Can we talk about the misogyny ?

abmoraz

Misogyny aside, the fact that "You throw like a girl" is a very effective insult is well demonstrated by the amount of MVQ players' who got their panties in a bunch over the phrase in this thread.

I call that irony

/yes, I used that phrase on purpose for semi-comedic effect

Unknown

eris-wtga wrote:

I'm saying calling a dude a chick as an insult sexist, upon which you agree. how does the context change it?
As for the point of psych warfare, there are other ways to do it other then resorting to a sexist insult. Which I gleem as the original point of this thread.

The context is that this is a line of dialog spoken by a fictional character who does not share your world view. To her the only thing that matters is completing the mission and thwarting the villains. She's prepared to use anything at her disposal, including but not limited to her sex appeal, her perceived weakness as a woman, and even simple taunts. Could she have chosen a different taunt in that circumstance? Maybe. But that one was certainly appropriate, and this thread is proof enough of its potentially inflammatory quality. She could even be considered to be using it ironically as a strong woman using their own childish taunts against a bunch of macho soldiers, and in that context it could even be considered empowering.

If you don't like her choice of language and it makes you like the character less, so be it. If it makes you think less of the writers for choosing that particular taunt for the character, so be it. But it doesn't make the line, the character, the writers, or the game sexist or misogynistic for its inclusion. It means in this context you object to its usage. To which I respond, Black Widow doesn't care. She's got a job to do.

Unknown

I think the "you throw like a girl" insult works as an insult less because of a "you are feminine" implication and more because of a "you are not masculine" implication.

In a world where some women are killed because they were **** or hideously scarred by acid because they sought an education, calling the possibly-questionable use of language by a (female!) comic-book character "misogyny" cheapens the word and concept beyond all reason. It only demonstrates a complete lack of moral perspective.

abmoraz

Vairelome wrote:

I think the "you throw like a girl" insult works as an insult less because of a "you are feminine" implication and more because of a "you are not masculine" implication.

In a world where some women are killed because they were **** or hideously scarred by acid because they sought an education, calling the possibly-questionable use of language by a (female!) comic-book character "misogyny" cheapens the word and concept beyond all reason. It only demonstrates a complete lack of moral perspective.

Um, you are obviously not familiar with the "woman in a refrigerator" concept in comics. http://www.comicvine.com/women-in-refrigerators/4015-43763/

Unknown

If you don't like her choice of language and it makes you like the character less, so be it. If it makes you think less of the writers for choosing that particular taunt for the character, so be it. But it doesn't make the line, the character, the writers, or the game sexist or misogynistic for its inclusion. It means in this context you object to its usage. To which I respond, Black Widow doesn't care. She's got a job to do.

This is missing the point. If the writers had had her making lighthearted racist comments I really doubt you'd be arguing "that's just who she is, don't get angry at the character!"

Unknown

Thugpatrol wrote:

The context is that this is a line of dialog spoken by a fictional character who does not share your world view. To her the only thing that matters is completing the mission and thwarting the villains. She's prepared to use anything at her disposal, including but not limited to her sex appeal, her perceived weakness as a woman, and even simple taunts. Could she have chosen a different taunt in that circumstance? Maybe. But that one was certainly appropriate, and this thread is proof enough of its potentially inflammatory quality. She could even be considered to be using it ironically as a strong woman using their own childish taunts against a bunch of macho soldiers, and in that context it could even be considered empowering.

If you don't like her choice of language and it makes you like the character less, so be it. If it makes you think less of the writers for choosing that particular taunt for the character, so be it. But it doesn't make the line, the character, the writers, or the game sexist or misogynistic for its inclusion. It means in this context you object to its usage. To which I respond, Black Widow doesn't care. She's got a job to do.

I object to it's usage, period. The context is irrelevant to the core that the use of calling males feminine as an insult is sexist.

"She" did not say anything, she is a fictional character written by others (who more than likely are male). Writers who could have used other ways to convey their message, but went this way, probably because they don't even think of what it actually means. This is the subversive nature of modern day sexism. It is ingrained in our psyche that it doesn't seem like anything, woman are just vulnerable to this as men are. This is why you will have women use sexist language. Gawd forbid a woman points out some systemic sexism & get blown off as a crazy feminiazi (this is a generalization & by no means directed @ anyone here)

& gawd damn it, why can't I get the quotes to work..been a long time since I've been on a message board

Unknown

abmoraz wrote:

Um, you are obviously not familiar with the "woman in a refrigerator" concept in comics. http://www.comicvine.com/women-in-refrigerators/4015-43763/

To be fair, you can make a male list just like that

Unknown

I just find it hilarious that someone is taking offense at Black Widow saying "Hello, ladies" to a couple female Hammer agents.

Maybe I should take offense at the fact that in the next door node she says "Hello, gentlemen" to male agents?

Just how hard are these people looking to find something innocent to be offended about?

abmoraz

eris-wtga wrote:

abmoraz wrote:

Um, you are obviously not familiar with the "woman in a refrigerator" concept in comics. http://www.comicvine.com/women-in-refrigerators/4015-43763/

To be fair, you can make a male list just like that

Yes, they have. It's called "Dead Guy Defrosting".

Unknown

abmoraz wrote:

eris-wtga wrote:

abmoraz wrote:

Um, you are obviously not familiar with the "woman in a refrigerator" concept in comics. http://www.comicvine.com/women-in-refrigerators/4015-43763/

To be fair, you can make a male list just like that

Yes, they have. It's called "Dead Guy Defrosting".

I am familiar with Stuffed Into The Fridge--and as the link says, the concept depends on Men Are The Expendable Gender to explain why it happens more often to women--though I have no idea how it's relevant to what I wrote. Villains targeting the families/significant others of superheros is a concept older than the genre; that's why most superheros try to maintain a secret identity. Failing to protect the innocents closest to the superhero is instant drama, which is why it has been used time and again. The trope has a bad reputation, since it's often associated with lazy storytelling and cheap angst, but it usually isn't misogyny. Honor killings and acid attacks done to real women in real life? *That's* misogyny.

Dauthi

LevitateMe wrote:

Is it just me or is it slightly weird and wrong that a tough female like Black Widow would insult people by calling them girls? If anything, I'd expect her to be a bit more empowering of women than denigrating her sex like that.

I think it is sexist to expect men to be better at fighting than women. Why is fighting important in real life, and as a male why should I be expected to be good at it? I don't want to fight anybody. I wouldn't call it misogyny, I would call it sexist in general.

Unknown

eris-wtga wrote:

Thugpatrol wrote:

The context is that this is a line of dialog spoken by a fictional character who does not share your world view. If you don't like her choice of language and it makes you like the character less, so be it. If it makes you think less of the writers for choosing that particular taunt for the character, so be it. But it doesn't make the line, the character, the writers, or the game sexist or misogynistic for its inclusion. It means in this context you object to its usage. To which I respond, Black Widow doesn't care. She's got a job to do.

I object to it's usage, period. The context is irrelevant to the core that the use of calling males feminine as an insult is sexist.

"She" did not say anything, she is a fictional character written by others (who more than likely are male). Writers who could have used other ways to convey their message, but went this way, probably because they don't even think of what it actually means. This is the subversive nature of modern day sexism. It is ingrained in our psyche that it doesn't seem like anything, woman are just vulnerable to this as men are. This is why you will have women use sexist language. Gawd forbid a woman points out some systemic sexism & get blown off as a crazy feminiazi (this is a generalization & by no means directed @ anyone here)

Your objection is to the use of this kind of language anywhere, and that's admirable. If your crusade is to have society change its acceptance of it I wish you the best of luck. But that doesn't change the fact that this language is used in the real world by real people, and it is reasonable for this fictional character to use it as a weapon in this context. You call it subversive sexism, I call it believable dialog.

What if it was qualified with a thought bubble indicating Black Widow's intent to use the taunt to throw the goons off their game and how stupid they were for falling for it? Or if she got in a last little dig after the battle, turning the sexist comment on its head again and letting them know in no uncertain terms how foolish their narrow world view was? Would the line in question still be unbearably sexist?

Unknown

soursenseless wrote:

If you don't like her choice of language and it makes you like the character less, so be it. If it makes you think less of the writers for choosing that particular taunt for the character, so be it. But it doesn't make the line, the character, the writers, or the game sexist or misogynistic for its inclusion. It means in this context you object to its usage. To which I respond, Black Widow doesn't care. She's got a job to do.

This is missing the point. If the writers had had her making lighthearted racist comments I really doubt you'd be arguing "that's just who she is, don't get angry at the character!"

I probably wouldn't so much as bat an eye at Black Widow taunting a goon with something of a racial nature. My position stays the same, defending the dialog of a fictional character who is extremely ruthless using any means necessary to compromise an enemy. I would be surprised that they would choose to go that rout but only because of the vast difference in how socially acceptable the language in question is. Throwing around racial slurs is not good business even if the dialog is very much in character, particularly not in a game marketed towards adolescents. If your argument is that language with casually sexist overtones should be less socially acceptable than it is, that's fine, but that's really not what I'm talking about.

Now if you really want to go after them for their choice of language, that's the point you should probably be making: that comments that could be interpreted as sexist in nature do not belong in a game aimed at least in part at young impressionable minds. As an adult with no children such things are out of my scope. I leave that to parents and care givers who are far more responsible than I. But as an adult who enjoys believable grown-up dialog, I have no problem with it. I am neither a sexist nor a racist and reading something of that nature is unlikely to turn me into one.

An important piece of this which seems to be getting lost in the shuffle is that Black Widow need not believe the things she says to be true which she uses as weapons to incite her enemies. Her calling a bunch of goons "girls" doesn't mean she thinks being called a girl is an insult, it just means she believes they think being called a girl is an insult.

Unknown

Thugpatrol wrote:

Your objection is to the use of this kind of language anywhere, and that's admirable. If your crusade is to have society change its acceptance of it I wish you the best of luck. But that doesn't change the fact that this language is used in the real world by real people, and it is reasonable for this fictional character to use it as a weapon in this context. You call it subversive sexism, I call it believable dialog.

What if it was qualified with a thought bubble indicating Black Widow's intent to use the taunt to throw the goons off their game and how stupid they were for falling for it? Or if she got in a last little dig after the battle, turning the sexist comment on its head again and letting them know in no uncertain terms how foolish their narrow world view was? Would the line in question still be unbearably sexist?

I wouldn't say unbearable, annoying & frustrating sure, but it's something I have to deal with daily.

And it is both sexist & believable. Because it does happen everyday, but doesn't change the fact it is sexist. It doesn't matter about the fictional goons "think", the problem is that it reeforces that idea in the minds of the readers.

Unknown

eris-wtga wrote:

Thugpatrol wrote:

Your objection is to the use of this kind of language anywhere, and that's admirable. If your crusade is to have society change its acceptance of it I wish you the best of luck. But that doesn't change the fact that this language is used in the real world by real people, and it is reasonable for this fictional character to use it as a weapon in this context. You call it subversive sexism, I call it believable dialog.

What if it was qualified with a thought bubble indicating Black Widow's intent to use the taunt to throw the goons off their game and how stupid they were for falling for it? Or if she got in a last little dig after the battle, turning the sexist comment on its head again and letting them know in no uncertain terms how foolish their narrow world view was? Would the line in question still be unbearably sexist?

I wouldn't say unbearable, annoying & frustrating sure, but it's something I have to deal with daily.

And it is both sexist & believable. Because it does happen everyday, but doesn't change the fact it is sexist. It doesn't matter about the fictional goons "think", the problem is that it reeforces that idea in the minds of the readers.

I understand where you're coming from, but now you're getting into something much closer to censorship. You don't think this language should appear because it offends your sensibilities and your world view. Because it is "bad" language. But this is a work of fiction provided for entertainment purposes. When, as a writer, you begin to concern yourself with whether everything you write may possibly offend some group and attempt to cater to every flavor of political correctness you end up with very stale dialog that no actual person would use. You don't like the writers' choice of taunt, but forgotten in this is the scene in question features a very strong, confident woman putting a beatdown on a bunch of burly men and making them look both foolish and impotent. That's hardly reinforcing sexist ideals that women are weak and powerless.

There is context to everything. You have acknowledging that some amount of extra content would have improved the situation at least to some degree in your view, and that is precisely what I'm talking about. I found the context in which the language appeared acceptable based on my understanding of the character and the situation. You did not. More context may have caused you to be less offended and see the scene as less negative. Nothing exists in a vacuum. You can't just pull a few words out of a scene and address them as a singular entity. How they are delivered, by who, to whom, in what situation is just as important.

MunitionsFrenzy

Jesus tinykitty-ing christ, people are asking for censorship in a game which advertises Pale Little Spider on Yelena Belova's cover mere minutes into the prologue.

Unknown

Thugpatrol wrote:

I understand where you're coming from, but now you're getting into something much closer to censorship. You don't think this language should appear because it offends your sensibilities and your world view. Because it is "bad" language. But this is a work of fiction provided for entertainment purposes. When, as a writer, you begin to concern yourself with whether everything you write may possibly offend some group and attempt to cater to every flavor of political correctness you end up with very stale dialog that no actual person would use. You don't like the writers' choice of taunt, but forgotten in this is the scene in question features a very strong, confident woman putting a beatdown on a bunch of burly men and making them look both foolish and impotent. That's hardly reinforcing sexist ideals that women are weak and powerless.

There is context to everything. You have acknowledging that some amount of extra content would have improved the situation at least to some degree in your view, and that is precisely what I'm talking about. I found the context in which the language appeared acceptable based on my understanding of the character and the situation. You did not. More context may have caused you to be less offended and see the scene as less negative. Nothing exists in a vacuum. You can't just pull a few words out of a scene and address them as a singular entity. How they are delivered, by who, to whom, in what situation is just as important.

Again, context doesn't change the fact it is a sexist comment. Women use female stereotypes to their advantage all the time (&yes it drives me nuts), that doesn't make it any less sexist. And it doesn't offend my sensibility, it makes my (and all women's) life more difficult. Not specifically this one instance, but the larger thought patter that gets feed by it.

And I work retail, I have to self censor all the time. And have never said "this needs to be changed asap" I commented on this because I agree it is sexist, to highlight this because people may no realize the sexist nature of the comment and I like a good debate

Unknown

I'm offended by this topic. It should be banned from any further discussion, in the interest of being overly politically correct. Anyone who disagrees with me is a bigot and racist.

Unknown

eris-wtga wrote:

Again, context doesn't change the fact it is a sexist comment. Women use female stereotypes to their advantage all the time (&yes it drives me nuts), that doesn't make it any less sexist. And it doesn't offend my sensibility, it makes my (and all women's) life more difficult. Not specifically this one instance, but the larger thought patter that gets feed by it.

And I work retail, I have to self censor all the time. And have never said "this needs to be changed asap" I commented on this because I agree it is sexist, to highlight this because people may no realize the sexist nature of the comment and I like a good debate

Are we having a debate? I'm not sure we are. I've tried repeatedly to make points using examples. You haven't really bothered to address any of them. Your responses all boil down to variations of "This line is sexist. Sexism is bad. Context is irrelevant." What you have is a position, an extremely simple and rigid one at that, but you haven't made any point beyond one half mention of reinforcing negative stereotypes in the minds of readers. Likewise your denial of any kind of merit to context borders on intentionally obtuse. You're not engaging in debate, you've built a brick wall and you're hiding behind it.

What do you want? What is the recourse here that would satisfy you? Let's say the writers picked a different insult. That insult, by its very nature, would likely be at its core offensive to some subgroup of the player population, or it would be a really lame insult. They happened to pick your hot button issue and it's set you off. Would you be crusading as hard if she had made a fat joke instead? Would you be sympathetic to the people who were offended if you weren't? They could remove the section entirely, but now you've robbed the character of utilizing some of her defining characteristics, her mind and her wit, something that makes her interesting in a world of super powered brutes that smash first and ask questions never.

There are always going to be these grey areas when you're writing fiction. You cannot please everyone all the time and you cannot sanitize your work so completely lest it becomes so dry and boring that nobody will want anything to do with it. So please, enlighten us. What do you want? Step out from your barricade and debate if you want to debate. I enjoy a good debate as well, but right now you haven't put much out there.

Unknown

Thugpatrol wrote:

Are we having a debate? I'm not sure we are. I've tried repeatedly to make points using examples. You haven't really bothered to address any of them. Your responses all boil down to variations of "This line is sexist. Sexism is bad. Context is irrelevant." What you have is a position, an extremely simple and rigid one at that, but you haven't made any point beyond one half mention of reinforcing negative stereotypes in the minds of readers. Likewise your denial of any kind of merit to context borders on intentionally obtuse. You're not engaging in debate, you've built a brick wall and you're hiding behind it.

What do you want? What is the recourse here that would satisfy you? Let's say the writers picked a different insult. That insult, by its very nature, would likely be at its core offensive to some subgroup of the player population, or it would be a really lame insult. They happened to pick your hot button issue and it's set you off. Would you be crusading as hard if she had made a fat joke instead? Would you be sympathetic to the people who were offended if you weren't? They could remove the section entirely, but now you've robbed the character of utilizing some of her defining characteristics, her mind and her wit, something that makes her interesting in a world of super powered brutes that smash first and ask questions never.

There are always going to be these grey areas when you're writing fiction. You cannot please everyone all the time and you cannot sanitize your work so completely lest it becomes so dry and boring that nobody will want anything to do with it. So please, enlighten us. What do you want? Step out from your barricade and debate if you want to debate. I enjoy a good debate as well, but right now you haven't put much out there.

Sorry but you are guilty of the same thing, "But the context". The only context that saying " hello ladies" that isn't sexist is to a group comprised of all women. And I'd say that using a sexist taunt is the absence of wit & intelligences. Yes I am brow beaten the point that the line used on a male as an insult is sexist, but I don't see how context can change that. If something is black, changing the lighting doesn't change the fact that it is black.

And I guess what I would like you to take away from this is to think about how we use language, and the effect it can have. There are very few contexts where sexism is OK (this is not one of them)