Do Not Be Quiet

home
hillary
battlestar
clothing
competition
campaign
tshirts
buttons
past >>>
scrapbook
links
contact


back to index

Past Issues: Issue#2 February 2004

Women in Computer Games: A Lament.


2003 was an appalling year for women in computer games.

The industry plumbed new depths in the exploitation and debasement of women. Violence against women and narrow stereotyping is hidden behind a thin veneer of “freedom of choice”. Defenders of these poor representations of women claim that, unlike films, users have to actively choose whether to enact violence against women. This argument does not stand up to even the most cursory scrutiny. It is also an indictment on more progressive social commentators that the computer games industry has so far escaped such criticism. As a male software engineer myself, I am ashamed by this side of my so-called "profession".

Three games represent the main problems with the industry.

The girls of Dead or Alive Xtreme Beach Volleyball (there are no men) bend, flex, bathe and change clothes more then they play volleyball. If barely-there bikinis are not enough, a secret code allows you to unlock topless volleyball mode, and watch the women go through the motions naked.

Grand Theft Auto 3, an action game from a few years ago was famous for “innovations" such as the ability to have sex with a street prostitute to regain health points. A secret code allowed players to then kill her and take their money back. This year's installment, Grand Theft Auto: Vice City, allows you to kill the women by repeatedly hitting them with baseball bats, or if you don't have a bat, you can just kick them to death. No secret code is needed.

But perhaps the most galling game of all was the return of Lara Croft in Tomb Raider: The Angel of Darkness. Lara Croft was designed to be a female version of Indiana Jones, an independent, smart and skillful person. This clearly freaked out the marketing department of Eidos Software - they felt they would have trouble marketing this character - and so the focus shifted to, as one reviewer on the popular games site www.ugo.com wrote, her two `moneymakers'. Promotional material for the Tomb Raider games is little better than magazines featuring babes with guns. One of the creators of Lara Croft, Toby Gard, told The Mirror newspaper in the UK that “I just wish that when she was taken out of my hands they hadn't made her boobs so big. She was never meant to be a page-three-type girl.”

Perhaps I am a prude to wish for a division between mainstream computer games and under-the-counter porn but the truth of the matter is that currently, computer games are an insidious form of gender stereotyping that is diluting a lot of the gains made by society
over the last thirty years towards gender equality. Perhaps worst of all, they are targeted at a new generation of young men, a group that feminist literature sometimes has trouble reaching.

People have worked hard to reverse stereotypes on television and in film, yet computer-games, a recreational activity that for teenagers takes up as much time as the others media combined, is allowed to promote violence against women unchallenged.

Do Not Be Quiet.

There are several factors that allow this type of women bashing to continue. A major factor is that the IT industry is dominated by men. However, there are still a large number of women in the industry who can challenge these decisions and, perhaps, to make games that tell women's stories, or at least stories that do not alienate women. Men in the industry can take a stand too. I know many male programmers who are appalled at the low
standard of games currently available.

Would Jane Champion, director of “The Piano”, make a computer game? Another part of the problem is the classification system used in Australia that disallows the release of R rated games. This is unlike films and television, which have far fewer restrictions.
Computer games have been allowed to “slip in under the radar” because there is a perception in the community that computer games are primarily for children and that the only responsibility we have is monitoring the level of blood n' guts violence in the game. Many people would not think that themes such as domestic violence can or should be dealt with in games. However, restricting programs made for adults cuts straight to the heart of responsible game creation. Computer games are not just for children or young men. The existence of this prejudice discourages talented and politically active people from entering the industry. This is despite the relatively low cost of entry, as opposed to film making.

Thirdly, social commentators do not often understand the industry. The technology has formed a barrier to understanding. It is important to realize that the content in computer games can be critiqued in the same way as the content in books, films and other literature. Flashy buzz-words and interactive settings are irrelevant.

As a gay man, I face many of the sames issues facing women in computer games. Gay voices are entirely silent in games, The Sims being the only exception I have found. Even Grand Theft Auto has no male prostitutes to kill. Every romance in every game is cloyingly straight. The supposed freedom of the user to control their own actions in these games is a myth. The choice “should I beat the female hooker to death or not?” is so loaded that the question is irrelevent, even when we ignore the fact that the player is given a reward for selecting one option but not the other.

I do not expect things to change in 2004. However, I plan on making my own game, with a cute gay guy as the lead character. Thanks to grassroots movements such as
the GPL initiative and GNU/Linux, which provide all the software tools required for free, making your own games is slowly becoming a possibility.

It is time for people to start telling their own stories in this medium. And maybe, just maybe, it's time beating women to death with crowbars was discouraged.



My Connected Community:
It's time to be active online.
Anonymous

MC2 stands for My Connected Community. It is a Victorian government initiative that enables and teaches community groups to connect online. MC2 provides both training and online resources to establish a website, publish online, network with members, extend group membership and activities and communicate with other groups who may be down the road or overseas.

MC2 is a FREE web based program with a range of functions from hosting your own web sites to photo storage. Training is varied, from face-to-face groups, to download manuals. There is even a moderators group where you can get advice from people in the same situation.

The best part about MC2, (have I mentioned it's free) is that it's interactive. Each member is notified when a new posting is added, everyone has a chance to respond, and the entire group is kept in the loop.

I use MC2 primarily through my work at the YWCA. We use MC2 for a variety of advocacy, policy and discussion forums. Our aim is for young women to get involved and be taken seriously. On one of our groups, YWCA Victoria Social Policy Action Group, we encourage people to review YWCA Victoria's Social Policy Document and offer criticism and debate. On another community we provide health, employment and education information for marginalized and disadvantaged young women or promote opportunities for immigrant and refugee young women who are leaders in their own community. Send me a line if you need any more info about these groups.

This program is user friendly and a fabulous way to get your group coordinated, organised and well on the way to success. Did I mention it is FREE and easy to use. Get involved today.

projects@ywca.net



Queer Eye for the Straight Guy


The latest show promoted to death by, the youth network, Ten is Queer Eye for the straight guy. The phenomena is so successful that auditions have been called for a local Australian production and even Oprah is keen on the team, who are also called the gay Beetles. Oprah's special featured the five gay superheros, and in her introduction she suggested that the tolerance of American society is evident by the fact that there is a television show that stars five openly gay men. Oprah, as always, has a hint of truth in what she says, but there are so many problems with the show that mean it is almost pitiful, that this is what is celebrated, by some, as a sign of new televisual hope.

Yes, it's true - we do see straight men taking fashion, decorating, beauty, cooking and etiquette advice from gay men. There are many shared experiences between the men, which are heartwarming for the viewer: the joys of a manicure; the chance to wear brightly coloured clothes; the amazement of watching a monobrow become two; and the thrill decorating and mood creation with candles. These, and many other experiences, are accompanied with standard gay gags - "if she won't marry you, one of us will!" There are even hugs shared that appear, in some cases, to be delivered with genuine affection. It is good to see, on tv screens in our home, straight men that aren't homophobic, but is it not as welcoming to see tried stereotypes being presented again. What I find most distressing about this supposedly new and exciting series is its inherent social conservatism. Particularly, the (re)appropriation of the word queer by mainstream commercial interests is painful to watch.

True to the title of the series, every episode of Queer Eye ends in heterosexual closure. Perhaps I shouldn't complain - it says it's going to be about straight men and their aim is to get the girl. But I hoped (somewhat idealistically it appears) that the queer eye might be a bit more interesting. For me, queer theory and thought presents ways to consider sexuality as fluid and changing; it is a chance to move away from restrictive categories that often fail to adequately represent our desires. By being queer we stop boxing in people and behaviour into groups that can be oppressive and painful. Within queer thought, no one can be abnormal as there is no norm to live up to. I should have expected this inherent conservatism in Queer Eye, just as commercial interests made feminist ideas and the riot grrl movement tolerable, profitable and practically meaningless with the Spice Girls and Girl Power.

The word queer, in this time of the war on terror, has also been hijacked.

Maybe it's just because Queer Eye sounds good and flows well that it's used? Perhaps I'm reading too much into it, but it seems indicative of the stagnant and stereotypical nature of popular social relations that no one in the mainstream seems interested in challenging. There are television programmes that do present a more interesting and complex understandings of relationships and sexuality, for instance, Queer As Folk and Six Feet Under, but in Australia, neither of these are prime time shows, and even they at times, return to non-challenging beliefs and ideas, but at least they entertain and allow us to think. I'm all for humour and fun, but with Queer Eye it's not intelligent or interesting. There is no queerness in Queer Eye - only stereotypical representations of gay men in the one gag show.



Lose Arwen and Everybody Wins.


Arwen, daughter of Elrond of Rivendell, gets on my nerves.

Now I loved Lord of the Rings, in fact I am quite a fan. My family watches the movie, by this I mean the extended version, at least once a week.

Of course JRR Tolkein has been accused of sexism aplenty. All the heroes are chummy men who think even less about women in the book than in the film - but come on girls, let's cut the gay rights movement some slack here. We'll take Sam and Frodo and their interesting 'Master/Servant' relationship. We'll also take the pretty elf Legolas and his brooding 'thing' for Aragorn, the lone straight guy in the Fellowship of the Ring.

This leaves the girls with Galadriel, Eowyn, Shelob and er, Arwen. Now these first three girls are great role models - though perhaps Shelob needs to see an analyst and try out vegetarianism. Galadriel is a great and powerful ringbearer, Queen of Lothlorien, and Eowyn is another aristocratic lass fighting to go to war with the boys and have her fair share of the g(l)ory. Even better, she points out to Aragorn that while the men would rather give a sword to a twelve year old boy than to a fully grown woman, the mothers can just as easily die by the sword men would deny them. Eowyn is really a voice of reason in this crazy world where numbers and strength seem to count so much, and one can't help think she would have made a pretty good Queen of Gondor.

But there'll be no gender revolution in Aragorn's little kingdom. Instead, the supreme love interest and feminine icon in this film is Arwen. Beautiful, swooning, sighing and lamenting Arwen. She sighs a lot, and swoons. At one point I wondered how she ever got up in the morning. She also fondles her necklace a lot and lies about on cushioned couches. Swooning, I suspect.

It turns out her love for Aragorn hinges on the existence of an unborn son. That's right. Never mind about becoming Queen of Gondor, never mind for that matter about Aragorn or Eternal Life in Valinor. Arwen just wants to be the mother of some little unborn princeling.

I have heard it argued that Arwen is simply the motherhood icon, and isn't that a valid role for women too? Well perhaps it is, but let's not go overboard here. You can be a mother and still have mental faculties and personality too! The movie just makes Arwen a boring one-dimensional character whose sole purpose is to be the Royal Breeding Machine after the interesting parts of the story have ended. Have I mentioned how boring she is? Not surprising for a woman who sees herself as nothing but a walking womb. Peter Jackson should have chopped her out and left in the interesting bits about the elfinfolk, the last alliance, the scouring of the Shire and all that - and then he still could have been friends with Christopher Lee! Lose Arwen and everybody wins.

The way to give Lord of the Rings a relevance to modern day audiences was not to make Arwen the new Madonna with child. Let Eowyn be Queen of Gondor and free the womenfolk from bondage and give the twelve year old boys a break from all that sword fighting.



No Respect, No Relationship,
Do Not Ad Up

Real men don’t hit women and I think it’s as good a way as I can find in my vocabulary to describe the feelings that I have on the subject. John Howard The 7:30 Report

Not the most articulate of men, Howard recently was unable to make his position clear on domestic violence. In December 2003, the Liberal government stopped a new campaign aimed at educating young people on domestic violence issues days before its scheduled release. No Respect, No Relationship, has since lain dormant yet the controversy surrounding it is just getting started.

Take a look (.pdf file 189Kb) at the campaign, as well as some highlights of the debate:

1 November 1997
Partnership Against Domestic Violence
Still active today on the prime minister’s website, this seven year old news release announced the government’s strategy on domestic violence called Partnerships Against Domestic Violence. Committing $25 million over three and a half years (with further spending in the subsequent budget), Howard stated that it was time to make domestic violence a public matter.
Quote: “Many women do not seek help from crisis services, and it is time we addressed their needs.”

7 September 2003
Girls, sex and violence
This Sun-Herald article reported that the government would launch a $15 million media campaign targeting young people on the issue of sexual violence. The campaign would be in response to government research conducted over the proceeding three years that found fifty per cent of 19 and 20 year old girls had experienced dating violence while 1 in 5 had been sexually assaulted.
Quote: “A government source said the campaign would start in the next few months and Prime Minister John Howard has been ‘pencilled in’ to launch it.”

16 December 2003
Key Libs can anti-domestic violence ad campaign
The Australian broke the story, claiming that the media campaign No Respect, No Relationship was "secretly spiked" at the last minute by key Liberal politicians - two objected to the use of verbal abuse, as it was "not really violence" while one felt that the campaign focused solely on men. The story repeatedly referred to the advert in relation to Andrew Bartlett’s behaviour to senator Jeannie Ferris.
Quote: “The objection flew in the face of crime statistics showing that domestic violence is overwhelmingly committed by men.”

17 December 2003
$15 M Ad Blitz is Dropped
The Herald Sun reported that an anti-domestic violence campaign had been "junked". Vanessa Swan, chair of the National Association of Services Against Sexual Violence, was quoted as stating that 85 per cent of all sexual assault were not reported.
Quote: "It is understood last-minute objections from senior government figures – who felt it was wrong to portray only men as aggressors – led to the ads being pulled."

18 February 2004
Controversy over shelved domestic violence strategy
The ABC’s 7:30 Report puts the story on television, including exerts from the No Respect, No Relationship Campaign. Key politicians are quoted including Kay Patterson - Family & Community Services Minister, Nicola Roxon - Labor Shadow Minister assisting the Leader on the Status of Women, and John Howard. As well as the transcripts of the show, ABC also wrote a story for their News Online.
Quote: From Donna Carson, awarded the 2004 Australia Day Local Heroes award, herself a survivor of domestic violence: “I was like everyone else, thought that domestic violence is physical only when in fact physical is at the end of the cycle really.”

20 February 2004
Questions as PM dumps abuse ads
The Herald Sun publicises the issue again after John Howard told Parliament an alternative reason for why the campaign had not yet aired. Insisting that the campaign would eventually be publicised, Howard claimed that the adverts needed reevaluation since they advised people to go to a website instead of to police, doctors or parents.
Quote: “Freeman (editor of Cosmopolitan) said the PM’s comments showed little understanding of the complexities of emotional and physical abuse.”

Other references:

Nicola Roxon
Labor Shadow Minister assisting the Leader on the Status of Women has been
repeatedly outspoken against the government’s decision to restrict the advert.

See her 17 Feb media release.

Trish Crossin
Labor Senator for the Northern Territory.
See her 8 March posting.

Mary Delahunty
Victorian Labour Minister for Women’s Affairs
Although late to the starting block, Delahunty has called for the Prime Minister to release the campaign to the states, where she believes Victoria would have no hesitation to release it.

Anne Summers
A brief posting on the topic, yet as the former leader of the Office of the Status of Women, Summers suggests that this is another example of the Liberals' misuse of money allocated to domestic violence.

Green Left Weekly
An alternative newspaper's evaluation.

Partnership for Domestic Violence
(Can anyone tell me if their is even a definition of domestic violence on this government website?)

Do Not Be Quiet Issue #1
Web: Mensline Australia
Take another critical look at how the government is spending resources designed to end domestic violence.

Do Not Be Quiet Issue #2
Book: The Federal Budget

How money allocated for issues like domestic violence is really getting spent.

And then tell us what you think.


back to index

Pregnancy Counselling Australia

Sign the petition

View the article