loaf of bread
Member
Yeah but its made very clear from the beginning that he's a scumbag and a psychopath.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Feministborgia: Grand Theft Auto V - A Feminist's Review
- Thread starter Solid SOAP
- Start date
Yeah but its made very clear from the beginning that he's a scumbag and a psychopath.
ReBurn
Gold Member
It puzzles me that men touching strippers or using prostitutes is something that you are hung up on as sexist storytelling. Of all of the things in this game this is probably one of the most realistic aspects. Women selling their bodies to men and men using them happens all over the world and has happened for as long as we have documented history, so including it in popular media is not sexist.
TylerDurden4321
Member
I don't know why people - most of them even genuinely like the game - keep saying that. I loved every main character in V, I loved Lamar, Ron and Wade... hell, I loved Michael's family! I wouldn't love them if I'd think of them as "assholes".
The protagonists all are written to stand for societal issues, but they overcome being a satirical archetype in a sense that gives you the feeling to know them to a level of depth that goes beyond two dimensional "satire of x". Rockstar doees that by giving the characters redeeming and relatable qualities that don't contradict who these characters are.
Back on topic:
My fear with a female protagonist is that she might end up being too "male action hero/gangster". Please don't get me wrong, I'm absolutely not saying "women with short hair who don't like pink aren't very female", what I'm saying is that it's hard to imagine a character that is female in ways that won't have people saying "she loves to shoot guns, drive fast cars, blow shit up and probably even has no problems hanging around in a strip club with her gang; she's basically a dude".
I mean, I'd really love to play a Cassie Cage'ish character in a GTA world, but it wouldn't have me say "finally GTA has a strong female protagonist".
It's really not.
Cultural critique of individual works is an inherently problematic concept. It has very little value, is almost always built on a very rickety ideological basis that is taken at face value or misappropriated, and always, always feeds as ammunition for censorship in a society that has no clear protection for speech.
Cultural critiques of the wider state of media looking at statistical trends have some value. But of individual works? No.
Very good post, although I'd disagree with the assessment that R* are completely evenhanded in taking pot shots at everyone. Even if they were, it wouldn't make the mysoginistic undertones any more necessary or desirable for the world they tried to create.
Agreed on everything else though, they need to step up their game. GTAV was a great, very fun game, but a lot of their clumsy satire schtick felt very much outdated.
It's interesting how in GTA IV, a lot of people were complaining about ludo-narrative dissonance. I think this was Rockstar's effort to fix that. There were definitely parts of the story that had assumed you did certain things because that's what you can do outside of the missions. I personally liked it better over IV, you know the characters are all irredeemable assholes.
NoblesseOblige
Banned
If there's one thing I could drill into people's minds it is this. I'm so sick of people assuming you hate something and want it to not exist simply because you critique and criticize it. My favorite games of all time have elements I don't agree with, and it's important to at the very least discuss those things.
Zeouterlimits
Member
When we became less and less okay with the society we have?
The way women are treated, the way minorities are treated?
That was in reply to as what the player was supposed to feel remorse about, and these two instances obviously not being part of that. Not that I'd think any part of the game is supposed to trigger remorse, but oh well.
The storytelling comment was more in general regarding the character designs. But if they actually aren't much of characters at all but instead shallow toons, I may have to backpedal on that.
But sure, yeah, realistically those strippers like being touched, it's really only the bouncers who have a problem with it for some weird reason. They totally dig it and might even fall for that grabby Romeo. Yup.
If there is satire in that, it is hidden in a meta layer.
That's a lot of IMHO stuff with, especially with the 'inherently problematic'. There's tons of cultural critique done on individual works. I once read a book, for example, of essays compiling political stuff from the first Alien film. Don't really see the magical problematic nature of it.
No more so than the statement in the OP that it isn't problematic.
I didn't say there wasn't tons of cultural critique done on individual works. I just said they didn't have value and are inherently destructive. Lots of things that don't have value and are destructive happen a lot.
What was the main effect of your book on stuff from Alien? Have the cultural critiques made anything any better? Isn't it a lot more likely that sentences will be lifted out of context to justify awful behaviour than any positive outcome?
Shake Appeal
Member
I've been playing GTAV on PC on and off since it came out, but it's hard for me because the game is so toxic and gross in so many ways. This review, though, is pretty lackluster and doesn't really say anything that isn't obvious.
GTA's "satire" is weak and ham-fisted. Game is pretty good. Exploring the world is fantastic. Its content and writing flatly sucks.
GTA's "satire" is weak and ham-fisted. Game is pretty good. Exploring the world is fantastic. Its content and writing flatly sucks.
SolidSnakex
Member
People are referring to them as assholes in terms of if they were real people.
Franklin - A criminal that's simply tired of doing small time crimes like lifting cars and wants to move up in the criminal world to commit larger scale crimes
Michael - A retired criminal that's just looking for a new spark to get him back into it
Trevor - A complete psychopath with a hair-trigger temper
They are assholes. They aren't like Omar form The Wire who at least had a moral code that he tried to abide by even though he was also a criminal. They're just dirty and selfish criminals that are out for themselves. But it's what they need to be because of the world they're in. Rockstar shouldn't be trying to paint them as characters that just got mixed up in the wrong crowd. And they don't. Which is a good thing.
By being able to accomodate multiple viewpoints and understanding the logic behind each of them. I seriously hate it that most people call the other side "idiots". Because the only idiots are people with severe mental handicaps. Everybody else has shrewd logic. Back to topiuc
As for GTA-V, I don't care. This is a game which gets my writing oscar for being completely nuts. Those dialogues... those missions...
Trevor is hilarious. Seriously, GTA-V is one fucked up version of the world. Everyone is a bit on the extra asshole or insane side.
This game is sexist? Tell me what offense this game is not. Insane, ultraviolent, racist, abusive, flat out crazy. I never got the "satire" part in older GTAs because in some way, they were so grounded. This one? Flat out insane and I love it. If I am offing 1000 people don't go tell me my character is a poor bloke caught up in unfortunate events. Poor guy, but the many deaths at least don't faze him, What??
Let me play the psycho killer squad who goes on some kind of hellpath. Give me Trevor.
-Fox out
I'd just like to tune in to say that my interpretation, is that the game is spotlighting exaggerated, one could say satirical masculinity in order to be criticized. I think it's meant to display the worst elements (i.e. power-hunger, sexism, misogyny, homophobia, transphobia) of the behavior for ridicule, and specifically it's highlighting the alleged "American flavor," I guess you could say, of masculinity. I never got the impression that the game endorses this behavior. Think what you will of his writing, but let it be known that Dan Houser's on record for that saying that the key concept of the story was masculinity. Now, we may know relatively little about Houser, but sincerely, the man doesn't strike me as a misognyst or a sexist.
We do know that regardless of whether it's subtle or effective, GTA is generally considered to be satire and that most of its characters, specifically its protagonists are meant to be pretty much the farthest thing removed from role models. There's no way I can't sound terrible saying this, but I'm honestly confused as to whether or not most understand this. Or are stories just not allowed to feature protagonists that are horrible people, because the characters are the protagonists the player has relative control over it can be misinterpreted that the story itself endorses their ideals?
We do know that regardless of whether it's subtle or effective, GTA is generally considered to be satire and that most of its characters, specifically its protagonists are meant to be pretty much the farthest thing removed from role models. There's no way I can't sound terrible saying this, but I'm honestly confused as to whether or not most understand this. Or are stories just not allowed to feature protagonists that are horrible people, because the characters are the protagonists the player has relative control over it can be misinterpreted that the story itself endorses their ideals?
I'm not sure why you would say this. Do you really believe the works of great artists like Hitchcock, Shakespeare and Tolkien should not be examined and critiqued in detail?
Do you think that making the playable characters terrible misogynistic pricks could maybe be a business strategy to appeal to that sort of market? If so, I think that's too pessimistic. If anything, I really do think it's meant to mock that kind of audience.
And if that audience misconstrues the mocking to be supportive, then that's just twisted. But hey, that's just what I think. I know that's where the opposition to GTA's offensive content comes from, the possibility that some think the characters can but aren't necessarily/probably meant to endorse poor behaviors. And I get that argument. It's not unreasonable. But still, I disagree. Ultimately, I think it's pretty obvious that this debate has nothing to do with GTA specifically but with ideological feelings towards fiction in general.
Examined? Sure.
I was careful to limit my condemnation to cultural critique, because that requires a study of how the work interacts with the observer that is sufficiently complex and subject to chaotic factors that it is in effect beyond human ability to study effectively, hence the ludicrousness of concepts such as gaze.
Christ. An anti-academic view that attempts to dismiss cultural criticism as "destructive." Do you see the irony inherent in your statement? You're really going to have to cherry-pick cultural critiques in order to justify your opinion. The majority of criticism is borne from a place of fandom and celebration, not, as you suggest, censorship. Even here, it's clear that a lot of the feminist arguments are coming from gamers that played GTAV to completion. We're not here to trample sandcastles. You can ignore criticism with no consequence to yourself, but you can't condemn reasoned interpretation (at least where I'm from).
Okay, so criticism is unvalued to you because it's unscientific. But if you believe that media (which is unscientific) contains value (which, being on a videogame enthusiast forum, I assume you do), then it is not inappropriate to discuss the focus of a text and its values.
D
Deleted member 126221
Unconfirmed Member
Okay, this thread wasn't off to a good start, but now it's 100% ridiculous. I don't even know what to say other than "what the hell". If you don't think it's possible to have intelligent discussion on the cultural aspects of individual works, may I ask what you're doing in this thread other than stirring shit?
Ooccoo
Member
Honestly, why should we care about what feminists think of a popular game? That's the definition of a shot in the dark. It achieves nothing but generate hate against that particular group of people since they represent a minority of women (and gamers). If you're disgusted about sex and violence in GTA you're part of the problem. It's a videogame. It's not meant to be an intelligent game teaching you how life should be. This shit is too much
D
Deleted member 126221
Unconfirmed Member
This is not about the characters doing sexist things, it's about the storytelling, tone, and portrayal of these sexist actions. For example, both Blazing Saddles and the upcoming Adam Sandler movie portray racism, but in a very different way.
SaggyMonkey
Member
Often the game's goal seems to be to make the player uncomfortably complicit with these events. They don't expect the player to love or agree with torture, the Deborah aftermath, or any number of these things. They're using an interactivity to demonstrate character flaws and depth that may not be as resonant in other mediums.
It's definitely not a statement of "look how great your life is when you do these things." Depicting something is not prescription or endorsement. I don't find the content "problematic" one bit. It's a term that gets flung around a lot in these critiques. I'm not convinced what they're calling problems are problems.
It's definitely not a statement of "look how great your life is when you do these things." Depicting something is not prescription or endorsement. I don't find the content "problematic" one bit. It's a term that gets flung around a lot in these critiques. I'm not convinced what they're calling problems are problems.
Messofanego
Banned
Nope, they should be Mindwiped.
The problem here is that you grant Michael and Franklin their 'manhood' without questioning it, but then where is the 'womanhood' which should be granted to any female characters?
The whole idea of 'manhood' being a thing which men should have by default, which GTA 'takes shots at', is another structurally sexist concept. I'm not saying you're a sexist - it's a structural thing, ie something which everyone doesn't even think twice about.
But it's not equally bad. It's worse for women. There's so much evidence in this thread of that. Even just a thumbnail analysis of one aspect of character in fiction:
Some male characters have lots of power. Some have none.
Some male characters are always lackeys, under a boss. Some have true agency.
No female characters have any 'power'.
No female characters have any agency. Arguably Michael's wife does, but she's still slave to sexual relationships with other people and comes 'crawling back' when they don't work out.
People are doing the traditional structurally sexist thing here and focusing on the men. "But the men are flawed, too!" Forget that. Look only at the female characters, and look at them in a near-vacuum (only including nebulous/structural connections to male charaters).
Only two women have a modicum of agency/power: the FIB woman, but even she's in love with her boss who isn't interested in her and is insulted by Franklin about this.
And Franklin's ex-girlfriend. She is actually a really excellent character, come to think of it. Probably the only good female character in the game. She doesn't put up with his shit, makes her own choices, and never compromises her principles. She never gets back with him – a very logical and well though-out development. Kudos to Rockstar for getting one bloody thing right.
It's a well-known fact that women partake in sexist (misogynist) culture just as much as men. That's because these issues are structural – people struggle to see or understand them because they are subtle and obscure patterns throughout society. These are abstract ideas - for example men and women will say 'slut' because it's "what you say". They won't understand that the word was only invented to perpetuate a negative narrative around women.
Muffdraul
Member
One of GTA's core pillars from day 1 is to push towards being super edgy and go deep into territory that a lot of people deem offensive, inappropriate and or/taboo. To push people's buttons. When the first GTA was in development, they had you playing as a cop going after criminals. You were penalized for harming innocent NPCs and running red lights. At some point they said "You know what would be a lot more fun? Being bad. Not being penalized for running red lights. Earning bonus points for running over NPCs." And ever since then they've gone out of their way to walk on the dark side, with very few things being off limits. GTA revels in naughtiness, but I don't think it ever presents it as a good thing or an example to follow. I don't think they intend to teach players to be sexist. I don't think they they expect anyone to hold up any of GTA V's characters as paragons of virtue. They're all clearly assholes and to deny that would be asinine. But it goes further than that. The entire world of GTA is basically viewed through a lens of... I dunno... "assholishness." Every aspect of the world is wrong, mean, and just plain fucked up. I think Rockstar would be the first to admit that.
I can easily understand people being offended by GTA V's sexism. I can appreciate that a lot of people won't find it funny. But I can also appreciate that Rockstar is going for a very mean-spirited form of dark humor. Not everyone has to find it amusing. But I think there will always be a place for it. I'm not excusing it by saying it's a good thing. I'm saying that the fact that it's bad is the entire point to begin with. The fact that feminists are offended means they hit the mark they were aiming at.
I can easily understand people being offended by GTA V's sexism. I can appreciate that a lot of people won't find it funny. But I can also appreciate that Rockstar is going for a very mean-spirited form of dark humor. Not everyone has to find it amusing. But I think there will always be a place for it. I'm not excusing it by saying it's a good thing. I'm saying that the fact that it's bad is the entire point to begin with. The fact that feminists are offended means they hit the mark they were aiming at.
Dice//
Banned
I kind of struggle with the idea the game is really that neutral or really simply holding up a mirror to unpleasant behaviour and letting me draw my own conclusions.
For a start I gotta say when I played GTA my characters lives ended up pretty great simply following the available missions and choosing the clear "true" ending. They were all rich, they got their way and they ended up (Trever aside but that's clearly a deliberate omission) living in terrific luxury.
None of them ended up face down in a pool of bloody water like Tony Montana. Certainly nothing came close to the real sense of exploration of the criminal world something like Goodfellas or Casino delivered.
Now that's not necessarily wrong - but I'm not convinced it can be argued that the game has a narrative that doesn't endorse behavior. If you follow the game's narrative and chose the obvious "true" ending everything ends up essentially terrific. Sure R* threw in two lazy (and clearly counter character development to that point) alternative endings that are "somewhat" more of a downer but they're weak, poorly executed and clearly an afterthought (and it's hard not to think they were thrown in merely to point to as "bad" outcomes given how little sense they make vs the obvious "true" ending).
Certainly I can't accept the idea GTA somehow uses interactivity to explore themes in a way other mediums can't; not when the results are GTA V vs say Goodfellas.
The interactivity is almost always a hoot and almost always a game. Even the torture scene is presented as a mini-game (hey which implement shall I choose next) and then R* wimp out by how Trevor behaves afterwards.
Choice in GTA V is really pretty weak and for the most part R* direct the experience just as much as a linear game. Almost all interaction is in ways that moderate your options (or don't give you any at all) and the game refuses to even stay true to its own characters. All three will clearly veer between behavour that makes sense for the character to behaviour that doesn't while also including behaviour you can't influence and behaviour you can.
In the end the game is the end result of a franchise that is so huge I suspect R* and Take Two are afraid to risk any real change to the formula least something possibly go wrong with the sales.
In the end the franchise exists to make money more than anything else I'd argue, which is fine but needs to be remembered in any discussion considering other aspects of its nature or right to freedom of expression of an artist.
GTA is ultimately a moderated experience across the board and that in the end means R* have to be held critically accountable to what they choose to include (and what they didn't) and concerns as to why.
IMHO the idea R* and the game is somehow exempt from fair criticism of content and themes because it's just a game" or "it's just satire" or "you're not supposed to take it seriously".
Nothing is exempt from criticism and asking for such privileges is simply demanding that something you like is left along lest it's threatened and your ability to enjoy it is threatened.
Maybe GTA should grow up a bit. Maybe not. I honestly don't know. But it exists in the real world as a sandbox that seems primarily designed to showcase male fantasies and showcases as clearly misogynistic representation of society and that alone means its fair game for analysis and criticism.
I'll add I liked the game for the most part although the logic lurches were a pain and certain aspects of the tone did begin to drag over time.
Ninja Of Chaos
Member
I would agree with this in regards to any GTA game before V. But GTAV did something weird. I can't really explain it, but it felt like the game had a darker intent behind the jokes it was doing towards women. To put it another way, previous GTA games worked on a "Women, am i rite?? Heh heh heh" level, whereas GTAV had more of "Who the fuck do they think they are?" tone. Neither are "good" things, but in V it felt more like an application of force than just a joke.
Again, I can't solidly explain any of this but it the game made me very uneasy when I was playing it (or watching others play it). And I asked a few other people as well and they said similar things.
Aiden Pearce is a complete sociopath, so not really sure where you're going with this, unless of course you simply think it has better gameplay.
The game makes them titillation vending machines, not actual characters. Also, you do know you're not supposed to touch strippers, right?
thank you
Messofanego
Banned
Why did Rockstar San Diego even bother making Annie in Red Dead Revolver a fully formed character with agency? Shouldn't she just be herding cattle and cooking? Isn't that more historically accurate? Why did they make her a playable character? This combat stuff with shooting men who're burning her farm was too manly for her. She'll have to raise kids someday and all this violence won't do her body any good.
/s
The point is that GTA has no intention of ever being subtle. It's not supposed to be subtle, or even particularly clever. And the idea that it should be about displaying people with three dimensional lives is also crazy - that's just not what GTA is. It's an in-your-face, mean-spirited satire of modern culture (movies, radio, celebrity) and video games themselves.
Asking them to move to a more clever, subtle place is akin to asking them to stop making GTA. More importantly, I'm pretty sure that the tone of the game is a huge factor in its success.
I do agree that the treatment of Molly and Floyd's wife is bad, though, because it sort of assumes that the player will delight in the violent demise of a strong, overbearing woman. That smells of misogyny to me. The rest is just the same shallow, mean-spirited shit-flinging that the game does to all people. A tone which I happen to actually enjoy in small doses.
EDIT: I think the fact that Rockstar went after their own userbase harder than anyone with the Jimmy character (he is the most pathetic character in the game) shows that they really, truly don't give a shit who they target.
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
Holy shit... *facepalm*
Dice//
Banned
No clue where you're coming from or going with this.
Why did Rockstar San Diego even bother making Annie in Red Dead Revolver a fully formed character with agency? Shouldn't she just be herding cattle and cooking? Isn't that more historically accurate? Why did they make her a playable character? This combat stuff with shooting men who're burning her farm was too manly for her. She'll have to raise kids someday and all this violence won't do her body any good.
/s
You implying she was a bad character in Redemption, just because she didn't shoot people like a psycho? smh.
"empowerment = killing people".
Sure, I'll bite. The effect on me from the book was that it made me think about the movie more and appreciate it more as it clearly offered a ton of different meanings for a large group of people.
In return, I'd like you to elaborate the thing I bolded. How are they destructive, and what kind of proof can you offer of this destructive nature?
Decent review. Missed a lot of other examples from the game, but was generally level headed about what it did present.
I love GTA V, bought it twice, but it is lacking in a lot of ways when it comes to writing. I always felt like they kind of phoned in a lot of the writing/satire aspects of anything outside the main story. Besides Michael, Trevor and Franklin there's zero development of any other character. Even then none of them have any sort of significant character arc. They are virtually the same people at the end as they were at the start, just some crazy stuff happened in the middle.
A lot of the "jokes" in the game are just tired cliches that are as blatantly offensive as possible without much else to them. There is very little smart/subtle satire or anything in the game. More often they resort to using the most blunt and simplistic stuff you can come up with. Some of it is funny and works, but often it's a bit groan worthy because it feels so phoned in. And because virtually every bit of it lacks any degree of subtlety it gets a bit old after a while. As well there never really felt like there was a point to any of the depictions, no underlying message or insight, in the game besides deriding as much as possible popular trends in the real world.
I'm not sure if this means there is an inherent vein of misogyny or sexism within Rockstar/GTA or if they simply cut corners in writing outside the main story and just have a poor sense of what good satire and social commentary is. Probably a bit of both.
I've said this a ton of times since the game originally released, but I would really like to see them release an expansion with a female lead. If only to see what they are capable of writing in that setting.
I love GTA V, bought it twice, but it is lacking in a lot of ways when it comes to writing. I always felt like they kind of phoned in a lot of the writing/satire aspects of anything outside the main story. Besides Michael, Trevor and Franklin there's zero development of any other character. Even then none of them have any sort of significant character arc. They are virtually the same people at the end as they were at the start, just some crazy stuff happened in the middle.
A lot of the "jokes" in the game are just tired cliches that are as blatantly offensive as possible without much else to them. There is very little smart/subtle satire or anything in the game. More often they resort to using the most blunt and simplistic stuff you can come up with. Some of it is funny and works, but often it's a bit groan worthy because it feels so phoned in. And because virtually every bit of it lacks any degree of subtlety it gets a bit old after a while. As well there never really felt like there was a point to any of the depictions, no underlying message or insight, in the game besides deriding as much as possible popular trends in the real world.
I'm not sure if this means there is an inherent vein of misogyny or sexism within Rockstar/GTA or if they simply cut corners in writing outside the main story and just have a poor sense of what good satire and social commentary is. Probably a bit of both.
I've said this a ton of times since the game originally released, but I would really like to see them release an expansion with a female lead. If only to see what they are capable of writing in that setting.
kamineko
Does his best thinking in the flying car
How do these threads always seem to become a meta-discussion of what is and what is not the appropriate object of a critical analysis?
Anything put out into the world becomes an appropriate object of criticism. GTA is certainly not a case of something being so satirical and subversive that it is beyond analysis. How the hell is something, anything, that sells like GTA subversive? GTA is not some kind of deep underground swipe at the status quo. GTA is the fucking status quo, y'all.
Why are people afraid of ideas? All thoughtful people are aware that even their favorite media are subject to evaluation. It's really OK. Anything that I think or like that can't withstand challenge was never worth the time in the first place.
I mean, what's wrong with people thinking about and talking about stuff we like? What's so bad about that?
OT, I think agency is the big issue. Since the men are all sociopaths, we don't need likable women. We just need similarly sociopathic women that can shape the world in the way men can.
Anything put out into the world becomes an appropriate object of criticism. GTA is certainly not a case of something being so satirical and subversive that it is beyond analysis. How the hell is something, anything, that sells like GTA subversive? GTA is not some kind of deep underground swipe at the status quo. GTA is the fucking status quo, y'all.
Why are people afraid of ideas? All thoughtful people are aware that even their favorite media are subject to evaluation. It's really OK. Anything that I think or like that can't withstand challenge was never worth the time in the first place.
I mean, what's wrong with people thinking about and talking about stuff we like? What's so bad about that?
OT, I think agency is the big issue. Since the men are all sociopaths, we don't need likable women. We just need similarly sociopathic women that can shape the world in the way men can.
It's not well thought out I think.
The problem that always arises in such 'subjective' reviews / analysis is that they more often than not fall into the same logical fallacy. The writer depicts the male characters individually but generalizes the women characters and deduces a general statement from each of them for their entire gender.
Example:
When speaking about Trevor:
When speaking about Amanda:
Tracey:
Other examples are that the "manchild gamer" is apparently a 'neutral' term in her views and perfectly acceptable, but Mary-Ann Quinn is a "tired cliche of career woman being emotionally stunted and ‘too masculine’.", showing a clear negative connotation when depicting her. Same for Denise Clinton, who is "generally treated as a figure of derision." (but not Trevor, Jimmy or any of the male side characters etc?). Debra is "a ball breaking career woman who is also a whore. This is starting to sound familiar…"
She doesn't look objectively at the characters to further her point - willingly or unwillingly.
I don't mean that you should point out the 'problems male characters have' as well, since the topic is about WOMEN in GTA V, but IF you bring them into the point of view (often as [positive] counterexample), you need to treat them equally. If you follow the reasoning behind her "Rockstar depicts women as whores" statement then you could say that "Rockstar depicts men would be idiotic, greedy murderer." Yes Trevor is a lunatic and Amanda might be a whore, but that doesn't mean MEN are lunatics and WOMEN are whores. Point is: It's dumb to generalize.
That happens in almost all but a few texts and videos I have read and watched for this or similar topics. It's always the same and it's a bad practice and invalids the text single-handedly, if the writer uses this type of reasoning as a main point for his/hers thesis or statement.
The problem that always arises in such 'subjective' reviews / analysis is that they more often than not fall into the same logical fallacy. The writer depicts the male characters individually but generalizes the women characters and deduces a general statement from each of them for their entire gender.
Example:
When speaking about Trevor:
When speaking about Amanda:
Tracey:
Other examples are that the "manchild gamer" is apparently a 'neutral' term in her views and perfectly acceptable, but Mary-Ann Quinn is a "tired cliche of career woman being emotionally stunted and ‘too masculine’.", showing a clear negative connotation when depicting her. Same for Denise Clinton, who is "generally treated as a figure of derision." (but not Trevor, Jimmy or any of the male side characters etc?). Debra is "a ball breaking career woman who is also a whore. This is starting to sound familiar…"
She doesn't look objectively at the characters to further her point - willingly or unwillingly.
I don't mean that you should point out the 'problems male characters have' as well, since the topic is about WOMEN in GTA V, but IF you bring them into the point of view (often as [positive] counterexample), you need to treat them equally. If you follow the reasoning behind her "Rockstar depicts women as whores" statement then you could say that "Rockstar depicts men would be idiotic, greedy murderer." Yes Trevor is a lunatic and Amanda might be a whore, but that doesn't mean MEN are lunatics and WOMEN are whores. Point is: It's dumb to generalize.
That happens in almost all but a few texts and videos I have read and watched for this or similar topics. It's always the same and it's a bad practice and invalids the text single-handedly, if the writer uses this type of reasoning as a main point for his/hers thesis or statement.
Good points. I agree completely. Almost everyone in GTAV is a shitty person. I guess they could add some more idiotic, greedy murderer women and more whore guys but they would still all be doing bad things.
GTA perpetuates all sorts of stereotypes in its lampooning Americana. Right wing, left wing, hippies, different races, women. It would be nice to see a female character, perhaps a femme fatale, someone who isn't a victim. I don't have a problem with strippers or prostitution though.
Can we sticky the bold to like... every single thread? I mean seriously, its just that simple.
UnrealEck
Member
None of the characters you play as are gay.
You can however yell abuse at NPCs regardless of their gender.
Well, there's actually several lines of dialogue where Trevor admits or at least seems to admit he's bisexual. There's also the matter of him spooning with Floyd. There's also lots of other, perhaps contrary things you could interpret about him, point being, his sexuality's kind of up for debate. Based on the evidence and not implications though, I'd be willing to bet bisexual.
Here's his page on the Wikia.
I don't know how relevant this is, but there you have it.