Dead Island Torso Statue: Misogynistic? Stupid? Both? Neither?
- Thread starter BloatedGuppy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
What Deep Silver should have done was offer 1 of 2 different busts, one male and one female. That way they couldn't complain about the sexuallized violace against women B.S. I am a woman and I don't find this offensive at all. I think it's a pretty neet idea, it reminds me of the good ol' practical gore effect we used to get in movies (I miss those days, damn you CG). Unfortunatly for them I have no iterest in zombie games.
Ugh. I'm going to regret wading back into this cesspool (which I am deeply, deeply sorry for starting with my OP, I should have known better), but...HellbirdIV said:
I will echo peruvianskys. There is a very, very cogent argument to be made as to why that statue is misogynistic. If you want to argue otherwise, please come up with an equally cogent and supported argument. That goes for everyone else in this fucking thread too, not that I expect anyone to comply. "LOL NO ITS NOT U R DUMB" is not an argument. "They are attending to the conventions of the genre" is an argument, although one that raises the secondary questions of "Is the genre misogynistic, then?" and "If so, are we cool with that?".
I don't care WHAT your opinion is on the topic, but FFS, SUPPORT YOUR OPINION. I know this is a thread with gender overtones so everyone has to get their MRA on and start flipping the fuck out, but try to be a little rational while doing so. Pretend it's a game, and you get a goddam achievement for doing it.
IMPO, it's more of the epitome of objectification. Let's take any woman, remove any distinguishing characteristics (especially her face), and just leave tits, ass, and her other "lady parts". You've just turned a woman into a sex object. The fact that she's mutilated, at least in this case, is just part of the zombie genre. But it's all about the "blood, guts, & boobs" mentality that's so prevalent in slasher flicks. In this case; just forget that the boobs might belong to any particular lady and objectify the crap out of that sexy torso.peruvianskys said:
That's why I personally find it distasteful.
(I wrote this in another thread, but it's worth reposting here just because I think it sums up how most people who oppose this statue feel.)
Sexualizing violence is always gross; the fact that it's being done by a company that has shown a deft hand when it comes to objectifying and alienating women, and the fact that it's being put out for a community that is far from friendly towards women, makes me more than confident that this is an expression of the obvious misogyny that video game manufacturers pander to all the time. It's less that the statue itself is pure, distilled hatred of women, and far more that it taps into and represents really fucked up views of women and sexuality and violence that pervade this community.
Things don't happen in a vacuum. For example, woman gets blown up in Zero Dark Thirty. If they had offered a mutilated torso with giant bouncy tits in their collector's edition, it would just be baffling. But because political thrillers rarely trade in the sexualization of violence and the marginalization of women into walking, occasionally talking tits and asses, I would consider it just a weird concept and not an expression of misogyny. But because the products in our industry, especially the more violent games, have an undeniably history of marginalizing women and making light of violence towards them, in addition to generally highlighting their tits over just about everything else, this comes off as a natural expression of that shitty, shitty attitude.
I'm reminded of those racist pick-a-ninny dolls from the South during the 1900's. Was the doll itself inherently racist? No, probably not, some black people did look like that. But the attitudes and concepts and desires behind the creation of those dolls were absolutely racist and contemptuous and vile, and that means that the product created to satiate and exploit those desires was racist too. It's the exact same situation here; a statue of a woman's violently ripped-apart torso is not INHERENTLY, ESSENTIALLY, WITHOUT POSSIBLE EXCEPTION sexist, but it's undeniably playing into some ideas about women and violence and sex and agency that are fucked up and disgusting - and as someone who hates how prevalent those ideas are in my community and in videogames at large, I'm going to criticize both the existential attitudes themselves AS WELL AS their blatant manifestations.
tl;dr if someone could not exist without seriously fucked up views on women and violence, then it is by definition an expression of those shitty views, and that makes it sexist and misogynistic. A product that capitalizes on a violent fascination with the sexualized destruction of female bodies (except the tits, because those are the parts that matter, amiright!) is as gross as the attitudes that fostered its creation.
Sexualizing violence is always gross; the fact that it's being done by a company that has shown a deft hand when it comes to objectifying and alienating women, and the fact that it's being put out for a community that is far from friendly towards women, makes me more than confident that this is an expression of the obvious misogyny that video game manufacturers pander to all the time. It's less that the statue itself is pure, distilled hatred of women, and far more that it taps into and represents really fucked up views of women and sexuality and violence that pervade this community.
Things don't happen in a vacuum. For example, woman gets blown up in Zero Dark Thirty. If they had offered a mutilated torso with giant bouncy tits in their collector's edition, it would just be baffling. But because political thrillers rarely trade in the sexualization of violence and the marginalization of women into walking, occasionally talking tits and asses, I would consider it just a weird concept and not an expression of misogyny. But because the products in our industry, especially the more violent games, have an undeniably history of marginalizing women and making light of violence towards them, in addition to generally highlighting their tits over just about everything else, this comes off as a natural expression of that shitty, shitty attitude.
I'm reminded of those racist pick-a-ninny dolls from the South during the 1900's. Was the doll itself inherently racist? No, probably not, some black people did look like that. But the attitudes and concepts and desires behind the creation of those dolls were absolutely racist and contemptuous and vile, and that means that the product created to satiate and exploit those desires was racist too. It's the exact same situation here; a statue of a woman's violently ripped-apart torso is not INHERENTLY, ESSENTIALLY, WITHOUT POSSIBLE EXCEPTION sexist, but it's undeniably playing into some ideas about women and violence and sex and agency that are fucked up and disgusting - and as someone who hates how prevalent those ideas are in my community and in videogames at large, I'm going to criticize both the existential attitudes themselves AS WELL AS their blatant manifestations.
tl;dr if someone could not exist without seriously fucked up views on women and violence, then it is by definition an expression of those shitty views, and that makes it sexist and misogynistic. A product that capitalizes on a violent fascination with the sexualized destruction of female bodies (except the tits, because those are the parts that matter, amiright!) is as gross as the attitudes that fostered its creation.
The first sentence and the second are not unlinked. They are completely related to each other.BloatedGuppy said:
This does not mean that sexualising women or violence against women is misogynistic, it means that somebodies hatred of women can be expressed/manifested/shown in these forms.
Unless people are suggesting that this bust was created with the intent to express hatred or dislike of women, then it is not misogynistic.
It's just my view (based on my experiences, which may not be representative) but I do think the gaming community (or a subsection of it) still has some problems to work through with regards to shocking images of women.D Moness said:
Some male gamers (by no means all or even most) have a tendency to be overprotective of female gamers (and of women in general) and overly sensitive about anything that might offend them. Similarly, some female gamers (again, not all or even most) still seem to feel unnecessarily threatened by negative or trivialising portrayals of women.
As often discussed (especially on this site) liking fictional violence and being a violent person are not the same thing. Just because someone thinks this statue is cool doesn't mean they want to chop up an actual woman, or even that they have any negative feelings towards women at all. I enjoy watching Kill Bill, but that doesn't mean I'd enjoy seeing an actual person get carved up with a sword.
Films have been a mainstream interest for longer than video games, and there's a far greater breadth of people reporting on and discussing them. So there seems to be less potential for a few outraged voices to dominate.
*checks outside window to make sure D Moness isn't hiding in the bushes*
I think Peruvianskys has found a solid analogy with the pick-a-ninny dolls for why something that is not necessarily intentionally problematic can become problematic because of the culture into which it is introduced. The question isn't whether or not the people at Deep Silver are women loathing maniacs ready to bubble over. It's whether or not the results of their efforts ended up being misogynistic.Legion said:
If the pick-a-ninny analogy doesn't fit you, how about someone unwittingly performing a black face act without consideration to how it might be perceived?
This isn't a binary issue...is it misogynistic - yes/no. It's an ephemeral concept, it can't be PROVEN with objective evidence. It was simply a question to gauge the community's response. I should have expected what the result would be. I wasn't thinking. Putting the word "misogyny" in a thread title is like setting a honey trap for idiots.
It's definitely a stupid idea. Misogynistic? Well, I'm betting the statue's gender was chosen "because boobs." That in itself, the root reasoning would fall under misogyny, so probably.
BloatedGuppy said:
Seeing as you said unwittingly and lack of consideration I'd call it stupid and insensitive.
I wouldn't call it racist.
And no, I do not agree with Peruviansky' analogy, because they specifically state:
Which is what I said: If they did not intend to express hatred or dislike of women, then they were not misogynistic. If people honestly believe they did it to express hatred or dislike, then yes, it is misogyny.
Peruviansky's example stated that the intent behind the doll was malicious, even if the dolls themselves weren't. I do not think the intent behind this bust was malicious. I think it was stupid, but not expressing anything or making any statement on their views on women.
I'm not asking how you would characterize the motivation of the person doing it. I'm asking how it would be perceived by onlookers, and whether the question of "Is this racist" would be seen as patently ridiculous, as some are claiming the accusation of misogyny is in this thread. I can tell you right now if I did a black face routine at the company meeting I would be fired, regardless of how misguided my actions turned out to be.Ickorus said:
I believe the argument is that it is representative of a passive misogyny that permeates the industry...as individuals, we are not always fully aware of our prejudices...and if the hostile knee-jerk vitriol that bubbles up on these forums whenever uppity feminists open their mouths is any indication, this "community" does have some issues. I hear the argument, and my response is "I can see why you might think that". I have no idea whether or not Deep Silver is actively staffed by misogynists and I wouldn't want to guess.Legion said:
As to whether it was ill advised or a tonal misread, I guess that depends on whether or not the intent was to generate publicity through shock.
If nothing else, even as a horror/shock collectible it could have been better made. The breasts are ridiculous.
I don't get the whole response.
Oh it's gotta be someone's torso, making it a woman's isn't sexist. I mean seriously What The Hell??? First of all why would it be Any torso, that's just disgusting, second of all. it's a a woman in a bikini and thong without legs and a head... that's a fetish people a very weird fetish but on that is very real. A bloody dismembered sexualized woman's torso.
I have no idea how this got past PR
Oh it's gotta be someone's torso, making it a woman's isn't sexist. I mean seriously What The Hell??? First of all why would it be Any torso, that's just disgusting, second of all. it's a a woman in a bikini and thong without legs and a head... that's a fetish people a very weird fetish but on that is very real. A bloody dismembered sexualized woman's torso.
I have no idea how this got past PR
My guess is that the bust is a parody. You've all seen the figurines of various game and anime characters right? Some of these have the characters standing in sexy poses wearing very little clothing. My first guess was that the people at Deep Silver thought "let´s make a sexy bust, but make it mutilated ('cause we're making a zombie game) so it isn't really sexy like most of these things usually are".
But, that's just my guess.
But, that's just my guess.
Mind if I ask what exactly you were expecting from a Horror game?
It seeks to elicit a negative emotional reaction, kinda like the outrage here. They often feature scenes that startle the viewer, kinda like the initial reaction to this statue. It often deals with the viewer's nightmares and revulsions, kinda like the statue itself. Prevalent elements include gore and torture, ya know like on the statue.
It's supposed to be fucked up. It's supposed to be seen as repulsive. It's supposed to play on primal fears. It's supposed to be completely and utterly horrifying, that's what horror is.
It's cheap horror, sure. Take a female, something still seen as 'special' too often in this community, and display her mutilated torso, about the ultimate act of desecration to something held sacred for all the wrong reasons. And lo and behold, big surprise, you get a massive negative emotional reaction fed by repulsion and hidden fears.
The entire audience is now horrified. Congratulations. Mission accomplished in the safest and least imaginative way possible.
Horror is a film genre seeking to elicit a negative emotional reaction from viewers by playing on the audience's primal fears. Horror films often feature scenes that startle the viewer; the macabre and the supernatural are frequent themes. Thus they may overlap with the fantasy, supernatural, and thriller genres.[1]
Horror films often deal with the viewer's nightmares, hidden fears, revulsions and terror of the unknown. Plots within the horror genre often involve the intrusion of an evil force, event, or personage, commonly of supernatural origin, into the everyday world. Prevalent elements include ghosts, aliens, vampires, werewolves, curses, satanism, demons, gore, torture, vicious animals, monsters, zombies, cannibals, and serial killers. Conversely, movies about the supernatural are not necessarily always horrific.
Horror films often deal with the viewer's nightmares, hidden fears, revulsions and terror of the unknown. Plots within the horror genre often involve the intrusion of an evil force, event, or personage, commonly of supernatural origin, into the everyday world. Prevalent elements include ghosts, aliens, vampires, werewolves, curses, satanism, demons, gore, torture, vicious animals, monsters, zombies, cannibals, and serial killers. Conversely, movies about the supernatural are not necessarily always horrific.
It seeks to elicit a negative emotional reaction, kinda like the outrage here. They often feature scenes that startle the viewer, kinda like the initial reaction to this statue. It often deals with the viewer's nightmares and revulsions, kinda like the statue itself. Prevalent elements include gore and torture, ya know like on the statue.
It's supposed to be fucked up. It's supposed to be seen as repulsive. It's supposed to play on primal fears. It's supposed to be completely and utterly horrifying, that's what horror is.
It's cheap horror, sure. Take a female, something still seen as 'special' too often in this community, and display her mutilated torso, about the ultimate act of desecration to something held sacred for all the wrong reasons. And lo and behold, big surprise, you get a massive negative emotional reaction fed by repulsion and hidden fears.
The entire audience is now horrified. Congratulations. Mission accomplished in the safest and least imaginative way possible.
Tohuvabohu said:
Yeah, pretty much that. But I think by now it's expected that RPS will invent outrageous social issues related to gaming so they can defend the damaged party with gloriously heroic social commentary. Disgusting as always, just like the FarCry 3 review and many other things before that.