Halo 2 & Gender–a Question
I sometimes play Halo 2 and other video games with my teenage son. One of the battles we like the most takes place on a bridge in Halo 2.
The Marines have been getting hit hard and the Halo 2 players–in this case my son and I–are airlifted in, along with a Marine commander, to try to take the bridge. We like that particular battle because:
a) it’s challenging because there are so many enemies massed there
b) I get to use a tank (pictured), one of the very few weapons in the game I am able to use with at least a little effectiveness
Now here’s the question. When the three of us land, the Marine commander talks to two soldiers on the ground who are giving us a report of the grim events that have occurred. One of them is brave and straightforward, the other is a sniveling coward who wants to evacuate as soon as possible. One of the two is a man, and the other is a woman.
My question is–is there a single person reading this who does not already know with 100% certainty which one, the man or the woman, is portrayed as the coward?
|
| More from Glenn Sacks
Stumble It!
June 30th, 2007 at 1:43 pm
“My question is–is there a single person reading this who does not already know with 100% certainty which one, the man or the woman, is portrayed as the coward?”
Yes, the man will always be displayed as the coward. How sad.
June 30th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
Even at a very young age your son is getting the message “men are inadequate compared to women.” Well, 40 years of feminism brought us to this point.
July 1st, 2007 at 6:22 am
Why is a men’s rights activist playing war games with his son in the first place?
July 1st, 2007 at 6:35 am
Because they both enjoy the game perhaps? Being free and advocating freedom for men means that men and boys get to decide for themselves what is appropriate entertainment. It does not mean that men who advocate equal rights for men and boys are bound by an overarching philosophy which dictates the kind of entertainment they are permitted to enjoy.
July 1st, 2007 at 9:05 am
That’s what we will get if we will let “gays” serve openly in our military: Bull Dykes and Panty Waste Guys.
Take it from me, neither are a pleasure to serve with.
July 1st, 2007 at 9:47 am
‘DrDamage’ and ‘The Vicar’? Did you choose those names under the duress of war?
July 1st, 2007 at 7:16 pm
tom of covent garden I noticed you rarely contribute anything of substance to any discussion other than criticisms…
July 1st, 2007 at 7:43 pm
My husband often plays video games with our boys. Call of Duty, Age of Empires, Oblivion…
They sit for hours bonding over them. It is just what they do. Glenn and his son probably are bonding over the games as well. Men tend to do better at side to side comraderie, and video games allow that. Also, they are just plain old fun!
My younger son knows more than I do about history, weapons, mythology… playing these games. They can actually be pretty educational. When we went to the new military museum in DC he knew many of the guns, planes, tanks, generals, etc we came across due to playing these games.
It is really, really sad that they had to add that PC crap into the game, especially since women tend not to even play them. Perhaps a few letters to the programers may help. I wonder if his son noticed the slight. My kids are now very aware when the media pulls this crap.
July 2nd, 2007 at 9:35 am
Joi – my criticisms are of substance. In this thread, I thought I’d let you work out my stance without spelling it out to you, but okay – I’ll spell it out.
Why is a men’s rights activist playing war games, when war games represent the single biggest loss of men’s rights humanity has ever known – namely, conscripted all-male front-line fighting forces, marching off to death.
It’s like a Jew celebrating Hitler’s birthday, or a turkey celebrating Christmas.
Glenn Sacks is a very well-rounded thinker, with progressive pro-feminist (or pro-equality if you prefer) beliefs, yet he seems to have overlooked his own thirst for bloodshed, albeit a symbolic thirst.
If men are to ever trully emancipate themselves from the constraints of the traditional male role norm of disposable would-be warrior, they need to reject violence, root and branch – and prepare for pacifism.
I have my own work to do, as I am a boxing fan – but at least with boxing, the purpose of the sport is not to kill the opponent. At least nobody is conscripted into prize fighting. At least countries do not spend vast portions of their peoples’ tax dollars on boxing paraphenalia.
I have a friend who plays war games all the time, and he sees it as a harmless pastime. He jokes in jingoistic war rhetoric which he no doubt picks up from the games he plays. All fun, he thinks, but whenever a war breaks out, for real, and it is reported in the media, he errs on the side of the hawkish, when discussing options each side should take. He votes hawkishly as well. If war ever comes to my friend, he’d be the first to shoot himself in the foot, but the last to call for a peaceful solution to avoid conflict in the first place.
The majority of right-wing anti-feminists reading this will be frothing at the mouth at my talk of pacifism. Save your bile. Your country needs you.
There are many more pastimes, which bare no resemblance to war, that can satisfy men’s natural desire to compete aggressively – sports, games, etc. but war games?
These games bare a striking resemblance to real war situations, the only difference – the players do not feel the pain of getting shot, then dying.
Futuristic wargames help fuel future generations’ imaginations of how future wars will be fought, making the prospect of future wars seem innevitable, rather than avoidable, were we to evolve.
Joi, what’s your point?
July 2nd, 2007 at 2:32 pm
@ Tom:
Even Frued said that sometimes a cigar is only a cigar. I doubt Glenn (or anybody else) really thinks that playing a video-console FANTASY shooter game set in a MAKEBELIEVE future world is going to make Glenn’s son (or anybody else) more likely to sign up for military service.
In addition (my main opposition) to armed services is primarily forcible conscription. I think if somebody wants to enlist, hey it’s his/her choice.
The gender injustices of the draft (and combat) really DON’T tie-in to a fantasy sci-fi shoot-em up game.
July 2nd, 2007 at 3:56 pm
Jackal1994 – I think the prevailing tide of evidence suggests there is indeed a link between violent computer games and violence of computer game players.
I have no idea how to fight a war, and therefor, may be less inclined to wage war than someone who has tried out every strategy in war simulation.
We learn most other human behavours by simulation. What makes you think war is any different?