Target (Australia) drops GTA V due to depictions of violence against women

I don't know I think threads about violence towards women on the Unity community forum should probably be locked anyway. But what do I know. I speak truth, which is offensive and therefore, subject to zero tolerance.

Meanwhile, let's discuss a rape/homicide.

::rolls eyes so hard, I shift the rotation of the earth around the sun by .00000000001%::

 

Game should've been banned a long time ago... but as usual the game itself is the skapegoat... what about all the CUSTOMERS who insist on supporting it by buying it? If people really have any moral foundation why aren't they voting with their wallets and boycotting the whole thing, completely ignoring and shunning it? The game gets a tonne of sales... what does that tell you about the general population and their state of mind? It's not exactly a pretty picture.

 

This is kind of a sad thread to begin with, it's almost considered more important to debate whether the game should be banned than it is to discuss whether the issues against women are important. Suddenly a game is more important than not being violent to women?

 

Exactly!

 

"No escape, murder rape..." - GNR

Same guy who wrote a song about not needin' nobody's civil war.

Maybe we creative and ultimately disproportionately influential minds should stop sending mixed signals.

 

No, it should not have been banned anywhere that claims to be free. Adults are allowed to play games like this if they want. I'm willing to bet not one person bought the game who didn't want to play it so your whole argument is pointless. People did vote with their wallets. They voted FOR the game. The "morality" of banning something is worse than any lack of morals you might think players of this game have.

 

But, but, but... freedom of speech! But, but... I'm an American, you can't tell me what to do, man! I don't need your liberal/nazi propaganda hippy crap telling me I can't murder hookers in 1080P!

"And yet he complained that his belly wasn't full."

 

Oh, yeah?

Banning crude depictions of violence against women is more unethical than those depictions of violence? So banning animated child porn is worse than people creating and distributing it?

I'm confused. Help me.

So, freedom of speech is more important than justice, morality, human rights and common decency, right?

How did this happen????

 

I don't like banning either, but that is not what Target did. The game is not banned. They just chose to not sell it, just as you chose to buy it. That is fair. As a number of people said, there are lots of other places to buy games.

What gets me is the complaining about the complaining.

 

It tells us that morals are subjective, and that you're outnumbered.

 

Yup, had it depicted sex, or two gay people kissing, that would be different. Violence? It is too late. It is part of the gaming culture. Too late to stop it.

 

I was addressing the post saying it should have been banned a long time ago. A private retailer has every right to choose what they sell on their shelves. Don't care that it was dropped from one store or another. Just don't want my elected officials trying to tell me what games I can and can't play.
No one was actually raped or murdered in this game. No one was physically hurt for your entertainment, unlike just about every professional sport in the world. It's sick, watching two people beat each other bloody for entertainment. But playing a game where you can rape and murder pretend people is so much more offensive to people for some reason. People have actually died in just about every main stream sport, some of them died in front of cheering crowds.

 

I know how it happened.

Uncontrolled capitalism, materialistic society obsessed with wealth. Money is morality. If a game can make 1 billion dollars the end justifies the means. The morality of money outweighs the immorality of violence and cruel acts. People have been brainwashed into buying violent things like this because there not just purchasing a product they're exercising their liberties in a free society, so the money is then spent on more advertising which fuels more debates which only enhances the appearance that you need to buy this game in order to demonstrate that you have freedom.

Meanwhile people get rich, and otherwise moral decent people look the other way they line their pockets with billions.

So we have a self propelling cycle of destructive tendencies, it is not subject to self regulation. That is why we have the power to create laws. The only problem is, again, people are not going to take action against something that is making a billion dollars because something that makes a billion dollars might as well be Jesus Christ in Western culture. It is morality truth and justice. Its a job creator, it pays taxes. We have screwed ourselves.

 

This has never even been an issue so not even sure why it is part of this discussion. The rating system is voluntary and any attempt to make it mandatory would never fly. Yeah, they pump their fists and wave their arms, making political hay out of it, but never has there been a serious attempt to actually ban a game. I am grateful for the rating system and I think it is a pretty good one, better than what we have for movies, to be honest. As a parent, it allows me to make informed choices.

I think you are reading into what I say. I said, if you read above, that I would not sign a petition to ban a game with violence because it would make me a hypocrite since I make games with violence. But those who cry that men are subject to violence in games and no one cares are the biggest hypocrites, because they make and play games where men are victims of violence. I do not play GTA and while it looks interesting as a game, it is not suited to my play style.

 

I was addressing Imaginary Human's post saying it should be banned.

 

Killing men is not 'violence against men'. Violence against men/women is a gender based crime. I.e. women are targeted for (in part) being women. That's whats makes a crime 'violence against women' and not just 'violence'.

I still think this thread should be closed. Morality in gaming is discussion that needs to be had but there is far too much arrogant 'this is how it obviously is/ought to be' going on here and not enough openness and listening. And we all know how much value those kinds of threads produce.

 

Gender doesn't matter. It's the form of the violence that I find distasteful.

 

There are some problems with "banning" material:

1) Who decides what is morally decent? In extreme cases, especially when there is direct real world victimization and the culture is unanimous in condemning it, like child porn, OK. But GTA? No way. Not even close. Do you not enjoy ANY form of entertainment that involves violence? Do you really need or want an external organization with their own agenda making your decisions for you?

2) The intent can be lost. What if you are portraying violence (against women or men) as a way to expose its horrors? Should that also be banned? Even self-censorship can lead to weird stuff like when the Comic Code Authority initially rejected Stan Lee's anti-drug Spider-Man issue since it contained references to drug usage!

3) Banning material to me is censorship. I realize we're not necessarily talking about political censorship here, but it feels very wrong to me to suppress reasonable expression.

I have no problem if the people of Australia want to have certain retailers remove certain books or games. It seems ignorant and one of those short-lived things we'll look back on and shake our heads about though. It also seems to be almost completely irrelevant in terms of restricting access to GTA V. Isn't it interesting that no movies, TV shows, or books get that treatment? (or maybe they do down there?)

Why aren't they more worried about Game of Thrones? There's crazy violence against women in that. It's fictional bad people doing bad things fictionally. You know, that conflict thing in drama. Of course, the real answer is that games are the newest medium that they can't be bothered to understand and they think that only children play them.

 

The last of us was a huge success.

 

To play devil's advocate here, if culture was in fact unanimous in banning it there would be no need to ban it, because nobody would buy/import/consume it in the first place. This argument doesn't work, because where you say "unanimous" you really just mean "vast majority", which brings you right back to your question about who decides.

The only reason you decided that your opinion is the "unanimous" one is that you decided to discount the opinions of those who disagree.




As for people voting for the game with their wallets... yes, but how many of those people understand the content in the game? My girlfriend plays GTA, and she certainly has no interest in its darker side and would probably find it strongly distasteful. As far as she's concerned that's not what she was saying yes to when she handed over her cash. To her it's no different to, say, a crime-themed TV show.

 

You make a very good point. I am sure the protests against GTA were for this reason. The entire concept of a player character killing a defenseless woman just makes me sick. Gender based crime is a serious issue and and reducing such violence is a worthwhile goal. Throughout our history and in many parts of the world, women have been subjected to horrific violence and in many cases, it is not only ignored but actually encouraged...sometimes part of the justice system. A game that glorifies this and makes it part of winning is sad, in my honest opinion.

 

Strangely, games like this are banned in most of those places. Nor did they exist throughout most of history.

The best selling book ever is rife with violence toward women and is held up as the highest moral authority by some people who want to ban this game.

 

Oh, you are so right there. Sad, huh?

 

... what?

 

The Bible

 

Bringing religion into the discussion. One of the easiest methods to get a thread locked.

 

I am not in favor of banning games, even if the content of a game is completely repulsive. Banning is the wrong answer. Educating stores about the content in games they sell is a good solution. Educating parents about the games their kids play is also a good solution. But banning generally is not a good solution. In the case of GTA, banning it would cause backlash against the politicians by the customers that want to play it. With a billion in sales, it is obvious that a lot of people wanted to play it. I am curious to know how many parent bought it for their kids without realizing what was in the game, though. I have always just assumed that GTA games were targeted towards young teenage boys, so I have always wondered why parents let their kids play GTA. But maybe more adults are playing those games than I thought.

 

It is easier to appease them than to raise them responsibly.

 

I'm under the impression that parents who buy it for kids generally don't have the slightest clue what's in it. I remember a story from a local store where a mother first got abusive when a salesperson suggested it might not be suitable for a young child when she purchased it, then came right back and made an official (and unpleasant) complaint afterwards when she saw some of the game's content and decided for herself that, indeed, it wasn't suitable for children.

 

I don't want to sound argumentative here, but isn't that exactly what the people who mentioned men in this thread were saying? There are many games with violence against men that Target didn't pull. That's the point. I don't have a problem with violence, or sex, in games. As a writer, I really enjoy writing the part of the villain. It allows a side of me that doesn't exist in real life to come out and play for a bit. I also enjoy writing the part of the hero who vanquishes the villain because I can relate to him more. In fantasy, there is room for a wide swath of emotion that we wouldn't consider acceptable in real life. I'm sure no woman who loved 50 Shades of Gray is condoning rape. I'm sure not one of them actually wants to be raped or abused. I'm not going to call them hypocrites for enjoying the book though, because fantasy != reality.

Also, in case I haven't made it clear, I have no problem with Target pulling the game. Their store, their rules. But I also have no problem with people saying that they think the logic is flawed.

 

I don't have a problem with a that either. Again, I have a problem with people throwing up the victim card regarding violence against men when they play and make games that promote violence. I have nothing against the games or the gamers. If you look through the thread, you will find the posts that caused me to enter this discussion.

I have no intent to stop people from criticizing Target, just stating my opinion on the matter. I don't like bans, but I think a retail store can do as they wish. As for criticizing them, fine, but again, they are doing what all companies do in a free market, catering to their base customers, which are in this case families.

I have no idea why Shades of Gray or your enjoyment of violent games has anything to do with what I said, or the quote of my comment. I haven't read the book..not a huge romance fiction fan. I like mysteries, historical fiction, and crime dramas better. I completely support your right to play violent games. The hypocrites are those who whine about people (protesting Target keeping the game on the shelf) not being concerned about violence against men while making/playing games where men were the victim of violence. I don't think you did that.

Get it? I must not be explaining this well enough.

 

I think either I misinterpreted your original post, or one of us misinterpreted the comments about men, because I don't think we are disagreeing here. My only point was that you can't take the violence against women out of the game without either taking all of the violence out or making a one sided experience where men are expendable and women are invulnerable. I think that is what the people mentioning men were talking about. They weren't so much complaining about violence against men, but the specific targeting, by Target, of one specific gender.

Sorry for the writing and Shades of Grey side track, that was a general response to the rest of the thread that went on to talk about people who buy this game not having any moral foundation. I just woke up and hadn't organized my thoughts properly.

 

It has gone over old ground, but so far, people are civil.

 

I've been finishing up playing GTAV over the past week or so because I didn't finish it before. It's a fun game and has a ton of uncomfortable moments in it.

In case it's not clear, I'm a chick, so this is from that point of view. So far while playing, I haven't killed any prostitutes or strippers, and the game hasn't asked me to. I was playing online with someone who said "let's go kill hookers" and I said "nope." The closest I've got to actual full on violence against a woman is one scene where a guy did something terrible to a woman, AND the guy she was with. I've killed dozens of women and men in the game with my car, because I'm a S***ty in-game driver. I've killed a LOT more men on purpose than women, though. This, the game does require.

So, violence against women in GTAV? Uhm... sure, if YOU the player decide to do it. Now, I haven't finished the game yet but so far it's not been an issue for me, because I don't generally go around killing people on purpose, women or men. The whole game is one giant violent orgy. If you don't mind that, it certainly delivers.

Sexism against women, though? That's where I see a side that a lot of guys won't see. There are conversations where women are called bitches, whores, etc. and there are a ton of conversations where guys say to one another things like "what do you have under there? A pussy?" and "you're like a little bitch, whine whine whine", etc. when insulting one another for not being "brave". It's those kinds of "subtle" sexist messages that are the ones that really hit hard. Basically, if a man isn't brave, he must be a woman, because of course women aren't brave. There's a bunch of that in the game, and I never hear anyone really mention it. Because it's subtle. And subtle, ingrained sexsim is what REALLY causes problems. When people use terms like "you don't have the balls" or "stop being a bitch" or "you're a pussy", those are super sexist. Then again so is calling someone a "dick," so we're probably all guilty at one time or another.

Point is, GTAV is full of subtle, sexist digs on women (and everyone else to be honest), and women in the game are generally portrayed in a derogatory way as either sex workers or whiny annoyances, etc. As far as I can recall, there aren't any bad-ass criminal women in the game, just whiners, air heads, and sex workers. So yeah, they could maybe do better next time and even that out. But violence against women? If YOU the player decide to do it, that's your call. The game itself doesn't make you do it though (aside from a kidnapping I just recalled, which goes in a weird direction), so I have to take issue with the idea that it specifically singles out women for physical violence. That just hasn't been my experience.

EDIT: I just want to add to this a few hours later, because reading it over again I realize I didn't quite make something clear. That is, I don't think that the physical acts against women in this game are something to be all up in arms about, but I do believe that the game in some ways contributes to the culture that commits real violence against women. The game doesn't really require you to be physically violent to women, though, and I think it sucks that it's that physical violence mixed with sex that gets all the attention.

The problem is that the point about violence against women in the game is easily refuted. If someone says "this game perpetuates violence against women!" then what happens next is some guy comes and says (just as what happened in this thread) "yeah but it also perpetuates violence against men! - Case closed." It's very easy to shut down the argument being made, when it appears to be talking about "physical" violence against women.

If we view the game as a whole, the physical violence is against everyone. Women and men. There is a deeper "violence" going on, however, a more silent one, and one that is not just part of this game but part of our culture in general. The idea that women are weak, that women are just bitches and made for sex and women can't do anything as well as guys and shut the f*ck up whiny little bitch, well, that is something which is very much present in this game. In spades. The "subtle" sexist talk I mentioned earlier is evidence of that. That attitude, that pervasive attitude that women are somehow inferior... that attitude very much indeed leads to actual real life violence against women. When young guys are exposed to that day in and day out, how do we really expect them to feel about women? Positive? Really?

And don't even get me started on violence against men, because I have paragraph upon paragraph about that sad situation as well. The whole damn thing is just sad. Let's knock it off and start loving each other instead of hating. Oh, but then that would be the subject of my "Love Sounds" thread and, you know, we've already been there.

PS - For those who "liked" this post, feel free to unlike it now if my addendum doesn't fit what you thought I was saying.

 

I'll admit to being guilty of saying those things on both sides. But I'll also admit to getting a little choked up during the Christmas episode of Girl Meets World when Shawn tells Riley that he was there for her birth. So I'd certainly be the target of some of those insults. It's really a false dichotomy though, just because I (or anyone) can get emotional during a sweet moment doesn't mean that if you break into my house or try to hurt someone I love that you shouldn't run when you see me coming. Being sensitive doesn't make you weak, it doesn't make you a victim. You can be sensitive when it is appropriate, and strong when it is needed. That misconception only fuels the already wrong-headed notion that the parts between your legs define your sensitivity or strength.

I don't think that such engrained misconceptions about gender roles are something that is going to change in our lifetime. They weren't always such a strong part of society, old Norse sagas and mythology have plenty of strong women and goddesses in them. Women who openly defied or otherwise bested men. That doesn't mean that gender roles weren't still defined, or that they weren't still biased and wrong-headed, but it was really that best selling book that came along and changed our views about the role of women in society. It's taken a millennium to even begin to reverse that thought process. Hopefully it doesn't take another millennium to complete the reversal, but I don't think it's going to happen in a decade or so and it's certainly not going to happen overnight.

Then again, in other forums this thread could have quickly devolved into a bunch of people shouting "Feminazi!" and "Misogynist!" at one another. So I fear that our notion that if you aren't one thing, you must be the other and our general inability to accept nuance or actually understand another person without labeling them to justify our own hatred is getting worse. Only time will tell I guess.

 

You know mass effect had gay sex right?

Gaming culture does not "hate gays" and I'm really quite interested in how you got to this conclusion...since in my experience gaming culture is more open and diverse than any other culture.

Where do you read this stuff :S, I live it and I go out to gaming lan parties etc and I haven't even seen homophobes etc. If there were, we wouldn't act like they're evil because we don't care who you are; we just want to play games and have fun.

 

A huge portion of gaming culture calls other players "gay" and "faggot" and "homo" and "queer" on a regular basis. And then they say "we don't mean it like that!!!"

If you call someone any of those things as an insult then yes, you are "hating" on those things, and no, that is not being open and diverse. Simply saying "Joe is gay" is not derogatory. Saying "Joe is gay" because you don't like how he plays a game is incredibly derogatory.

Are you saying that you've never witnessed that happen, or that you've witnessed it so few times that you don't think it's a "thing" in gaming culture?

The majority of us here in this forum are pretty much steeped in gaming and gaming culture, and I think any one of us would admit that yes, this type of derogatory name calling does indeed take place and is fairly rampant within certain (several) sectors of gaming.

 

Oh Ony, quit being gay.

 

Uhm, yeah. Anyway...

 

there is no functional difference here, to buying something from a shop and then killing the store clerk.

violence against men is not magically more okay.

 

I'm a firm believer in the notion of equality. Women have the right to be murdered too.

 

Y'all be dumb.

 

Relevant to this topic:

 

Totally agree. I was using the example that I was quoting. Violence/murder in that context is all "bad".

Though I will freely admit that either because of primal/evolutionary drives, the way I was raised, or just cultural/social conditioning, my gut reacts much more negatively to violence/mistreatment of women over men. And I am fine with that, (after all my mom and sisters are women).

 

One final thought:
There is no such thing as bad publicity.

I'm outta this thread x

 

If I am being honest, a few years ago I would have considered this a gross exaggeration. I hate to admit that is very accurate.

Possibly because of my age (mid 40s) or because I have generally gamed in the same small circles for the last 20+ years, or simply have been very fortunate in the people I call friends, this kind of behavior just isn't part of my experience. The most sexist phrase I can recall is occasionally calling princess peach an f'ing bitch in Mario Karts. Certainly we always got extremely foul mouthed and creative in our swearing, but disrespectful/hate/bigoted language was always bad form and not acceptable.

But in recent years, I have gone to more public gaming events and of course have watched streams/recordings on line. And sadly, you are correct. That kind of language often seems like the "norm" and is pervasive. And frankly, lacks creativity.

 

Two little words: Bill Cosby.

 

Well... there are two kinds of gay sex, the awesome kind and the kind with just dudes.

[sorry... could't resist]

 

In my experience, I don't hear someone being called "gay" so often anymore and I've never heard someone being called "queer"(maybe that's an American thing eh). Also, like you've mentioned previously, for every time someones called gay someones called a f***ing b**ch or a d**k.

It's certainly not "gamer culture" to be homophobic or misogynistic. People who are misogynistic or misandrist has nothing to do with gaming culture, these people were around long before it and are not the majority in any sense of the word/

So sex with just dudes isn't awesome ?

 

It may be an American thing. I know I heard my daughter, who was about 13 at the time, call someone gay, used as a derogatory term for "stupid" or something like that. Sitting behind us were a couple of friends, gay friends. I immediately took her to task, telling her why she should not use that word in that way. She said "everyone does". Well, she does not anymore and none of my kids are allowed to do that, at least not in front of me.

If you don't hear it, great. I hear it constantly. I don't think it is "the gaming culture" but it does seem to be used more among young people from teens to 30-something (yeah, young people). I have heard older adults use it before too, probably that generation that wants to be hip and cool. But like Zombiegorilla, I don't hear it among my usual social circles. The only time I hang out with younger folks is in games or gaming communities, so it is easy to associate it with the gaming community...although it is more prevalent.

Sad thing is many of these folks who use this term are simply not thinking about what comes out of their mouth, especially online.