The Ultimate Wii Shopping List: So Close to Getting It Right

As you all should know now by the Girlfriend Lists category (which I plug at every opportunity), I have a passing interest in the presentation and language of gift guides. So, y’all can imagine how excited I got when I saw The Ultimate Wii Shopping List by Mitchell Saltzman and realized that it broke the categories down not by gender, but rather by budget, casual, and hardcore gamers. Joy!

I clicked excitedly through the pages — not because I am looking for recommendations for whenever I get my Wii, but because, golly gosh, there was so much beautiful gender-neutral language! Witness the amazing address of “you” without adding “boys” or “men”. Marvel at the lack of condescending language like “ladies” when talking about accessories for the console! Swoon over the lack of stereotyping to justify recommendations! I mean, jeez, Saltzman uses aspects like actual gameplay and comparison to previous games in order to explain his recommendations! Novel!

When I got to the second page, I was asking myself, “Could this be love? Have I finally found the elusive perfectly gender neutral gaming guide? Is it time to hang up my critic’s hat and admit that I’ve been defeated?”

But, fear not, loyal readers who obviously love (and love to hate!) my scathing wit. This otherwise perfect guide had a hiccup on page three; the title for the section is Hardcore Wii Fanboy. Please, Saltzman, tell me that you weren’t using gender neutral langauge because you assumed “male as default” for gamers? It would make me cry.

Still, if you can mentally turn the “Fanboy” into “Fan” (the only instance of a gendered word in the entire thing! Wah!), then I’d say that this guide should be the template for anyone who is going to write a guide of any kind. So, Saltzman, if you ever read this (hey, I’ve been e-mailed by the creators of lists before, it’s not impossible!), then thanks for the good job, but next time is there any chance you could remember that not all hardcore fans are guys? This hardcore gamer would certainly appreciate it.

Via digg.


Catholic League Plays the Victim Blaming Card

The Catholic League in response to former congressman Mark Foley remarking that he was abused by a clergyman:

“As for the alleged abuse, it’s time to ask some tough questions. First, there is a huge difference between being groped and being raped, so which was it Mr. Foley? Second, why didn’t you just smack the clergyman in the face? After all, most 15-year-old teenage boys wouldn’t allow themselves to be molested. So why did you?”

Getting victim blamed for abuse and molestation ain’t just for the girls, apparently. Not exactly the kind of “gender parity” I’d like to see, though.

Via Darth Sidhe.


Female Villains Can't Win

NWN 2 Villains
NWN2 Villains

The lineup for the villains in the next Never Winter Nights game has gotten some press over at Joystiq. Despite neither of the female villains being the “evil hot babe[s] we’ve grown accustomed to in the role playing genre”, the contrast between their stances and that of the male villain are striking.

He’s hunched slightly, in a way that looks like he’s going to charge you; a very active stance, and not one that draws attention to either his sexual organs or his musculature (the former being the trope for “powerful” women and the latter being the trope for “powerful” men). Described by Joystiq’s Alan Rose as “a frenzied berserker”, this “bald dude” seems to typify the Brute; he’s not exactly a high class villain, but even so he’s only one of many types of villain archetypes that one can choose from.

Which brings me to the next villain in the lineup; the “blue chick”. In terms of body type, if you took away the blue skin, changed her head, and upped her breast size a cup, she could almost be the twin of the other female villain. Of course, the one-size-fits-all female body type isn’t an issue confined to NWN (or even video games), and I gotta give the company points for the differences that are there.

In some ways, the blue villain isn’t the ideal of beauty: most notably, she has an odd-shaped head. But, looking at her posturing and her outfit there is definitely an element of sexuality that isn’t there with the Brute. While, with her sword raised high there’s no doubt that there’s an element to power in the blue villain’s posture, she’s shown in a 3/4 pose that causes the lines of her arms form a V that emphasises her chest. Costume wise, though I’m not sure what’s skin and what’s fabric, she appears to be wearing a chainmail loincloth and a halter top that is open to cleavage.

Finally, we have the last villain. Though her face is the recipient of Rose’s criticism (“Seriously, if you take away the flotation devices, we’ve got some serious androgyny going on here.”), I rather like that her face is less feminine than the blue villain’s. No, it’s not because I hate attractiveness, but rather because it seems to be one step in the direction of portraying many different types of women.

That said, she, too, is sexualized for all of her supposed androgyny. Her hands-on-hips position is, again, one of power (in this case its’ the power of defiance), but it also emphasizes her hips in a way that makes it clear that she’s supposed to be read as feminine. Her costume, with the focal point being her cleavage, does the same.

Honestly, I feel bad for the female villains out there — not only do they have to contend with the sexist digs if they don’t fit the “hot villain babe” category, but they still can’t seem to get away from sexualization even when it seems that their characters aren’t there to be sexualized! Come on, video game companies, won’t somebody think of the villains?


Apolygys

[Crossposted to my Vox blog.]

Amy Gahran has a good post up about apologies and why they’re necessary.

The post was sparked by Amy Alkon‘s advice column about cheating, entitled “Along Came Polyamory.” Understandably, many polyamorous folk were miffed at the equation of the concepts. (It’s hard enough figuring out who’s okay with the concept without it being confused with unethical behavior.) But rather than apologize for causing offense, Ms. Alkon decided to take the offensive, complaining that those who had a problem just didn’t understand her irony, and basically just being a big bully.

Coincidentally enough, I had just discovered Ms. Alkon’s anti-feminist screed “Victims Gone Wild” the other day. She seems to be one of those “postfeminists” in the vein of ifeminists or IWF that figure that since they’re privileged, anyone who complains that they’re not is just adopting a “victim mentality,” and that feminism is unnecessary because of what someone said Dworkin or Mackinnon said a couple decades ago.

Ms. Gahran’s post, though, could have been sparked by any of the non-apologies of late (Ann Althouse, Harlan Ellison, and so on all the metaphorical way back to “she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.”) Why is it so hard for people to apologize for offending people? It can be done.


That's not Mii!

Update Dec 30, 2006: I’m admitting it straight up: I jumped the gun on this one and looked foolish because of that. I should have taken the time to frame it properly (examining why the preview program was this way, rather than addressing the Mii system, which wasn’t out yet) and then waited for the Wii to come out to do a comparison with the actual Mii system (which has its flaws as well as its good points).

However, my mistake is not an invitation to break the discussion rules. Commenters seem to be incapable of pointing out my flawed logic without calling me “stupid” or using terms like “whining” or “crying”. Since those kinds of comments are the only one this post continues to receive, I’m shutting off all comments. I’m not sure there’s anything else to be said on this issue, anyway, unless I make a new post that discusses the actual Mii system.

***

For those of you not in the gamer-know, one of the features that’s going to be available on Nintendo’s upcoming console, the Wii, is that you’ll be able to make an avatar of yourself, which will appear Mii channels and even represent you in some of the games. Sounds cool, right?

Well, not if you’re a glasses-wearing, green-haired loving, spiky haired woman who wants an avatar that even slightly resembles her. That’s right, folks, your resident blogger has checked out the Mii preview that was recently leaked.

Male-normative mindset, meet gaming avatar.

Since there is only one body type to choose from, the only ways I could signifiy my gender are long hair, eyelashes, and red lips. Every other combination I’ve tried resulted in it looking like a man. I’m not a man, I’m just not a wide-eyed, lip-puckering, long-haired girl. But that doesn’t make me any less female, or any less interested in having a Mii who, I dunno, looks even somewhat like me.

Since this is pre-launch, there’s still hope that they’ll introduce more body shapes. Maybe even some non-human ones (’cause sometimes I don’t want a freaky chibi-styled human to represent me, even if it did look like the correct gender). I’m hoping, because otherwise it’ll put a serious dent in my willingness to buy a Wii — especially if the avatar-using games are popular.


New Blog: The Silence of Our Friends

The Silence of Our Friends seems to have come about because of the recent Clinton blogger lunch debacle. Personally, I’d call this blog the silver lining to a dark, dark cloud.

An excerpt from Donna’s most recent post:

One example is when discussing racially divisive issues a white person will pipe up that we should leave behind identity politics and concentrate our efforts on the greater good. But the greater good generally means that white people determine what issues are important and in our collective best interests, and this may be of very little service to POC. We think that the collective good should be working towards ALL of our interests, not just yours. You can not find out what we believe is in our interest if you aren’t even willing to listen to us, and instead dismiss us. This does not mean that we expect to only work on our issues, we expect to discuss and compromise; it is the white person who expects to only work on what they choose as important while we are expected to be quiet and go along to get along.

One other thing, when white people do recognize institutional racism many times they do not speak out. They think it’s not their problem and look the other way. This is why there was so much anger expressed over the Clinton blogger lunch by POC. Our allies abandon us when we need them. The bloggers there did not make it a priority to find out why diverse voices weren’t included and explain to their readers. And the blogosphere in general either did not see a problem, or were afraid of the reaction of their peers if they sided with POC, for instance by delinking or banning them.


A Deeper Look at "Minority Spaces"

So, a while back I got an e-mail from a reader about my Nice Guy list. Finding it interesting, I decided to make it the subject of a post. That was, as I said, a while ago. I am nothing if not a procrastinator.

Anyway, the e-mail (reprinted with permission) is as follows:

Hi,

I read the article “How To Be A Real Nice Guy” and most of the comments to it last night, and I am somewhat confused by what is really a core premise of the article that isn’t fully articulated, namely what exactly you are saying qualifies as a Minority Space. The definition given is “Minority spaces exist, whether they be safe-spaces, places where we can go to not have to focus on priviliged groups for once, or even exclusionary ones.” This leaves me with a number of questions. For example, is a blog on feminist issues by default a Minority Space by virtue of its subject matter being one of concern to the Minority rather than an issue that caters to the privileged group? Or would there need to be more specific and/or explicit criteria followed for it to constitute a Minority Space? Further confusing me is that certain parts of the article appear to treat the concept of entering a Minority Space interchangably with having a conversation with a member of a Minority.

There is in your article a strong emphasis on the idea that members of a Majority who are in a Minority Space should listen and learn (without requiring active teaching) and refrain from actively participating, and in particular, to be extremely cautious when comparing the experiences of that Minority group to their own as a member of another Minority group and not to compare said experiences at all to the experience of the Majority. I certainly agree that members of a Minority should be free to construct such a space if that is their wish, and there are certain spaces that could be assumed by their very function to be, unless otherwise noted, a Minority Space of this type (eg a rape survivor peer counselling group). But a broad definition of Minority Space that encompasses any space where members of the Minority engage in discussion about issues of concern to their Minority, combined with all members of the Majority who participate following your suggestions (a perhaps unlikely hypothetical) would largely preclude direct discussion between members of the Minority and members of the Majority on those subjects, which would be an unfortunate result.

(Of course, it could be that what I see as the inherent benefits of direct discussion between members of the Minority and members of the Majority- that the insights of all parties, both as individual thinkers and as people with the respective experiences of being part of the Minority and the Majority, will together allow understanding that would not have been possible otherwise- is a viewpoint derived from my position of privilege, and that such discussion is not actually beneficial to the Minority. Nevertheless, I believe that such benefits do exist.)

Nicolas

So, first, the simple answer: a “minority space” is a space created by minority groups, for minority groups. It may allow privileged groups to listen to or participate in discussion, and it may not. It differs from a “privileged space” in that its exclusionary nature is not designed to uphold established power structures (as with gentlemen’s clubs and the like), but rather to provide a safe environment for minority groups to discuss issues that are not able to get airtime in “default” spaces due to those spaces being primarily focused on so-called “real” issues which too often amount to issues that the privileged group cares about.

The longer answer to Nicolas’ questions will be behind the cut.

I. Is it a “Minority Space” or Not?

For example, is a blog on feminist issues by default a Minority Space by virtue of its subject matter being one of concern to the Minority rather than an issue that caters to the privileged group? Or would there need to be more specific and/or explicit criteria followed for it to constitute a Minority Space? Further confusing me is that certain parts of the article appear to treat the concept of entering a Minority Space interchangably with having a conversation with a member of a Minority.

Whether or not a space is a “minority space” is a question that can only be decided by the membership and/or proprietors of said space. It also can vary depending on the subject matter — this blog is primarily a minority space, but we’re one that welcomes all voices that follow the discussion rules, and there are a few posts that specifically address and invite the participation of privileged groups (such as the “Nice Guy” list).

I should also point out that, while I tend to conflate “minority spaces” with “safe spaces” in my “Nice Guy” post, they aren’t the same things. A “safe space” is one that has strict rules of support, many of which I have drawn on for my guidelines to approaching a minority space, and is, in general, not a debate space — not even for the minority members of that community. Minority spaces that are debate spaces can open the floor to discussion of privileged issues with minority groups and spaces. These spaces will sometimes invite privileged people to engage in the discussions in the hopes of fostering dialogue.

In general, though, I’m going to say that I think it’s best to treat any space populated primarily or wholly by a minority group as a safe space, unless specifically told to do otherwise. Even then, I’d say it would be a good idea to follow some of the same guidelines of a minority space even when it’s a minority issue in a default space. Sort of a it’s better to err on the side of politeness than on the side of rudeness kind of thing.

On that note, that idea — of treating conversations about minority issues as if they are taking place in a minority space — may be one reason that I seem to interchange the idea of a minority space with conversations about minorities/with minority individuals. While the two are not exactly the same, I believe that the fundamentals of a privileged person entering a minority space with respect and willingness to listen are the same fundamentals that are required when dealing with a minority individual as well.

II. Privileged Participation in Minority Issues

But a broad definition of Minority Space that encompasses any space where members of the Minority engage in discussion about issues of concern to their Minority, combined with all members of the Majority who participate following your suggestions (a perhaps unlikely hypothetical) would largely preclude direct discussion between members of the Minority and members of the Majority on those subjects, which would be an unfortunate result.

The role of a privileged person in a minority discussion is not one that is easy to define. The reason I emphasise the “listening instead of talking” and not trying to always compare a privileged situation to that of a minority problem in my list is because, more often than not, talking instead of listening and bringing up how an issue does/does not affect their group are methods used by privileged people that, by their nature, shut down discussion.

This doesn’t mean that one can never have a discussion about a minority that one isn’t part of. If that were the case, then I would have broken that rule on more than one occassion — I occassionally like to stick my nose in racial issues and I assure you that, despite being an Ashkenazi Jew (which in some places really is an ethnic minority), I am as lilly-white as they come and steeped deeply in my own privilege. But, at the same time, I’ve been doing this long enough to know when to keep my mouth shut and when to add my voice to the issue — and when I screw up (and we all screw up sometimes) and get called on it, I don’t argue but rather try to understand why I got called out so as to not repeat it in the future.

So, when have you learned enough that you can start speaking about minority issues without raising the ire of minority groups every time? I really don’t know. I think a big part of it is when being asked to check your privilege isn’t immediately answered with a defensive reply — “it’s not that I’m privileged, it’s that I disagree!” (the two aren’t mutually exclusive; in fact, I’d rather say that the privileged response necessitates disagreement, though not the other way around).

As for the rest… well, in terms of the way I do it, it’s all about carefully thinking about why I’m posting on the issue, what I hope to accomplish (which, in my case, has always been to show solidarity on the issue and, more importantly, to try to educate other people of my privileged class), and then check and re-check to make sure that I haven’t said anything offensive. If I do and get called on it, I apologize and take note of it for the next time.

In shorter terms, I look as myself as guest when I discuss their issues. I am not the one in charge, I am not the authority; I am a guest in their territory and therefore I need to treat them — and discussions that involve them — with the same respect I would someone who opened their home to me.

III. Conclusion

All in all, I have to say that “minority space” is a flawed term that doesn’t begin to define the complexity of privileged/minority interactions. Not only that, but not everyone will have the same exact definition of a minority space, nor the guidelines for interacting within that space, or even with a minority individual. Especially with the latter, because, being individuals, one person’s preferred interaction will differ from another’s.

Still, I use the term as a generalization in order to make clear my even more general point about privilege. Flawed as it is, I don’t think it’s altogether a bad set of guidelines for beginners interacting with groups that they are not a part of. The definitions that I use for minority spaces are used because I think that they offer solutions for some of the common problems that plague privileged/minority interactions (therefore shutting down any meaningful dialgoue) and will open up a path to greater understanding of the dynamics that govern our lives. In turn, that theoretically opens the way for discussion and, ideally, solutions to these problems.