Support NeoGAF

[SomTervo]

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.

Thank you!

 

[CLEEK]

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

OK, fair enough. But...

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.

You are highlighting the difference between the male and female characters, showing that some of the males have agency, while the female have none. You're not "looking at them in a near-vacuum" at all. You have to have an understanding on how all groups are treated in the game to see if certain ones are treated worse, or consistently badly. You have to look at how the game treats men to highlight whether it is any different for its women.

If all the male character also showed no agency or held no power, then the female character would be treated identically. You have to have a control to measure against.

 

[UnrealEck]

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.

I got the distinct impression that he said things related to homosexuality to intimidate other characters.

From that wiki page it also says "Trevor uses threats of sexual violence in order to show his dominance over other men". This is pretty much the impression I got from his character. The scene with Floyd if I remember right shows the Floyd character looking intimidated and victimised, curled up and I think he was sucking his thumb too.

I never even thought of him as being bisexual at all. I just thought he was a maniac who didn't give a shit (even when it came to sexual acts on men) and said and did things to intimidate and upset people and to humour himself or others. I never got the impression he actually likes men sexually.

 

[DrNeroCF]

I'm not really sure how threads and articles on something like GTA is supposed to go. It's a game about bad people doing bad things in a bad world.

So yeah, there's sexism in GTA. And everyone in GTA is bad.

Is sexism simply off limits? Bad people can't be sexist? This terrible, awful place is supposed to be a utopia as far as gender equality is concerned?

Attempting to judge ANYTHING in GTA in a vacuum just completely misunderstands what fiction is.

 

[abadguy]

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.

Actually Tanisha was a hypocrite. She accuses Franklin of selling out and leaving the hood behind to be all upscale and shit when she is doing the exact same shit marrying her rich doctor guy. Speaking of which , reading her posts on "Life Invader" pretty much show that the Doctor guy she is with feels she is way too "ghetto" and is pretty much trying to change who she is in order to be with her, and she is pretty much happily going along with the program as opposed to being with someone who would like her for who she is.

As for women with "power" in GTA, i know people are focusing just on GTA V in this case but woman who were just as dangerous and Sociopathic as their male counterparts have been appearing in this series since the beginning. GTA 3 and San Andreas had Asuka and Catalina. GTA IV had Elizabeta Torrez who was pretty much a drug lord. The woman in love with her boss was a Lawyer not FIB. The actual FIB woman in the game Michelle/Karen. ( the one who wanted to sodomize the suspect with an 18" flashlight before Micheal stepped in)

 

[Lanrutcon]

I always thought GTA thrived on painting a fucked up picture of the world. I won't argue that it's not sexist in a lot of ways but...isn't that an intentional part of the world they've created? Like, should we be going 'that's terrible' or should we be going 'mission accomplished, Rockstar'? It's always hard for me to judge when it's fiction.

 

[Disgraced]

I got the distinct impression that he said things related to homosexuality to intimidate other characters.

From that wiki page it also says "Trevor uses threats of sexual violence in order to show his dominance over other men". This is pretty much the impression I got from his character. The scene with Floyd if I remember right shows the Floyd character looking intimidated and victimised, curled up and I think he was sucking his thumb too.

I never even thought of him as being bisexual at all. I just thought he was a maniac who didn't give a shit (even when it came to sexual acts on men) and said and did things to intimidate and upset people and to humour himself or others. I never got the impression he actually likes men sexually.

Like I said, it can be a matter of interpretation.

 

[Dick Justice]

I got the distinct impression that he said things related to homosexuality to intimidate other characters.

From that wiki page it also says "Trevor uses threats of sexual violence in order to show his dominance over other men". This is pretty much the impression I got from his character. The scene with Floyd if I remember right shows the Floyd character looking intimidated and victimised, curled up and I think he was sucking his thumb too.

I never even thought of him as being bisexual at all. I just thought he was a maniac who didn't give a shit (even when it came to sexual acts on men) and said and did things to intimidate and upset people and to humour himself or others. I never got the impression he actually likes men sexually.

He mentions bringing in a guy if you get a dual lapdance. And Franklin asks him after the end of the game, he pretty much confirms that he fucks anything that moves.

Actually Tanisha was a hypocrite. She accuses Franklin of selling out and leaving the hood behind to be all upscale and shit when she is doing the exact same shit marrying her rich doctor guy. Speaking of which , reading her posts on "Life Invader" pretty much show that the Doctor guy she is with feels she is way too "ghetto" and is pretty much trying to change who she is in order to be with her, and she is pretty much happily going along with the program as opposed to being with someone who would like her for who she is.

Spot on.

 

[Dice//]

We can't deny media plays a big role in shaping people's views on certain things that then become stereotypes. Take your view on something you don't interact with on a close basis, probably was shaped by media portrayal of it. That's how myths come about.

Honestly, I don't feel this can get stated enough. Life imitates art, art imitates life; even if on a small amount, I think it'd be foolish to say it never has. So when people say "it's just a game", on some level I agree, but on another GTA could be satire of real problems too that still persist beyond the realm of simply 'satire'.

 

[The Technomancer]

I always thought GTA thrived on painting a fucked up picture of the world. I won't argue that it's not sexist in a lot of ways but...isn't that an intentional part of the world they've created? Like, should we be going 'that's terrible' or should we be going 'mission accomplished, Rockstar'? It's always hard for me to judge when it's fiction.

I mean, its the whole problem of depiction versus endorsement. Like it or not, when you create a piece of art or media how you present your content creates value judgements around your content. Yes GTA is clearly a fucked up depiction of a world. But is it saying "and look how awful that would be" or is it saying "and look how awesome that would be"? Or if you argue that its trying (operative word) not to say anything, does that passivity result in it being more on the awesome side of the slider than the awful one?

To put it another way: if GTA is a satire, is it really meant to be thought provoking? Or is it just meant to be indulgent? The thing about satire is that its supposed to actually make you think about what its satirizing. This is the exact reason why Fight Club, which is ostensibly satirical on paper, doesn't actually play as a satire to so many people who see it

 

[Disgraced]

He mentions bringing in a guy if you get a dual lapdance. And Franklin asks him after the end of the game, he pretty much confirms that he fucks anything that moves.

Thanks for clearing that up with some more specifics.

I mean, its the whole problem of depiction versus endorsement. Like it or not, when you create a piece of art or media how you present your content creates value judgements around your content. Yes GTA is clearly a fucked up depiction of a world. But is it saying "and look how awful that would be" or is it saying "and look how awesome that would be"? Or if you argue that its trying (operative word) not to say anything, does that passivity result in it being more on the awesome side of the slider than the awful one?To put it another way: if GTA is a satire, is it really meant to be thought provoking? Or is it just meant to be indulgent?

Right.

I think Rockstar tries to convey both of those things. I think their intention is to have wild, bombastic Hollywood-crime stuff while simultaneously ridiculing how dumb the whole concept is. Like, satire.

I believe GTA V's thought provoking. The issues it brings to the table have kind of been discussed in this thread, no?...

It has to be a taste thing. Some can dig its self-aware ham-fisted approach, others are repulsed by the shock jock content and find it disgusting. Regarding those two parties, I don't think either is dumber nor more pretentious than the other, again, it just boils down to taste.

The thing about satire is that its supposed to actually make you think about what its satirizing. This is the exact reason why Fight Club, which is ostensibly satirical on paper, doesn't actually play as a satire to so many people who see it

To expand on this a bit, another example I've seen before is when some get the idea that Rorschach in Watchmen is supposed be like a role model, and miss that he's a jab at Ditko's objectivism obsession and not just an analogy of his characters, but what I'd call a malicious parody. He may be the closest thing to a hero of the story (that's another debate) with some admirable traits like honesty, and independence, but otherwise he's still a demented, discriminate lunatic unintended to be a behavioral example.

 

[PtM]

Again, this is not about sexism in the game world, it's about sexism in the world building. Jeez Louise!

If that was self-aware, it'd arguably be worse.

 

[staticneuron]

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

It isn't because it is a male oriented view but one done on purpose. As a matter of fact if you go into GTA looking for a redeeming quality or positive view then you do not understand the series. The series glorifies criminal aspect of the world as presented through movies, comics and various pop culture but also does it in fictional settings in where almost everyone is unlikable as well. Not only are the people twisted, the corporations, the media, marketing for products. It is heavy handed satire that takes in pop culture of America and either mocks events that mimic real life contentions or spin subject matter to expose hypocrisy in perspective.

So when a feminist or anyone wanting to have a positive reflection of any ethnic group or sexuality wants to point to this game series no one should be surprised when they find negativity. Because it is satire (via exaggeration) of movie America, then the misogyny, racism, overt stereotypes and disdainful tone of society in general are more in your face. GTA is a poor game to do any social commentary on because it is supposed it uses worst examples to drive home a point.

I always thought GTA thrived on painting a fucked up picture of the world. I won't argue that it's not sexist in a lot of ways but...isn't that an intentional part of the world they've created? Like, should we be going 'that's terrible' or should we be going 'mission accomplished, Rockstar'? It's always hard for me to judge when it's fiction.

Yes.

I mean, its the whole problem of depiction versus endorsement. Like it or not, when you create a piece of art or media how you present your content creates value judgements around your content. Yes GTA is clearly a fucked up depiction of a world. But is it saying "and look how awful that would be" or is it saying "and look how awesome that would be"? Or if you argue that its trying (operative word) not to say anything, does that passivity result in it being more on the awesome side of the slider than the awful one?

To put it another way: if GTA is a satire, is it really meant to be thought provoking? Or is it just meant to be indulgent? The thing about satire is that its supposed to actually make you think about what its satirizing. This is the exact reason why Fight Club, which is ostensibly satirical on paper, doesn't actually play as a satire to so many people who see it

Of course it forces you to think but some people aren't to critical. Reason being is that the messed up stuff is in relation to the in-world elements. It is up to the gamer to draw the parallels to the real world. I wouldn't be surprised if a large amount of sataire sail over peoples head because they are not on top of new or culture to understand the references.

Honestly, I don't feel this can get stated enough. Life imitates art, art imitates life; even if on a small amount, I think it'd be foolish to say it never has. So when people say "it's just a game", on some level I agree, but on another GTA could be satire of real problems too that still persist beyond the realm of simply 'satire'.

What are you trying to say exactly?

 

[Risk Breaker]

I'm not really sure how threads and articles on something like GTA is supposed to go. It's a game about bad people doing bad things in a bad world.

So yeah, there's sexism in GTA. And everyone in GTA is bad.

Is sexism simply off limits? Bad people can't be sexist? This terrible, awful place is supposed to be a utopia as far as gender equality is concerned?

Attempting to judge ANYTHING in GTA in a vacuum just completely misunderstands what fiction is.

I always thought GTA thrived on painting a fucked up picture of the world. I won't argue that it's not sexist in a lot of ways but...isn't that an intentional part of the world they've created? Like, should we be going 'that's terrible' or should we be going 'mission accomplished, Rockstar'? It's always hard for me to judge when it's fiction.

This argument doesn't hold water due to the simple fact that you could have the same fucked up characters/world without the rampant sexism and it would still be the same game/story/decadent world. It adds nothing.

 

[staticneuron]

This argument doesn't hold water due to the simple fact that you could have the same fucked up characters/world without the rampant sexism and it would still be the same game/story/decadent world. It adds nothing.

Except that it is satire on the real world and sexism exists in the real world. So the idea that it should be off limits is without merits.

Why, exactly should it not have sexist elements in it other than the fact that the world/story can still remain without those elements?

The story could have also been written without Franklin or Trevor. They could have made Franklin Hispanic or Trevor be from Australia. Just stating what they "could" have done doesn't support a point of view of why they shouldn't have done it.

 

[spekkeh]

This argument doesn't hold water due to the simple fact that you could have the same fucked up characters/world without the rampant sexism and it would still be the same game/story/decadent world. It adds nothing.

That's a weirdly reductionist way of looking at things. Where does it end? You can take away the killing and it would be the same world because the characters are still bad? Sexism is a part of crime noir. It's a sleazy city, inhabited by sleazeballs.

 

[Messofanego]

You implying she was a bad character in Redemption, just because she didn't shoot people like a psycho? smh.

"empowerment = killing people".

Annie Stoakes isn't in Redemption's campaign and she's not a psycho. I'm saying Rockstar can make good female characters, and has had female playable characters in their campaigns. It's a response to people who think Rockstar can't do a playable female well when they already have in the past.

 

[UrbanRats]

Annie Stoakes isn't in Redemption's campaign and she's not a psycho. I'm saying Rockstar can make good female characters, and has had female playable characters in their campaigns. It's a response to people who think Rockstar can't do a playable female well when they already have in the past.

Apologies if i misunderstood you there, but it seemed to me like you were sarcastically making a comparison with Bonnie in Redemption, and how she doesn't get to shoot people, which i found to be a ridiculous oversimplification of her character (which is one of the most interesting in videogames i've seen, to be honest).
And pretty much everyone killing others in Redemption comes off as a very violent and cruel person (product of their time, but still) so it makes sense for her not to go around shooting bandits, if not necessary; it's pretty much the juxtaposition with Marston, the point of the story, of those times coming to a close.

Not playable (in singleplayer) of course, but it has more to do with how the game is structured, than her gender.

Infact, i think Redemption has plenty of interesting female characters, and Luisa is possibly the only bleeding heart good person R* has done, that isn't also an annoying cartoon.
The way she

Spoiler

gets killed, i thought, is an absolutely phenomenal and gut wrenching scene, too.

I was really blown away by the subtlety they managed to have for it.
-
I hope in the sequel they'll implement a character switch function like GTAV, opening up possibilities for more varied playable characters in the main campaign.

 

[PtM]

Again, this is not about sexism in the game world, it's about sexism in the world building. Jeez Louise!

If that was self-aware, it'd arguably be worse.

One last go, since you guys are still running in circles: It's not about written sexism, it's about sexist writing.

 

[SomTervo]

OK, fair enough. But...



You are highlighting the difference between the male and female characters, showing that some of the males have agency, while the female have none. You're not "looking at them in a near-vacuum" at all. You have to have an understanding on how all groups are treated in the game to see if certain ones are treated worse, or consistently badly. You have to look at how the game treats men to highlight whether it is any different for its women.

If all the male character also showed no agency or held no power, then the female character would be treated identically. You have to have a control to measure against.

Good point – but I suppose my argument was that we're still looking at the women alone in themselves. We're just also looking at men alone in themselves. I'm comparing them structurally to men. I said this at the end of post's first line - which you conveniently cut – that we can still retain nebulous or structural comparisons, rather than direct 1:1 comparisons, like what others were doing. That's what I took issue with. Comparisons like 'Franklin had this happen to him and he said this to her and then Trevor does this',etc, should be avoided.

You're right that they have to be compared on some level. But I meant we have to detach the male/female representations from each other and evaluate each on the same scales. (High-level, structural scales/) This means not confusing things by comparing individual characters, their dialogue and actions directly. I suppose I mean speak in 'true generalisations', like any philosophical argument.

Actually Tanisha was a hypocrite. She accuses Franklin of selling out and leaving the hood behind to be all upscale and shit when she is doing the exact same shit marrying her rich doctor guy. Speaking of which , reading her posts on "Life Invader" pretty much show that the Doctor guy she is with feels she is way too "ghetto" and is pretty much trying to change who she is in order to be with her, and she is pretty much happily going along with the program as opposed to being with someone who would like her for who she is.

As for women with "power" in GTA, i know people are focusing just on GTA V in this case but woman who were just as dangerous and Sociopathic as their male counterparts have been appearing in this series since the beginning. GTA 3 and San Andreas had Asuka and Catalina. GTA IV had Elizabeta Torrez who was pretty much a drug lord. The woman in love with her boss was a Lawyer not FIB. The actual FIB woman in the game Michelle/Karen. ( the one who wanted to sodomize the suspect with an 18" flashlight before Micheal stepped in)

That's a really interesting point.

Except for one thing – that Tanisha wasn't at all complaining to Franklin about him 'leaving the hood behind'. She was complaining that he's remaining a criminal and doing the same criminal things at higher stakes to escape the hood. Rather than working hard and being legit and moving up by this, like she did.

She moved up through hard work and, indeed, 'marrying up' – which is a whole sexist issue in itself! She's constantly referring to how her partner is 'better' and it's making her 'better'. That aspect of her character is entirely framed around masculinity.

Amazing point about her LifeInvader page though, that's really clever

 

[Arkeband]

To put it another way: if GTA is a satire, is it really meant to be thought provoking? Or is it just meant to be indulgent? The thing about satire is that its supposed to actually make you think about what its satirizing. This is the exact reason why Fight Club, which is ostensibly satirical on paper, doesn't actually play as a satire to so many people who see it

This is a very important discussion to have. So are you saying if satire 'goes over peoples heads' it should be sanitized or removed?

There's a very real chance that adolescents that play GTA and find it indulgent can come back to it later and find it thought provoking.

The image linked on the first page that was transphobic - at first I looked at that and went 'well that's tasteless' - but then I thought about it some more and realized either it's completely tone deaf, or that is the entire point. It's offensive to hold a mirror up to the player to understand how offensive it is. That joke will rattle around in brains and maybe they'll come to understand its significance... or maybe it won't, and they'll continue being the same intolerant dicks they always were.

 

[UrbanRats]

To put it another way: if GTA is a satire, is it really meant to be thought provoking? Or is it just meant to be indulgent? The thing about satire is that its supposed to actually make you think about what its satirizing. This is the exact reason why Fight Club, which is ostensibly satirical on paper, doesn't actually play as a satire to so many people who see it

Some of their jokes are satire, undeniably so.
Some others are just puns.

Yes, it is often tired, shitty satire, but still satire.
What is or isn't 'thought provoking' is, by definition, reliant of the viewer's reaction and interaction with the medium, so it's not an objective standard to have.

I would say, the main problem is that by now, GTA isn't producing very honest and genuine satire, which is what makes it so trite and boring, for the most part.

This includes when they "punch up", by the way.
You can be satirical of dominant power structures and still be obvious and boring about it.

 

[blankempathy]

So i remembered this article before I played gtav but now that I've put some time into the game I wanted to give my 2 cents. I notice that Tracey always gets brought up as a character that merely exists to be saved and thats backed up by the fact that Michael can't hang out with her. However I think that completely fits the story they're trying to tell. Why exactly doesn't Michael have the option to hang out with her? Simply put I think its because he doesn't want to. After all she is his daughter and to a lot of fathers its harder for them to cope when it comes to their daughters then say their sons. I think Michael simply tries to deny what his daughter does and avoids her because of that. Thats also backed up by the fact that according to her hes distant by implying that when he saves her that now he wants to play dad. However shes still supportive of him and we see that in emails/life invader. That seems to be the only way she can really communicate with him. I actually preferred Tracey over Jimmy.