Feminism Thread

[Correction]

You can kill the hookers if you want, but there's no real reason to do it at all, but yes it's there.

In GTA the choice boils down to

a: Ignore them, do nothing, move on. In this case the NPC is window dressing and never provides a meaningful interaction for the player or any other NPC in the game.
b: 'employ them.' Health boost at the cost of money. In this case the NPC is a bonus consumable
c: Well, murder them and take their money (not exclusive of b). This is the route taken almost exclusively by other NPCs in sandbox games in cutscenes, as part of establishing their character, examples of which can be found everywhere.

It's this last choice that's the focus of the last FF video and given that choice A makes them no more special than a lamp post or mailbox and choice B isn't what the efficient player choosing A would do (seriously it takes forever and the health boost is tiny, so it's a bad choice unless you're after the stupid thrill of hiring a prostitute in a video game), simply saying 'you can ignore them' and bleating about player agency doesn't strengthen your objection to identifying the trope of a sexualized NPC that's background decoration most of the time and a target of violence the rest of the time as sexist.

[Priran]

The only difference I'm seeing there between male and female NPCs is that you think female NPCs are "sexualized", which is subjective. "You can ignore them" is an entirely valid response because this dichotomy is entirely within Sarkeesian's (or anybody else's) head. Literally anything can be perceived as "sexualized", ask those guys who fuck cars in the tailpipe.

And can feminism come to a consensus already about prostitution? One minute it's "respect sex workers" and "stop slut shaming" and the next it's sexist to include them in a game.

[Byrthnoth]

Barring the development of computer AI convincing enough to let you have a meaningful conversation with them, what other options do you see in RL that don't exist in game for the stereotypical hooker interaction?

Are you voting for a hooker GTA main character? Do you want a sidequest where you sleep and beat your way to the top of the hooking business? If they did provide this, wouldn't it also be viewed as sexist?

[Gokku]

Expanded question on the prostitution in open world games....

Giving the fact that a large portion of the American population would indeed walk past or ignore a blatant prostitute. And that if you were seeking their services you would ergo pay them... Or that violence against them is a reality and a Jon driving to a secluded location, getting it on then killing them does happen.

Why isn't there a push using FF for legalization and protection of sex workers there by removing the "trope" from it.

I remember reading a AmA on reddit from an Australian college students who worked as a sex worker at a higher end establishment who had nothing overtly negotiate to say about the job she could turn down client etc and the only real down point was that she was making more money as a part time then she was going to make after college fulltime.

She wasn't objectified, she was in full control and enjoyed her job.

[Teryu]

The only difference I'm seeing there between male and female NPCs is that you think female NPCs are "sexualized", which is subjective. "You can ignore them" is an entirely valid response because this dichotomy is entirely within Sarkeesian's (or anybody else's) head. Literally anything can be perceived as "sexualized", ask those guys who fuck cars in the tailpipe.

And can feminism come to a consensus already about prostitution? One minute it's "respect sex workers" and "stop slut shaming" and the next it's sexist to include them in a game.

Well the thing to nite about anita us that she's a sex negative feminist, which means that unless all female characters are wearing snow pants, they are considered sexualized.

[Milkster]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJmxrksPGvM&app=desktop

[Meresgi]

In GTA the choice boils down to

a: Ignore them, do nothing, move on. In this case the NPC is window dressing and never provides a meaningful interaction for the player or any other NPC in the game.
b: 'employ them.' Health boost at the cost of money. In this case the NPC is a bonus consumable
c: Well, murder them and take their money (not exclusive of b). This is the route taken almost exclusively by other NPCs in sandbox games in cutscenes, as part of establishing their character, examples of which can be found everywhere.

It's this last choice that's the focus of the last FF video and given that choice A makes them no more special than a lamp post or mailbox and choice B isn't what the efficient player choosing A would do (seriously it takes forever and the health boost is tiny, so it's a bad choice unless you're after the stupid thrill of hiring a prostitute in a video game), simply saying 'you can ignore them' and bleating about player agency doesn't strengthen your objection to identifying the trope of a sexualized NPC that's background decoration most of the time and a target of violence the rest of the time as sexist.

For C, that's indicative of bad writing. And usually the antagonist does more then just kill women, you see him fucking with men as well or murdering random kittens while dropping boiling tar on a school of autistic 6 yr olds or some shit to show you he's "bad guy".

Giving the fact that a large portion of the American population would indeed walk past or ignore a blatant prostitute. And that if you were seeking their services you would ergo pay them... Or that violence against them is a reality and a Jon driving to a secluded location, getting it on then killing them does happen.

Why isn't there a push using FF for legalization and protection of sex workers there by removing the "trope" from it.

Yeah, the best thing the country or anyone can do if they feel a need to help sex workers, is to fucking make it a legal trade because WHY THE FUCK ISN'T IT LEGAL?

[Charismatic]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJmxrksPGvM

Thank you, I needed to see that and it was good.

[GoggleHead]

Yeah, the best thing the country or anyone can do if they feel a need to help sex workers, is to fucking make it a legal trade because WHY THE FUCK ISN'T IT LEGAL?

From your tone I take it that you are suggesting that it's only possible for someone to become a sex worker under duress.

[Charismatic]

From your tone I take it that you are suggesting that it's only possible for someone to become a sex worker under duress.

I think the actual implication is that because of the legality of it (or lack thereof), it ends up being tied to a lot of seedier stuff which ends up putting many more women in harm's way than if it were legal/regulated.
Just like drugs!

[Meresgi]

I think the actual implication is that because of the legality of it (or lack thereof), it ends up being tied to a lot of seedier stuff which ends up putting many more women in harm's way than if it were legal/regulated.
Just like drugs!

^This. If it was legal, a lot of the crazy illegal shit going on with it wouldn't be there.

[NynJa]

So feminists be upset because in GTA you can beat up helpess women...im pretty sure in GTA you can beat up males too.

Spoiler: show

equality

[Correction]

And can feminism come to a consensus already about prostitution?

Plenty of feminists argue for decriminalization as a matter of public health and as a way to remove the stigma from sex work and combat the ancillary abuses of the illegal sex trade. 3 seconds on Google would have taught you that, but somehow you want to make bad connections between real life and fictional portrayal.

For C, that's indicative of bad writing.

I agree!

[Priran]

Plenty of feminists argue for decriminalization as a matter of public health and as a way to remove the stigma from sex work and combat the ancillary abuses of the illegal sex trade. 3 seconds on Google would have taught you that, but somehow you want to make bad connections between real life and fictional portrayal.

Well it's a somewhat mixed message to say "It's okay to be a prostitute" and "If your depiction of women in a work of art includes prostitution you are sexist". I mean, Sark is specifically targeting brothel scenes as sexist.

[Correction]

Well it's a somewhat mixed message to say "It's okay to be a prostitute" and "If your depiction of women in a work of art includes prostitution you are sexist". I mean, Sark is specifically targeting brothel scenes as sexist.

It's not as reductive as 'prostitutes in vidya are sexist,' I've explained that at least twice.

[GoggleHead]

^This. If it was legal, a lot of the crazy illegal shit going on with it wouldn't be there.

Apparently I just can't hear inflection in text. My bad.

[Gokku]

It's not as reductive as 'prostitutes in vidya are sexist,' I've explained that at least twice.

Yes in ways that don't stand up to a standard

[Correction]

Yes in ways that don't stand up to a standard

What?

[Gokku]

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5946958
Well that clears up alot of issues!

[Pirian]

man they are really going hard for a rebranding lately