the way that we look at it. Women and Men are equals, and anything, addictively entertaining or not, that reinforces an ideology that says otherwise needs be taken to task. I am not assaulting Blizzard, for I truly believe that they are not even aware of what they did. The problem lies in the fact that this game, in fact nearly all computer games, is a direct product of the American male fantasy. The problem lies not in the game (although it perpetuates the problem), but in the fantasy life that we have set up for the American male youth. Freud refers to women as the "immense heart of darkness", the unknowable, the different, the other. This permeates our society.
Starcraft Terrans
--Kelly Alerenson (lolathegrig@hotmail.com)
Wow, first off, I just want to say that so many of you need to learn how to spell, especially considering the fact that a large portion of gamers prefer magic-user classes. If you can't spell, then anything you cast just won't work, even if it is spoken rather than written, because then you have to be thinking about the actual form of the words. This even goes for programming and game design. If your text is written badly, then your code is probably full of errors. If available, at least run spell-checking when you're finished. Granted, I know that spell-checking is not available here, but on many forums that I've been on, it goes unused, despite being sorely needed in many cases.
Now, onto the main topic. Some of what the lead post says is somewhat valid and just because the majority of gamers are young males does not excuse the attitudes inherent in such gaming material. The same can be said for a large portion of pop culture items, such as comic books, action movies, music. The biases are sometimes reversed in some genres, such as romantic comedies or pop music, but this is rare. I do see the points made by some on this forum about the nature of this game being more about technology versus a biological threat. As far as the point made in the lead post about the Nydus Canal, I think that what was puzzling to the Terran scientists was actually the fact that it could be completely traversed, which has no correlation to a human vagina. Also, it probably should be more correctly referred to as resembling a vulva, not a vagina, which is also a part on a flower, as well as a mamallian female. This also brings up the point that there are many mamallian creatures which pose a definite threat to other creatures and also many insect hive-based creatures are typically ruled by a matriarchal head. Does that mean that the Supreme Creative Force, whatever that may be, must be sexist. No, merely that there are many patterns or systems of all kinds throughout reality, fictional or otherwise. The fact that this game focuses on the threat that it does might indicate a bias, but does not necessarily do so.
Comments questioning why the author of the lead post included material evidence from Warcraft miss the point that Warcraft was produced by the same company as Starcraft.
I do think that game companies should not focus solely on one demographic, regardless of how much disposable income that demographic has. That practice is simply lazy. There is a market for games catering to other demographics giving a particular opening to independent developers seeking to enter the business. I think Stardock is doing an admirable job of including material that can appeal to audiences across the board. That is not meant as a plug, merely an observation of their catalog.
Nothing wrong with feminists. Equal rights is an admirable goal. Its just the hand biting, megaphone yelling millitant top 5% we read about in the paper that gives ALL the other women a bad name.
Threre is a big difference between "I'm opening this door because I don't believe you are capable, leer leer, wink" and "Its common courtesy".
I mean regardless of your personal views, you would open a door and hold it open for a man in a wheelchair. Wouldn't you?
I hold the door open for whomever is behind me and let them go first
whether it be man, woman, or child in any condition
thats just common courtesy and if a feminist has a problem with that then
As far as holding a door open for someone behind me, usually I just keep it open until they can catch up to hold it themselves. If we're both on opposite sides of say, a glass door, and I get there before them, sure I'll hold it open for them.
Nothing worse than getting a door slammed in your face by some jerk either not paying attention or not caring.
Now as far as creating games to target demographics... There's nothing at ALL wrong with that. In fact, it's good business sense to tailor make a product to fit your target group. I'd prefer my gaming companies to be really good at making products suited for one (maybe two) demographics. I wouldn't want them trying to please everyone by releasing games they have no business making.
(I secretly hope Blizzard picks up the Barbie franchise )
Not what I meant. If a woman gets angry at me for holding a door for HER and she won't hold a door for anyone else. Thats a heck of a double standard.
I hold open the door for a lot of people if I notice them behind me. I go out of my way for the elderly, people with children, someone with a lot of stuff in their hands. It's just being considerate. The mistake you are making is calling a woman a feminist because she is rude to you instead of just considering her rude. That fact that she is a woman, and she is rude does not automatically make her a feminist, or even an active feminist, whatever the hell that is. Feminism takes on many forms, and the stereotyping here just shows an ignorance and willingness to typecast all women who rub men the wrong way.
Ugh, this is where the catch 22 kicks in. Never mind what I meant to say. I have no oppinion one way or the other.
Not meant to be a cop out, but there is just no way to add something without stirring the pot. Its just that kind of subject.
There is going to be a firestorm after a write this if there are any feminists here...
Men treat women differently than they treat men because women ARE different than men. In her article, she talks about women's roles as mothers and the act of reproduction, us being here depends on the ladies... so exuse me if I'm a little nicer to them.
If everytime I opened a door for a woman i said "I am not doing this because you are woman" that would be creepy.
And her article means nothing, you can find this "evidence" wherever you look, it has to do with the fact that sex is the reason we're here after all.
And i forget who said it, but you are right, if you do not hold doors open and pull out chairs then you are seen as unkind or discourteous, and if you do then all you want is to sleep with the girl or show your male dominance... OH MY GOD! that sounds like a sexist interpretation of men from the people fighting for gender "equality"
This whole thread seems like a thinly veiled attack on the validity of feminism. It would be extremely easy to find dumb that a republican or democrat wrote and if I posted it with a title like "such and such as viewed by a democrat (or republican)" it would be identified as anti-dem/repub on the spot. So it is with this thread.
The article is stupid and you found it on the internet. Shocking.
Got to love the Internet Greatest invention of the 20th Century, now an outlet for porn and people who hate each other who've never met
Although I have to say, while I don't even partially dislike most feminists, I do hate the extremely vocal portion of them. You know what, they made a game that offends women (although how I don't know...). Suck it up Nancy. No matter what they do, they're going to offend someone (unless its targetted against white Christian males, because apparently we're the spawn of the devil ), and if it wasn't you, it might be African Americans, or Asian Americans, etc, even if their reason for being offended has no rational base.
You're delusional if you think that an appreciable minority of feminists finds Starcraft even remotely relevant to feminism or if you think that being a white male justifies any hint of a victim complex.
I'm the same way... it's just how I was brought up. It has nothing to do with equality, it's all about courtesy and respect. Truth is, I LIKE being a helpless romantic. And yes, I'll hold the door for someone in a wheelchair, or someone with an armload, or whatever...
And quite honestly I've NEVER had a woman go all feminist on me about it... not once in my whole long boring life..lol.
I actually hold the door for ANYONE following closely behind me, regardless of demographics. When a feminist rudely suggests that I'm being sexist because I held the door for her I say I do it for everyone and "Would you rather that I let the door hit you in the face?"
I have faced this situation and other more ridiculous conversations in which they suggest that military technology tends to be phallic and such, not realizing that those designs ARE the most efficient for what their purpose is, that they weren't designed based on aesthetics.
I agree that targeting a specific demographic is good business, generally speaking, and God forbid a company produce something that they have no business producing, but when a significant majority of major developers are all targeting the same demographic, it actually can be bad business because of market saturation. As far as a Blizzard Barbie game goes, that would be a horrible idea, first of all because licensed games usually turn out to be crapware, worthy of a landfill rather even than the bargain bin. I realize that your remark regarding this was a joke and it was both funny and horrifying at the same time (horrifying because of the thought of another Barbie game ).
I think the speech content for the Blizzard characters mentioned in the lead post were meant to be humorous, possibly even a commentary on what it takes for a woman to typically be, to get into the military, a sex toy a la Barbie Joins the Space Marines (PLEASE, DO NOT MAKE THIS GAME! I'M TALKING TO YOU, DEVELOPERS!) or a sexless killing machine, a la the female Marine from Aliens: The Movie.
I would like to note how impressive the improvement in spelling has been since my first post on this thread. Bravo! (Perhaps a toast would be in order for all who made the effort! )
It is impossible to make everyone happy, everything is going to offend someone in some way.
The dialogue was probably meant to be humorous, if there was no mention (or joking) of the protagonist being a female, what's the point of having a female main character?
Feminism is not inherently bad, but the premise is flawed. It starts with the base assumption that men, all men, have more rights and privleges than every woman. In the U.S. there are laws in place that protect the rights of women and any sexism is individual (ex. employer to employee). The vocal feminists are seen more as unstable rabble rousers than anything else, thus the movement becomes counter-productive.
The author was probably taking a sociology class and decided to look for examples of this kind to impress her professor.
It hasn't been based on the assumption that men have more rights since women won suffrage. It's based on social roles and treatment. Women do still get paid less in many cases and face different social pressures and hostility than men.
That being said I really don't like some of the negative stereotypes out there about men, but I've never personally felt disadvantaged because of them.
That's true of certain flavours of feminism, and it's certainly a criticism which has been leveled at feminism in its earlier forms (specifically first- and second-wave feminism), but I think that you'd be hard pressed to find a feminist who believes that a black, homosexual, underclass man has more rights and priviledges -- both formal and informal -- than a white, heterosexual, upper class woman. The author is more representative of third- or post-third wave feminism which likes to namedrop trendy French intellectuals (see the author's reference to Michel Foucault) but also takes issues like intersectionality -- ie. the criticism you've described -- into account. In fact, they don't always see equality as possible or even desirable.
The feminists are proof that man was right to name hurricanes after women.
That might be a contributing factor to the change in naming conventions, but we couldn't see them from space when that got started.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
