Support NeoGAF

[civilstrife]

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Satire.

 

[pakkit]

Such rich satire! So subversive, punching down with vulnerable, badly represented, shallow representations of people and totally not just perpetuating stereotypes to maintain the status quo. Definitely will make people rethink traditions.

It was especially disappointing after the story-rich Max Payne 3, which seemed like an honest-to-goodness critique of Brazilian corruption.

GTAV does point to political corruption, but, I think, in an attempt to catch every bit of American culture, it diminishes its impact. The story isn't satire as much as it is a slice-of-life (namely, 2013 life) portrayed through GTA's cynical and cruel lenses.

Edit: Jintor said it better than I could.

 

[Horp]

Fascinating, but what does this have to do with this thread or a feminist critique of the game?

They game portraits men in two ways. Either you're a mass murderer, or you're a coward. And I mean the "so nervous you can't even stand up straight" kind of coward. Some of those cowards are mass murderers too.

The game portraits women in two ways. Either they are psychotic and crazy, and seem to hate everyone and everything, or they are really dumb and seem to have really low self esteem.

So, it seems like they are going for really awful and extreme versions of 4 classic stereotypes for both men and women. You can't discuss how a game portraits women without having a discussion on how it portraits men. And in this case I'd argue the portayal are just as worse for both genders. Well, I'd actually argue that the way men are portrayed is worse.

 

[civilstrife]

You can't discuss how a game portraits women without having a discussion on how it portraits men.

Believe it or not, it is possible. Although you wouldn't guess it from this thread.

 

[Mechanical Snowman]

the game isn't sexist, it's misanthropic.

 

[Horp]

Believe it or not, it is possible. Although you wouldn't guess it from this thread.

No. You are missing the point of feminism in general. Feminism is about the inequalites between men and women. You can't highlight an inequality without comparing. And you can't compare without investigating both sides.

 

[Jintor]

Well, I'd actually argue that the way men are portrayed is worse.

Hmmmm... I'd argue that because murder is so normalised in GTA in general, being a 'mass murderer' actually doesn't have that bad connotations in this specific context. For instance, Trevor is obviously displayed as a monster, but he's not a monster necessarily because he kills people (it's entirely possible to rack up a higher body count as Franklin or Michael, for instance); it's the way he interacts with other people, intimidates, threatens, doesn't fit into usual social nuances etc that make him a monster.

Being able to kill a lot of people really just makes you a videogame protagonist at this point

Like you said though originally, it being so normalised really makes a lot of the storyline critique weird as shit.

 

[KyanMehwulfe]

I can't tell if GTA's satire has degraded over time or if my sensibilities have become less juvenile. The radio comedy and the character of Lazlow I feel kind of embody this - Lazlow used to be an 'only sane man' kind of character who would constantly point out the hypocrisy and parallels of the world only to be haplessly caught up in some of its issues taken to a hilarious exaggerated conclusion. Now he's a pathetic lech who is still pointing out the hypocrisies of the world but actually, in some sense, is shown to 'deserve' his fate because he's a bad (if still pathetic) person.

I suppose in some sense you could say the satire is "Hey this is some hypocritical shit America pulls and isn't that weirrrrdddddd?" but if so, it's astoundingly weak and goes nowhere with it. The FIB/IAA war as a critique of public institutions or the use of Merryweather on American soil to critique PMCs, to take a random example, is a good starting point but none of it never goes anywhere except to drive what little plot there is. A good example is the torture mission - even though it literally has a motive rant in there where Trevor admits his feelings that torturing for information is completely worthless and he's just doing it for his own personal enjoyment, it somehow manages to not really convey any effective sense of satire of anything really.

GTA has never tried to be critical with its satire though. It's hardly even satire, if we define it by intent. It's not a critique of the US as much as just a collection of parodies of US stereotypes meant to be humorous but not particularly critical. I mean, Fernando compares the US debt ceiling to a virgin's hymen, and losing the debt ceiling is as freeing as becoming sexually active. Rockstar isn't trying to politically critique foreign fiscal policy -- it's just an opportunity to make a childish joke. It's satire in so far as to highly and make fun of stereotypes, but little else. It's fine with 'going nowhere with it.'

Which is why the rant by Trevor after the torture scene felt so hamfisted and misplaced. It's one of the worst scenes in the series, and is maybe the only time I've ever seen GTA actually be apologetic, as if they felt they had finally gone too far and had to include that rant just to make it clear that that scene in particular actually was satire. But it was so minor and irrelevant to the story that the rant ends up being just embarrassingly apologetic for trying to joke about religion and torture.

 

[civilstrife]

No. You are missing the point of feminism in general. Feminism is about the inequalites between men and women. You can't highlight an inequality without comparing. And you can't compare without investigating both sides.

And you can't tell a marginalized group of people..."hold on a sec...before you voice your concerns, why don't you sit down so we can talk about how this actually hurts the people with more power".

And I'm missing the point of feminism?

 

[Doctor_Thomas]

If you take issues with the sexism, racism and -phobia, then you have to ask yourself, why is this being included in a British made game with an American setting?

GTA is and has always been a critique of American culture. Could it be that American culture still reeks of racism, sexism and -phobia and that cuts a little too close to the bone for people?

I'm posing the questions because I think, as an analysis of American culture, it's more scathing than ever, but only because these problems are becoming more publicised and a bigger issue which brings out the worst of people at the same time. GTA's writing is, by no means, a masterpiece, but it certainly gets people talking. GTA isn't the cause of the problems, it's merely a result and product of them.

And you can't tell a marginalized group of people..."hold on a sec...before you voice your concerns, why don't you sit down so we can talk about how this actually hurts the people with more power".

And I'm missing the point of feminism?

Actually, feminism is about equality, if you don't analyse the divides or differences or how the other side is treated, then how do you know what equality is or where it starts? It's about engaging in open dialogue. If you're going to call out sexism, then how can you not discuss the causes of it through things like the portrayal of men in media since those stereotypes are what impressionable men will aspire too and, thus, continue the cycle of ongoing sexism?

 

[Mechanical Snowman]

GTA has never tried to be critical with its satire though. It's hardly even satire, if we define it by intent. It's not a critique of the US as much as just a collection of parodies of US stereotypes meant to be humorous but not particularly critical.

Which is why the rant by Trevor after the torture scene felt so hamfisted and misplaced. It's one of the worst scenes in the series, and is maybe the only time I've ever seen GTA actually be apologetic, as if they felt they had finally gone too far and had to include that rant just to make it clear that that scene in particular actually was satire. But it was so minor and irrelevant to the story that the rant ends up being just embarrassingly apologetic for trying to joke about religion and torture.

I absolutely agree with this, on my second play through and recently completed that mission again, that monologue after the mission feels ridiculously tacked on.

 

[Jintor]

GTA has never tried to be critical with its satire though. It's hardly even satire, if we define it by intent. It's not a critique of the US as much as just a collection of parodies of US stereotypes meant to be humorous but not particularly critical. I mean, Fernando compares the US debt ceiling to a virgin's hymen, and losing the debt ceiling is as freeing as becoming sexually active. Rockstar isn't trying to politically critique foreign fiscal policy -- it's just an opportunity to make a childish joke. It's satire in so far as to highly and make fun of stereotypes, but little else. It's fine with 'going nowhere with it.'

I suppose that's true, but then it's committing the double-cardinal sin of both having no point and not being particularly funny (though obvs opinions will vary on that).

*shrug*

I guess I'm not really into GTA anymore, apart from their god-tier attention to detail.

 

[Yoshi]

Bingo. It's a lot of fun doing the stuff many would never dare to do and live a life steeped in reality but still far from it.
Still, there's room for improvement, and I think it's high time after so many runs at it.

I'd argue this is still more on the narrative side of things than on the mechanical. The things you do in GTA are fun to many people because they are depicted as taboo things to do, not because they are mechanically interesting.

I think GTA's story is intended to be offensive, chauvinistic, violence-loving, sexist and inhumane. It is not intended to be a cleverly told story with a meaningful message, but it's meant to give the game a certain outlaw / badass feeling. Forced respectful treatment towards women would not work well with the intended core audience (teenage boys who want to experience this very virtual lifestyle of scumbags). There could be a character who treats women "respectfully" in the next game, but if there is, it needs to be someone who does it in a chauvinistic way ("I wouldn't harm a women!") not someone who does because he sees women as equal footing.

So I'd say, as someone who neither likes GTA nor the common extreme stance on political correctness, that GTA V is disrespectful to women and this is not some side effect or oversight, but a concrete goal of the developers to attract adolescent boys.

 

[Crema]

You can't discuss how a game portraits women without having a discussion on how it portraits men..

I disagree with this.GTA V is a game that is targeted exclusively at a young male audience and portrays women in a derogatory fashion. It is important to consider why the game producers have chosen to do this and what message it conveys to the audience. (Not saying we can't look at the way male characters are treated seperately, but one does not require the other. )

Personally, I felt that female representation was solely used as means for derogatory humour and to satisfy an audience's desire to have power over females (a recurring feature in media targeting young males).

I think Rockstar should be taking a more socially conscious view in future installments, or at least providing context or a message for why those groups are treated the way they are by the game. Something more thought provoking than "Women are crazy/sluts LOL" would be nice.

 

[civilstrife]

GTA V is disrespectful to women and this is not some side effect or oversight, but a concrete goal of the developers to attract adolescent boys.

Well, I certainly agree with you there.

 

[Boss Mog]

I stopped reading when the author was describing the radio shows. The radio shows are meant to be satirical; anybody with an ounce of common sense would know that and yet the author is picking at them as if they were meant to be taken literally.

But yeah GTA has never been good about portraying women and you don't have to read a feminist review to know that much, but the thing is Rockstar can get away with it cause they get a free pass on everything. Everything Ubisoft gets shit on for Rockstar does worse and people pretty much ignore it.

 

[Horp]

And you can't tell a marginalized group of people..."hold on a sec...before you voice your concerns, why don't you sit down so we can talk about how this actually hurts the people with more power".

And I'm missing the point of feminism?

You're not reading what I'm writing. Look up the definition of discrimination. And sexism is just another term for gender discrimination. A piece of media that portraits all genders, races, ages and people equally bad, can't be called out for being sexist. It can be called out for being terrible in general, but it's not sexist because according to the very definition of sexism, which is about the differences.

 

[Jintor]

I really would be interested to see how Rockstar handled a female protagonist though. I think that would be really interesting to watch.

Did anyone play Chinatown Wars? I thought that had surprisingly decent writing for what was theoretically a spinoff game, though I was still a bit pissed that

Spoiler

the female character on the boxart gets offed about 5 minutes in and there are not really any other female characters in the entire game

 

[Yoshi]

I disagree with this.GTA V is a game that is targeted exclusively at a young male audience and portrays women in a derogatory fashion. It is important to consider why the game producers have chosen to do this and what message it conveys to the audience. (Not saying we can't look at the way male characters are treated seperately, but one does not require the other. )

Personally, I felt that female representation was solely used as means for derogatory humour and to satisfy an audience's desire to have power over females (a recurring feature in media targeting young males).

I think Rockstar should be taking a more socially conscious view in future installments, or at least providing context or a message for why those groups are treated the way they are by the game. Something more thought provoking than "Women are crazy/sluts LOL" would be nice.

I question whether this is really a good idea for Rockstar. Would it make GTA less insulting and less annoying to play? From my perspective, yes. But being less insulting, being more "fair" would delude the brand and I am sure it would hurt sales of the game series in the mdeium term. If Rockstar wants to maximize their revenue, they should probably continue to be offensive as fuck in almost all regards possible - as long as they don't offend their target audience to directly.

 

[civilstrife]

A piece of media that portraits all genders, races, ages and people equally bad, can't be called out for being sexist. It can be called out for being terrible in general, but it's not sexist because according to the very definition of sexism, which is about the differences.

Mmmm... can't you just taste the equality?

The game takes aim at womanhood and female power directly. It does no such thing with men. It portrays many horrible men and many horrible women, but nowhere does it take aim directly at men the way it does at womanhood.

Also, by your logic, discussion of racism against black people is impossible without first outlining the many ways in which it's just so darn tough to be white.

 

[Jintor]

I question whether this is really a good idea for Rockstar. Would it make GTA less insulting and less annoying to play? From my perspective, yes. But being less insulting, being more "fair" would delude the brand and I am sure it would hurt sales of the game series in the mdeium term. If Rockstar wants to maximize their revenue, they should probably continue to be offensive as fuck in almost all regards possible - as long as they don't offend their target audience to directly.

They got away with Jimmy so they're probably good to do whatever

 

[kitch9]

Can you also cat call them or use them for sex?

Trevor does yes.

 

[pakkit]

\I didn't say there had been. I was referring to this feminist critique of GTAV that called for its removal from sale - and had some success in achieving this - due to its sexist content alone.

Oh wow, I was unaware of this. That sucks. Arguing for diversification and analyzing media after their release is one thing--advocating for mass censorship is another thing entirely.

 

[Horp]

Mmmm... can't you just taste the equality?

The game takes aim at womanhood and female power directly. It does no such thing with men. It portrays many horrible men and many horrible women, but nowhere does it take aim directly at manhood the way it does at womanhood.

Also, by your logic, discussion of racism against black people is impossible without first outlining the many ways in which it's just so darn tough to be white.

Nice, let's look at 15 seconds of the game and judge the whole game by that.

I think the game does JUST that, it takes on the theme of manhood and boils it down to the two terrible stereotypes of "mass murdering I-dont-give-a-fuck-about-anyone" or "piss-your-pants-non-man-like-coward".

No that's not my logic. But you dicuss racism by looking at the situation for black people and comparing it to the situation for white people. Then you can see that black people are discriminated in very many aspects in most situations of life.

Women are also discriminated against, of course. Lower salary for example. But GTA V does not discriminate against women; it just portraits every type of person as really, really awful.

 

[Kelthink]

I question whether this is really a good idea for Rockstar. Would it make GTA less insulting and less annoying to play? From my perspective, yes. But being less insulting, being more "fair" would delude the brand and I am sure it would hurt sales of the game series in the mdeium term. If Rockstar wants to maximize their revenue, they should probably continue to be offensive as fuck in almost all regards possible - as long as they don't offend their target audience to directly.

As long as the worlds created in GTA are more consistent, I'd be fine. Its presentation on women doesn't really make sense given the world - like it'd make more sense that feminists within the world were treated like suffragettes, since that's the level of respect nearly any woman has. But instead, most things are lazy parodies from at least 20 years ago, save for the technology stuff. It's stupid in a bad way.

 

[pakkit]

Nice, let's look at 15 seconds of the game and judge the whole game by that.

I think the game does JUST that, it takes on the theme of manhood and boils it down to the two terrible stereotypes of "mass murdering I-dont-give-a-fuck-about-anyone" or "piss-your-pants-non-man-like-coward".

No that's not my logic. But you dicuss racism by looking at the situation for black people and comparing it to the situation for white people. Then you can see that black people are discriminated in very many aspects in most situations of life.

Women are also discriminated against, of course. Lower salary for example. But GTA V does not discriminate against women; it just portraits every type of person as really, really awful.

I think that the game does attempt to shoot down hyper-masculinity. The guys, as you said, are often testosterone-fueled monsters, or they are emasculated to the point of ridicule. As you say, Rockstar punches at everyone--they're the offensive comic onstage whose going to try to piss off the entire crowd.

I do think this argument is hampered, however, by having all the protagonists be men. Even though Michael and Trevor are loathesome, they possess, at the very least, a depth of character. They have histories. Desires. Interests. Even in pre-release interviews, Rockstar said that the game was about "masculinity." GTAV's world, then, is always seen through the male gaze. You could suggest that the third-person view is objective, but, given the hallucinations (e.g. aliens, drunkenness) you can see through its viewpoint, I'm not sure that argument is valid. We don't really get to understand the world equally, as you argue.

 

[civilstrife]

Nice, let's look at 15 seconds of the game and judge the whole game by that.

So... Is the scene sexist? Honest question.

How long does part of a game have to be for it to count? Maybe I should boot it up and take footage myself lol.

Women are also discriminated against, of course. Lower salary for example. But GTA V does not discriminate against women; it just portraits every type of person as really, really awful.

And what do you think is the thing that is supposed to be "awful" about the women in that scene? Hint: It's not that they're being loud in public. There's a similar scene that takes place inside the house.

 

[pakkit]

So... Is the scene sexist? Honest question.

I don't think viewing scenes outside of context is wise. We wouldn't expect any other reaction from Trevor. What is upsetting about the scene, though, is how it could be viewed as pandering by Rockstar. In light of #GG, this specific cutscene seems like a brofist.

But if you're unwilling to view Trevor's actions as consistently villainous (as many in the YT comments are doing...), you're going to end up advocating a lot of terrible shit by the games end. In context, this scene, like many others, is another pop culture reference commingled with Rockstar's "edgy" tone.

I don't agree with Horp that the men are portrayed worse, but I do think limiting this thread to strictly a female character analysis strips GTA of its hyper-masculine context.

 

[civilstrife]

I don't think viewing scenes outside of context is wise. We wouldn't expect any other reaction from Trevor. What is upsetting about the scene, though, is how it could be viewed as pandering by Rockstar. In light of #GG, this specific cutscene seems like a brofist.

But if you're unwilling to view Trevor's actions as consistently villainous (as many in the YT comments are doing...), you're going to end up advocating a lot of terrible shit by the games end. In context, this scene, like the others, is just another pop culture reference.

I don't agree with Horp that the men are portrayed worse, but I do think limiting this thread to strictly a female character analysis strips GTA of its hyper-masculine context.

Trevor's presence in the scene is not why I chose it. It's just the only one I found on youtube. This chant appears multiple times and is always meant to be the subject of ridicule.

And honestly, I don't think even Rockstar would create a scene like that again post Gamergate.

 

[Horp]

So... Is the scene sexist? Honest question.

How long does part of a game have to be for it to count? Maybe I should boot it up and take footage myself lol.




And what do you think is the thing that is supposed to be "awful" about the women in that scene? Hint: It's not that they're being loud in public. There's a similar scene that takes place inside the house.

You're still not getting it.
Discimination means that one part has to be discriminated against compared to another part.

Lets take a really exaggerated example to illustrate my point. Say a movie paints a really, really bad picture of black people. Then there are some scenes that kind of mocks white people a bit. Does the movie disciminate white people? No, it does not.

In the GTA V case it's not a case of men being portayed way worse than women, like in the example above (but slightly worse, I'd argue). But the same principle applies, it doesn't discriminate against women because it doesnt treat women worse than men; which once again is the very definition of gender discrimination.

That scene, yes, but not the game as a whole. Just like my movie example above, a few scenes of white people being mocked does not make the movie racist against white people.

Edit: sorry for spelling errors, phone is damn small.

 

[Messofanego]

Forced respectful treatment towards women would not work well with the intended core audience (teenage boys who want to experience this very virtual lifestyle of scumbags).

So I'd say, as someone who neither likes GTA nor the common extreme stance on political correctness, that GTA V is disrespectful to women and this is not some side effect or oversight, but a concrete goal of the developers to attract adolescent boys.

"But around 15 percent of its [GTA] fans are women, who find much to like about the game, even if they do have some ambivalence about it."
http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechcon...love-grand-theft-auto-v-hate-it-demeans-women

I'm surprised there would be even that high a number for games that are designed to be demeaning to women. But they'll ignore all that because it's still fun to play.

I don't buy this argument that the franchise has to portray all women as negative. They're not all meant to be villains. Why do they all have to be so shallow? Why not have messed up and flawed female characters but who are also interesting in different ways and can be described with various adjectives much like many of the male characters? It's not about having good morals, just characters being less predictable. Worth caring about.

If games like Saints Row can do it, I don't see the excuse

Teenage boys might not actually be the majority audience, and I'm pretty sure Rockstar knows that. Hence, the middle-aged protagonists. If we look at the gaming habits of male and female teenagers, there isn't a big difference. It's 44% for females, and 56% for males in game playing demographic stats. The average age of game players is above 30, and for females it seems to be 43.

Rockstar would be smart to expand their audience by tapping into what women like, and since it isn't all that different to men, then all they gotta do is have interesting characters that are worth investing into/rooting for. It's what Bioware, other RPG, and adventure game makers, have been able to tap into where females form a much higher percentage.

 

[uomoartificiale]

I don't get people saying that both women and men are "portrayed" in equally bad terms. Women are not protrayed at all, they are not protagonist of any narrative thread, they are just there and they are just awful. It's not like a female character is presented with her strength and weaknesses, her own (maybe twisted) motivations.
Only men are granted this opportunity, and that makes them interesting or uninteresting, tragic or funny. I would argue that women are just expelled from this game and replaced with a puberal fantasy of mean moms, bitching teachers and unhappy (imaginary) girlfriends...

 

[Galactic Barret]

What about Michael having a complete lack of respect as the patriarch of his family and his need to see a therapist? He's in the middle of a midlife crisis. Thats not a direct shot to his manhood?

Franklin is easy: he is a young man more than capable of taking control of his life, but he still lives with his aunt, is unemployed and riddled with angst. Thats a direct shot at his man-hood (his aunt mentions occasionally, Lamar frequently, as well as his ex-girlfriend, Trevor at one point as well) and maybe to the male individual playing GTAV as well.

I
Maybe I'm way off, but I feel like both genders get served if you look for it hard enough.

 

[SolidSnakex]

I don't buy this argument that the franchise has to portray all women as negative. They're not all meant to be villains. Why do they all have to be so shallow? Why not have messed up and flawed female characters but who are also interesting in different ways and can be described with various adjectives much like many of the male characters? It's not about having good morals, just characters being less predictable. Worth caring about.

It doesn't portray all women negatively. Kate in GTA4 is one of the very few "good" characters throughout then entire series. She's actually a genuinely good person. The only real criticism that you could level against her is that she doesn't flip on her family. But considering what it would mean for her if she did, it's not surprising that she wouldn't.

You also have characters like Asuka and Elizabeta who are handled in every way as equals to the men in the stories. They're both absolutely ruthless much like the main characters in the games.

 

[TheSpoiler]

A lot of people are saying that there's little critique for the main characters in regards to "taking swings at men as well", but that's exactly what the story is about.

Here's a previous post I wrote up on how Michael affects his family.

Spoilers for the game!

Tracey acts that way because

Spoiler

her father is shit. The game goes to great lengths to push that on you. In fact, she was huddled into a private school, and eventually admits that she acts out because she's frustrated that Michael doesn't give a shit. All of this stems from Michael's midlife crisis and selfishness, preferring to act macho instead of actually being a father figure to her.

The reactions he gets when she tells him to piss off after saving her are because it's purely jolting to Tracey - her father didn't give a shit BEFORE and only cares at random intervals. This all ties into how Dad's influence the family dynamic and speaks more about Michael than Tracey.

Amanda, the wife, used to be a stripper until she met Michael. Things were good until the last decade or so, where their relationship deteriorated into bickering and fights from his drinking and slumming around town. Once again, this lack of attention and love leads her to look elsewhere, and if we are doing the counting game, Michael has probably cheated on her far more than she has.

What makes this all worse is that he treats her like property, only giving a shit when he notices a man trying to get some from her. It's incredibly poisonous to let jealously be the only time you care about your wife. That shit takes a toll, and this all stems from - you guessed it - Michael.

The smaller details are picked up in side missions and conversations, but the majority of this is right in front of your face as you progress through the story.

Damn that's a lot for GTA lore. Who gives a shit about that lol.

Anyway, GTA has a lot of issues that demean the point of the satirical elements found in the game, but it's still there. I take umbrage with no dicks or male prostitutes. That's bullshit and you know it, Rockstar.

It's really a total thing. These elements are all weaved together, and in return, work together. Michael is the reason Amanda is distant. Calling Amanda loose or slutty when the game constantly re-enforces how shitty Michael is to the whole family misses the point completely.

Rockstar's biggest problem is that they aim for too many things. You take swings at everyone, the punches are going to feel lighter. And not all swings had a point - as someone pointed out with the transphobia thing beyond "look, we can make fun of them now too".

Also, there's no way a female character would star in a satirical game of this nature. Saints Row is one thing, but a game that is steeped in constant parody and American culture critique (that doesn't do it as well as it should) probably won't go over well. Look at how many things flew past people's heads, and while part of this truly is Rockstar's awful delivery, some things are so plainly available that I'm baffled they are missed.

What about Michael having a complete lack of respect as the patriarch of his family and his need to see a therapist? He's in the middle of a midlife crisis. Thats not a direct shot to his manhood?

Franklin is easy: he is a young man more than capable of taking control of his life, but he still lives with his aunt, is unemployed and riddled with angst. Thats a direct shot at his man-hood (his aunt mentions occasionally, Lamar frequently, as well as his ex-girlfriend, Trevor at one point as well) and maybe to the male individual playing GTAV as well.

I
Maybe I'm way off, but I feel like both genders get served if you look for it hard enough.

See, you get it. The main characters are used as three different types of commentary on masculinity - the need to be a family man, the need to be a black man from the hood (and trying to escape that life), and the need to cover up insecurities with violence. All of these have a direct impact on the people around them, and for the most part, becomes the driving reason as to how shitty everyone else's world is.

This being said, there are numerous instances where females, as a whole, get shit on more than the males. That disproportionate playing field needs to be fixed. But first, the game needs to be properly analyzed.

 

[Yoshi]

When we're talking about a male ratio of 85% in such a huge blockbuster then yes, this is a game that talks extremely to the male part of society. Your overall statistics show that there would be a potential market for more, yes, but it's not like GTA is occupying a small niche, it is one of the most sucessful games there are. If going after the female audience a lot more was hurting their perception with what makes 85% of their audience now, it could very well be not worth it. From a financial standpoint I wouldn't do it. Maybe I'd make a similar game targetting a broader audience, or a mainly female audience, but I wouldn't want to risk the huge brand I've built already by that. There would be other, more worthwhile risks to take with that franchise.

Regarding the scene from GTA above: I wouldn't say the scene in itself is sexist, but it is anti-feminist. They are targetting a certain ideology and are making fun of it while still pandering to the male power fantasy, because them shutting their mouths after being told so by Trevor is probably what the audience would wish for but it's not realistic for a group that would be willing to run around screaming this chant all over the street. It is part of what makes GTA sexist, due to what else happens in the game, but you could have this scene in a game that treats women well in general, but makes fun of feminist ideology anyway (and no, I don't think making fun of feminist ideology is necessarily sexist).

 

[civilstrife]

You're still not getting it.
Discimination means that one part has to be discriminated against compared to another part.

Lets take a really exaggerated example to illustrate my point. Say a movie paints a really, really bad picture of black people. Then there are some scenes that kind of mocks white people a bit. Does the movie disciminate white people? No, it does not.

In the GTA V case it's not a case of men being portayed way worse than women, like in the example above (but slightly worse, I'd argue). But the same principle applies, it doesn't discriminate against women because it doesnt treat women worse than men; which once again is the very definition of gender discrimination.

That scene, yes, but not the game as a whole. Just like my movie example above, a few scenes of white people being mocked does not make the movie racist against white people.

There is such a thing as artistic intent. How can you can look at that scene and not think that the writers were taking aim at female empowerment?

And trust me. I get it. It's just that your it is absolutely bonkers. You ignore all social and cultural context. White people can be mocked and ribbed on stage and in film (ie. white people can't dance) without it being racist because they aren't some marginalized group embroiled in the struggle for equality. Racism, like sexism is prejudice plus power. You don't just tally up the number of White jokes vs. Black jokes and call it a day.

There is a painful and all too recent history of subjugation and injustice that must always be considered especially when your goal is to mock and belittle.

 

[kyser73]

Article in OP is about as pedestrian as it gets for a feminist critique of a game that deliberately paints a target on itself for cultural criticism. Rockstar created a product that pushes the buttons of every cultural critic out there, and they did it deliberately.

How wank and meta do we want to get about this?

GTA is a parody of the thing it parodies - hypermaleness. In utterly scraping the barrel with its sexism and homo/transphobia it presents a world in which the only thing that matters are the homicidal and juvenile needs of its protagonists and by extension its mainly male audience.

To imagine that you could create such a parody without there being sexism and homo/transphobia is to imagine you could create a work of satirical misanthropy without insulting & degrading humans.

 

[Corpekata]

What about Michael having a complete lack of respect as the patriarch of his family and his need to see a therapist? He's in the middle of a midlife crisis. Thats not a direct shot to his manhood?

Franklin is easy: he is a young man more than capable of taking control of his life, but he still lives with his aunt, is unemployed and riddled with angst. Thats a direct shot at his man-hood (his aunt mentions occasionally, Lamar frequently, as well as his ex-girlfriend, Trevor at one point as well) and maybe to the male individual playing GTAV as well.

I
Maybe I'm way off, but I feel like both genders get served if you look for it hard enough.

Micheal's lack of respect is shown as being a deficency of the other characters. The other people are all extremely shrill and selfish and the butt of a dozen jokes and are made out to be ungrateful in the context of the story.

Franklin is as unemployed as his aunt is. She is, from what backstory we have, more of a freeloader than he is, only living there because she was willed half of the house. She is pretty much solely the butt of jokes and gets her comeuppance in multiple scenes.

 

[TheSpoiler]

Micheal's lack of respect is shown as being a deficency of the other characters. The other people are all extremely shrill and selfish and the butt of a dozen jokes and are made out to be ungrateful in the context of the story.

Franklin is as unemployed as his aunt is. She is, from what backstory we have, more of a freeloader than he is, only living there because she was willed half of the house. She is pretty much solely the butt of jokes and gets her comeuppance in multiple scenes.

You can say that, but only to an extent, about Michael's family. As I wrote above, his actions made them ungrateful and shrill. The game isn't perfect about showing this, but it's definitely there, and outright exposed at the end of the game.

Frank's aunt is a shot against feminism, but the empty version of empowerment - when - I - need - it - styled banner that leads to the opposite of what it should achieve. She doesn't get that much comeuppance, considering she still has the house (and her man) at the end of the game, while Frank continues to accept her berating. That all stems from "being a black man" and "knowing your roots".

 

[ninanuam]

The GTAs are essentially criminal empire building stories, played straight. The world created around those stories are satirical takes on a USA in which a you can attain an empire as a criminal. More violent, more dog eat dog.

This doesn't go into the more overt commentary in V about the corporatisation of America, the commodification of everything, and the idea that America's best days are well and truly behind it. the problem is life is imitating art too much. Alot of the billboards, the radio commercials could be real ads. its not as funny as it used to be, but there is more rage.

i mean they spell it out,The big bad in this game isn't a corrupt cop or a crime lord its a "legitimate" financier, lord of the 1% for fuck sake.

Yes the game has issues with its handling of women. I guess my problem with all the focus on that particular aspect is it seems to miss all the other rage thats all over that game and if thats where you draw your Line I think your line is drawn in a weird place.

 

[Jintor]

You can say that, but only to an extent, about Michael's family. As I wrote above, his actions made them ungrateful and shrill. The game isn't perfect about showing this, but it's definitely there, and outright exposed at the end of the game.

Yes, I think you're exactly right; I ended up liking Michael's family more as his failings were exposed and they became more 'real'; but at the beginning of the game especially they are empty shells of characters and, given how terrible the game is at exposing any of their past, the point where they up and leave was more of a relief than anything else.

 

[King Tubby]

While playing the game, I tried to justify the story by suggesting that the game is misanthropic on a whole (which seems to be the recurring counterargument regarding GTA)--but I think that the "good endings" kind of throw that reading away. The game believes that Trevor, Michael, and Franklin are redeemable. To see the game extend pathos to these violent monsters kind of spoils the misanthropic reading of the game.

Misanthropic is less accurate than solipsistic I would say. Ultimately the world of GTA is built to be a male power fantasy playground.

you can beat or kill women, cat-call women, or use them for sex.

Well you used to be able to take them on dates and form an ongoing relationship but people fucking hated that, it seems.

 

[PtM]

sexism is a problem in video games in general.

but in GTA it should be expected, as should stuff like racism and homophobia, it's a series about bad people doing bad things for bad reasons in a bad world.

Read again, the sexism is also in the game design.

 

[MattKeil]

A lot of people are saying that there's little critique for the main characters in regards to "taking swings at men as well", but that's exactly what the story is about.

Here's a previous post I wrote up on how Michael affects his family.



It's really a total thing. These elements are all weaved together, and in return, work together. Michael is the reason Amanda is distant. Calling Amanda loose or slutty when the game constantly re-enforces how shitty Michael is to the whole family misses the point completely.

While your analysis of the backstory is dead on, I think it's significant that we never see Michael behave in this way, as it all happens before the game begins, but we are constantly shown Amanda being a "slut" or a "shitty wife" to Michael. Plenty of hints are dropped that Michael has been way worse to her than she has to him, but the player only directly experiences Amanda being shitty to Michael. The player experience is intentionally tilted to make the player sympathize with Michael, when in reality he's the catalyst for almost everything bad that happens to him.

In short, I don't think the game treats the two nearly as equally as you are trying to claim it does. Michael, despite being a far worse person, is presented to the player as a victim from the beginning, even though his victim complex is mostly a wall he has built to protect himself from acknowledging how terrible he really is. However, the game has to do a lot of telling rather than showing in this area, which is bad storytelling, and it's very likely that many players never pick up on the notion that Amanda was simply reacting rather understandably to years of neglect and shitty behavior on the part of her husband.

 

[BlazinAm]

Misanthropic is less accurate than solipsistic I would say. Ultimately the world of GTA is built to be a male power fantasy playground.



Well you used to be able to take them on dates and form an ongoing relationship but people fucking hated that, it seems.

From a violence perspective, sure, just because of the amount of weapons and the ways you can go about it. I think the game just hates everyone. I guess that is the point.

 

[TheSpoiler]

Yes, I think you're exactly right; I ended up liking Michael's family more as his failings were exposed and they became more 'real'; but at the beginning of the game especially they are empty shells of characters and, given how terrible the game is at exposing any of their past, the point where they up and leave was more of a relief than anything else.

That's a testament to Rockstar's sometimes-terrible writing. Until after they leave, you do get a notion that Michael's a piece of shit and his lack of care directly hits home for each family member, but some of it is washed away during the unevenly spread satire. It's almost too much, and to that extent, I can see why people didn't catch on before that event. Afterwards, it's spelled out.

If we are discussing GTA as a male-power fantasy, the biggest problem comes from the direct contradictions the game brings. You have these three characters standing in as huge knocks against stereotypical masculinity and how it bleeds into everything in society, but there are still elements of the game that do it no justice.

Strip clubs not being more varied, the prostitution element used in such a lazy way, the fact that your interactions with female NPCs are basically half cat calls and the male ones are straightforward (before the fightin' terms happen, of course), and a host of other problems sways the pendulum another way.

While your analysis of the backstory is dead on, I think it's significant that we never see Michael behave in this way, as it all happens before the game begins, but we are constantly shown Amanda being a "slut" or a "shitty wife" to Michael. Plenty of hints are dropped that Michael has been way worse to her than she has to him, but the player only directly experiences Amanda being shitty to Michael. The player experience is intentionally tilted to make the player sympathize with Michael, when in reality he's the catalyst for almost everything bad that happens to him.

In short, I don't think the game treats the two nearly as equally as you are trying to claim it does. Michael, despite being a far worse person, is presented to the player as a victim from the beginning, even though his victim complex is mostly a wall he has built to protect himself from acknowledging how terrible he really is. However, the game has to do a lot of telling rather than showing in this area, which is bad storytelling, and it's very likely that many players never pick up on the notion that Amanda was simply reacting rather understandably to years of neglect and shitty behavior on the part of her husband.

In-game, switching to Michael shows him leaving from hotels, commenting that he might have gained an STD. The family focused missions, at least the arcs pertaining to those, end with the game spelling out how awful Michael is, somewhat. The writing is where all of this falters, because I see a ton of variance on what people catch and don't catch. It's knocked over your head at the end of the game, but before that one mission where the family leaves, it's middling and safer (besides the trophy wife thing).

If you spend a lot of time looking at the emails and interacting with the family, you'll see it coming a mile away. If you don't, the missions by themselves will leave you confused and scratching your head as to why everyone is railing on Michael. This is of no fault of the player, because much of this information should have been front and center, and it's not until midway through the game. So I do agree that the information needs to be more upfront instead of easter egg status. It'd clear a ton of confusion from the get-go.

 

[KyanMehwulfe]

Well you used to be able to take them on dates and form an ongoing relationship but people fucking hated that, it seems.

There may have originally been plans for a relationship or at least conversation system of some sorts....

Prostitution conversation response system:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxr2lDxXyHM

It's rather rare and it seems somewhat related to if you pick-up the same prostitute multiple times, but it's rare enough (and being sure that you picked up the same 'character model' in the same 'spawn location') is hard to really test. But based on it still being in the game but so rare (I've almost never seen anyone talk or show it before), it was obviously unfinished and left unutilized. But maybe they'll bring make more social relationships a la SA and IV in VI.

 

[MrCookiepants]

When did the world become so serious. Jokes are jokes.

 

[Henrar]

You would have to be literally blind and deaf to play GTA and think that the game treats men and women equally.

In what way does it not treat genders equally? Look at what Trevor does to Floyd (or anyone for that matter, except maybe for the Chef).